Central Solomon Languages 279

Lexique Franc¸ais-Sango. Paris: Socie´te´ d’e´tudes linguis- colloquium: the status and uses of Sango in the Central tiques et anthropologiques de France. African Republic. Cologne, September, 3–4. Ko¨ ln: Ko¨ ppe. Boyd R (1989). ‘Adamawa-Ubangi.’ In Bendor-Samuel J Queffe´lec A, Daloba J & Wenezoui-Dechamps M (1997). (ed.) The Niger-Congo languages. Lanham, NY: Univer- Le franc¸ais en Centrafricque: lexique et socie´te´. Vanves: sity Press of America. 178–216. AUF/EDICEF. Boyeldieu P & Diki-Kidiri J M (1982). Le domaine Samarin W (1989). The black man’s burden, African colo- Ngbandi. Paris: SELAF. nial labor on the Congo and Ubangi Rivers, 1880–1900. Bradshaw R & Bombo-Konghozaud J (1999). The Sango Boulder, CO: Westview. language and Central African culture. Mu¨nchen: Lincom. Samarin W J (1967). A grammar of Sango. The Hague: Census of the CAR (1988). Bangui: Department of Statistics Mouton. and Census. Sammy-Mackfoy P (ed.) (1984). Atlas linguistique de Diki-Kidiri M (1998). Dictionnaire orthographique du L’Afrique centrale: Centrafrique. Paris: Agence de coop- sa¨ngo¨ . Reading: BBA Editions. e´ration culturelle et technique, and Yaounde´: Centre re´- Goye´mide´ E (1984). Le silence de la foreˆt. Paris: Hatier. gional de recherche et de documentation sur les traditions Karan M (2001). The dynamics of Sango language spread. orales et pour le de´veloppement des langues africaines. Dallas, TX: SIL International Publications in Sociolinguistics. Thornell C (1997). The Sango language and its lexicon Lim F (1998). Lexiques des termes juridiques et adminis- (seˆndaˆ-yaˆngaˆ tıˆ sa¨ngo¨ ). Lund: Lund University Press, tratifs (Franc¸ais-Sango et Sango-Franc¸ais). Bangui: Insti- and Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt. tut de Linguistique Applique´e, Universite´ de Bangui. Thornell C (2005). ‘Minoritetsspra˚ket mpiemos socioling- Lim F (1998). Ndı¨a¨ No 98.004 tıˆ 27 mbaˆngo¨, 1998, soˆ alu¨ vistiska kontext.’ In Maho J M (ed.) Africa & Asia 5, ndı¨a¨tıˆ voˆ te na Ko¨ do¨ ro¨ seˆse tıˆ Beˆafrıˆka/Loi No 98.004 du Go¨ teborg working papers on Asian and African lan- 27 mars 1998 portant code electoral de la Re´publique guages and literatures. Go¨ teborg: The department of Centrafricaine. Bangui: Institut de Linguistique Appli- Oriental and African languages. 175–200. que´e, Universite´ de Bangui. Thornell C & Olivestam C E (2005) (to be published). Lim F (2000). Language clusters of Central African Repub- Kulturmo¨ te i centralafrikansk kontext med kyrkan som lic on the basis of mutual intelligibility. Cape Town: The arena. (Cross culture encounter in Central Africa). Go¨ te- Centre of Advanced Studies of African Society. borg: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis. Mon˜ ino Y (1995). Le Proto-Gbaya, essai de linguistis com- Vuarchex F (ed.) (1989). Litte´rature Centrafricaine (97). parative historique sur vingt-et-une langue d’Afrique cen- Paris: Clef. trale. Paris: Peeters. Mon˜ ino Y (ed.) (1988). Lexique comparatif des langues oubanguienne. Paris: Geuthner. Morill C H (1997). ‘Language, culture, and society in the Central African Republic: the emergence and develop- Relevant Websites ment of Sango.’ Ph.D. diss., Bloomington: Indiana University. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ct.html Moser R (1992). Sociolinguistic dynamics of Sango. Bun- – Central Intelligence Agency, 2005 World Factbook: The doora: La Trobe University. Central African Republic website. Pasch H (1997). ‘Sango’ In Thomason S G (ed.) Contact http://www.ethnologue.org – Ethnologue: languages of the languages: A wider perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: world website. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 209–270. http://sango.free.fr – YSB, Yaˆngaˆ tıˆ Sa¨ngo¨ tıˆ Beˆafrıˆka. Pasch H (ed.) (1992). Sango: the national official language http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/car_statistics. html#5 of the Central African Republic; proceedings of the – UNICEF, Information by country: The CAR website.

Central Solomon Languages A Terrill, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, spoken on Savo Island; and possibly Kazukuru, an Nijmegen, The Netherlands extinct and barely documented language of New ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Georgia.

