DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Reanalysis of Oceanic Possessives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards a Reanalysis of Oceanic Possessives University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Calgary (Working) Papers in Linguistics Volume 05, Spring 1979 1979-05 Towards a reanalysis of Oceanic possessives MacDonald, Lorna A University of Calgary MacDonald, L. A. (1979). Towards a reanalysis of Oceanic possessives. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, 5(Spring), 1-18. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51278 journal article Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca Towards a Reanalysis of Oceanic Possessives Lorna A. MacDonald 1.0 Introduction The Oceanic languages, which constitute a major subgroup of the Austronesian language family, consist of over 400 languages spoken in Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. Although the exact subgrouping of Oceanic is uncertain, Pawley (1972) provides support for an Eastern Oceanic subgroup, which consists of languages from the Southeast Solomon Islands, the New Hebrides and Banks Islands, Polynesia, and Fiji, as well as Rotuman and Oilbertese (Pawley 1972:7). 1.1 Previous Studies Pawley has done extensive research on the reconstruction of both Proto-Oceanic (POC) and Proto-Eastern Oceanic (PEO) (1973, 1972). Included in these studies are reconstructions of the possessive systems of both POC and PEO. Throughout this paper, I have relied heavily on these reconstruc­ tions, and frequently draw upon them for examples. The reconstruction of the PEO possessive system is fairly detailed. In the POC reconstruction available to me, however,,only those construc­ tions with pronominal possessors are discussed extensively. However, Pawley states that the possessive system of POC is exemplified by Bauan Fijian (Pawley 1973:169). Since Bauan also conforms to the system recon­ structed for PEO (see, for example, 2.4), I will assume that the analysis of PEO possessive constructions with non-pronominal possessors presented in this paper is also applicable to Poe. 2.0 Oceanic Possessives The Oceanic languages are well-known for their complex systems of possession. According to Pawley (1972, 1973), at least three possessive constructions must be reconstructed for both PEO and POC. These construc­ tions are distinguished both by the phonological shapes of their possessive particles, and by the order of constituents. The three possessive con­ structions are connnonly referred to as Inalienable, Edible, and Neutral. 2.1 A Noun Gender System Previously, scholars studying the Oceanic possessives attributed these three types of possessive constructions to a noun gender system. Each noun was assigned to one of three genders -- Inalienable, Edible, or Neutral -- and this gender assignment determined the possessive construc­ tion in which it could occur (see, for example, Codrington 1885:129). However, recent research suggests that it is the relationship be­ tween the head noun and the possessor which determines the type of - 1 - - 2 - possessive construction, rather than an inherent noun gender (see Buse 1960; Lynch 1973; Pawley 1973). Thus, a single noun may function as head in more than one construction type, depending upon the context in which it occurs. For example, Fijian dalo 'taro', will be possessed Edibly if it is intended for consumption; if not, it will be Neutrally possessed. (1) Fijian: na no-na dalo Art Boss-his taro 'his taro' Neutral (2) na ke-na dalo Art Poss-his taro 'his taro' Edible (Lynch 1973:76) In these Fijian examples, dalo is possessed either Edibly or Neutrally. Both Edible and Neutral co~uctions can be classed together as Alienable (vs. Inalienable) due to their common syntactic behaviour when utilized - with pronominal possessors (see 2.4). However, a single noun may be possessed both Alienably and Inalienably, as is demonstrated by the follow­ ing examples from Aroma: (3) Aroma: gage-ku leg-my 'my leg' Inalienable (4) ga-ku gage Poss-my leg 'my leg (e.g., of chicken) to eat' Alienable (Lynch 1973:78) In (3), ~· as a body part of the possessor, is possessed Inalienably. In (4), ~-refers to the body part of some unspecified animal, which the possessor intends to eat; it is therefore Edibly possessed. The fact that a single noun can be possessed1 in more than one type of construction indicates that it is not inherent noun gender which deter­ mines the particular construction utilized, but rather that the construc­ tion is determined by the relationship which exists between the head noun and the possessor:2 Different types of possessive constructions are thus seen as a classification of relationships and not of nouns (Lynch 1973:76). 2.2 Head Noun-Possessor Relationship The three types of possessive constructions in PEO/POC, correspond­ ing to the three kinds of relationships which may exist between head noun and possessor are Inalienable, Edible and Neutral.3 The Inalienable construction is used to indicate a 'natural part of a whole' (e.g., body parts), kin relations, and relational positions (be­ hind', 'in front of', etc.). The Edible construction generally indicates that the head noun is intended for consumption; there are some exceptions, 1ii11ii11ii11ii11ii11iii11ii11ii11ii11ii11ii11ii11iilliiii11iililiilililiiiiililililiiiliiiiiilliiilllllllllllllllllilllllllllDllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll-lllHl8llllhllDIHfl.. Hllll• - 3 - however, which will not be discussed in this paper (see Pawley 1973:162). The Neutral construction is more difficult to define; here, it will be defined negatively, in the sense that it includes relationships which are neither