Relationships Among the Languages There are four or possibly five Papuan languages in the central Solomon Islands: Bilua, spoken on the By the time of Ray (1926, 1928), there was already an island of Vella Lavella; Touo (known more commonly established list of non-Austronesian languages of the in the literature as Baniata, after one of the villages Solomon Islands, consisting of Bilua, Baniata (here where it is spoken), spoken on Rendova Island; referred to as Touo), Savo, and Laumbe (now called Lavukaleve, spoken in the Russell Islands; Savosavo, Lavukaleve). Waterhouse and Ray (1931) later 280 Central Solomon Languages discovered Kazukuru, a language of New Georgia, between ‘singulative’ (¼masculine) and ‘unspecified identifying it as unlike both the Melanesian (i.e., number’ (¼feminine) (Obata, 2003). Savosavo has Austronesian) and Papuan languages of the Solomon two genders, masculine and feminine, and it is not Islands. Much later, Lanyon-Orgill (1953) claimed clear whether they are contextually determined as in Kazukuru and two further varieties, Guliguli and Bilua or permanently assigned as in Touo and Lavu- Dororo, to be Papuan languages; however, the data kaleve (Todd, 1975). are so scant as to make classification uncertain. Touo has some very unusual features for the region, Greenberg (1971) was the first to make an explicit including a phonological distinction between breathy/ claim for the genetic unity of these languages, as part creaky vs. modal vowels, as well as six vowel posi- of his Indo-Pacific family. This claim was shortly fol- tions instead of the usual five for the region. Touo lowed by Wurm’s (1972, 1975, 1982) proposal of an sources include Todd (1975), Frahm (1999), and East Papuan phylum, linking all the Papuan languages Terrill and Dunn (2003). Lavukaleve too has many of the islands off the coast of New Guinea into one unusual features, including focus markers that show genetic grouping. Both claims have been firmly agreement in person, gender, and number of the head rejected by specialists in the region, and recent views of the constituent on which they mark focus; and a have been much more cautious: Ross (2001) sug- very complex participant marking system depending gested, on the basis of similarities in pronouns, that on factors to do with predicate type and clause type Bilua, Touo (Baniata), Savosavo, and Lavukaleve (Terrill, 2003). formed a family, unrelated to other island and main- land Papuan languages. Terrill (2002) found limited Papuan Languages; Solomon Islands: Language evidence of similarities in gender morphology among See also: Situation. these languages. In lexical comparisons using an ex- tended Swadesh list of roughly 333 items (with obvi- ous Austronesian loans removed), Bilua, Lavukaleve, Bibliography Touo, and Savosavo share only 3–5% resemblant forms (i.e., within the realm of chance). In short, at Dunn M, Reesink G & Terrill A (2002). ‘The East Papuan this stage of knowledge, a genetic relationship among languages: a preliminary typological appraisal.’ Oceanic Linguistics 41, 28–62. any or all of these languages still remains to be proven. Frahm R M (1999). Baniata serial verb constructions, M.A. thesis, University of Auckland. Typological Characteristics Greenberg J H (1971). ‘The Indo-Pacific hypothesis.’ In Sebeok T A (ed.) Current trends in linguistics, vol. 8: A typological overview of these and other Papuan Linguistics in Oceania. The Hague: Mouton and Co. languages of island Melanesia provided by Dunn 807–871. et al. (2002) showed that, but for a few striking Lanyon-Orgill P A (1953). ‘The Papuan languages of the exceptions, the only grammatical features shared by New Georgian Archipelago, Solomon Islands.’ Journal of the central Solomon Islands Papuan languages are Austronesian Studies 1, 122–138. also held in common with surrounding Oceanic Obata K (2003). A grammar of Bilua: a Papuan language of Austronesian languages. These common features the Solomon Islands. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 540. Ray S H (1926). A comparative study of the Melanesian include an inclusive/exclusive distinction in pro- Island languages. London: Cambridge University Press. nouns, dual number (actually, there are four number Ray S H (1928). ‘The non-Melanesian languages of the categories in Touo), reduplication for various pur- Solomon Islands.’ In Koppers W (ed.) Festschrift publica- poses, nominative/accusative alignment (although tion d’hommage offerte au P. W. Schmidt. Vienna: Lavukaleve has ergative/absolutive alignment in cer- Mechitharisten-Congregations-Buchdruckerei. 123–126. tain types of subordinate clauses), and serial verb Ross M (2001). ‘Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence constructions (absent in Bilua). from pronouns.’ In Pawley A, Ross M & Tryon D (eds.) The two most notable departures from Oceanic The boy from Bundaberg: studies in Melanesian linguis- grammatical patterns are SOV constituent order in tics in honour of Tom Dutton. Canberra: Pacific Linguis- three of the languages (Bilua has SVO with some tics. 301–321. variation) and the presence of gender; there are Terrill A (2002). ‘Systems of nominal classification in East Papuan languages.’ Oceanic Linguistics 41, 63–88. three genders in Lavukaleve, four in Touo, and two Terrill A (2003). A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton in Bilua and Savosavo. Gender in Bilua is contextual- de Gruyter. ly determined: the masculine–feminine distinction Terrill A & Dunn M (2003). ‘Orthographic design in the applies only to human nouns, but for inanimate Solomon Islands: the social, historical, and linguistic nouns there is a distinction, marked by the same situation of Touo (Baniata).’ Written Languages and morphology as marks gender in human nouns, Literacy 6, 177–192. Cˇ eremisina, Maja Ivanovna (b. 1924) 281

Todd E (1975). ‘The Solomon Language family.’ In Wurm S Wurm S A (1975). ‘The East Papuan phylum in general.’ In A (ed.) Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic Wurm S A (ed.) Papuan languages and the New Guinea scene. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C-38. 805–846. linguistic scene. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C-38. Waterhouse W H L & Ray S H (1931). ‘The Kazukuru 783–804. language of New Georgia.’ Man xxxi, 123–126. Wurm S A (1982). Papuan languages of Oceania. Tu¨ bingen: Wurm S A (1972). ‘The classification of Papuan lan- Gunter Narr Verlag. guages and its problems.’ Linguistic Communications 6, 118–178.

Cˇ eremisina, Maja Ivanovna (b. 1924) O Molchanova, Uniwersytet Szczecinski, Szczecin, In 1975, Cˇ eremisina took charge of a project Poland based on comparative and typological research into ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. the structure of complex sentences in the languages of Siberian indigenous peoples. The starting point of the investigation was one of the postulates propounded Maja Ivanovna Cˇ eremisina was born in Kiev (the by Ubrjatova in her monograph on Yakut syntax – Ukrainian republic) in 1924. She is a Russian scholar that Turkic languages employ similar language means who, after Ubrjatov’s death in Novosibirsk, took on to establish links between both words and units of the responsibility of continuing research on the syntax higher levels (phrases and sentences). Testing the pos- of Siberian indigenous peoples’ languages. Under her tulate on other Altaic languages became the goal of guidance, 33 scholars have investigated the syntactic Cˇ eremisina and her disciples. structures of their mother tongues (Altai, Alutor, Cˇ eremisina founded a new Department of Lan- Buryat (Buriat), Kazakh, Ket, Khakas, Khanty, Kirghiz, guages and Folklore of the Indigenous Siberian Nganasan, Selkup, Shor, Tuva (Tuvin), and others). Peoples at the university in Novosibirsk. Most of them have undertaken 3-year postgraduate At present, Cˇ eremisina and her team are working at courses at the university in Novosibirsk. the typology of a simple sentence in Altaic languages. Cˇ eremisina received her secondary and higher She has published five monographs, nine textbooks, education in Moscow. Her first years after secondary and 183 papers. school were during World War II. On the first day of aerial bombardment in Moscow, her parents’ house was completely destroyed, and her mother was killed. Much later, Cˇ eremisina was educated at the Univer- See also: Altaic Languages; Turkic Languages; Yakut. sity of Moscow, where she mastered literature and the Russian language and later undertook 3-year post- graduate courses at Moscow University. After gradu- ation, she taught many subjects in Russian philology Bibliography at university departments in Tomsk, Tula, Beijing Cˇ eremisina M I (1976). Sravnitel’nyje konstrukcii russkogo (China), and Novosibirsk. Cˇ eremisina obtained her jazyka. Novosibirsk: Nauka. M.A. in 1960 and her Ph.D. In 1974. Her doctoral Cˇ eremisina M I (2002). Jazyk i ego otrazˇenije v nauke o thesis was entitled ‘Complex comparative construc- jazyke. Novosibirsk: Trudy gumanitarnogo fakul’teta tions in the Russian language.’ Before Cˇ eremisina’s NGU. doctoral defense, Ubrjatova asked her to read the Cˇ eremisina M I & Kolosova T A (1987). Ocˇerki po teorii manuscript of a book devoted to the analysis of com- slozˇnogo predlozˇenija. Novosibirsk: Nauka. ˇ plex sentences in the Yakut language. Cˇ eremisina read Ceremisina M I, Brodskaja L M, Gorelova L M, Skribnik E K, Borgojakova T N & Sˇamina L A (1984). Predikativnoje the manuscript three times, trying to comprehend sklonenije pricˇastij v altajskikh jazykakh. Novosibirsk: Yakut, the frame of mind of its speakers, and their Nauka. way of expressing themselves, and also trying to Cˇ eremisina M I, Skribnik E K, Brodskaja L M, Sorokina I P, penetrate into Ubrjatova’s way of thinking, which Sˇamina L A, Kovalenko N N & Ojun M V (1986). gradually opened itself up to her. Her main field Strukturnyje tipy sintakticˇeskikh polipredikativnykh of endeavor thereafter became Siberian indigenous konstrukcij v jazykakh raznykh system. Novosibirsk: languages. Nauka.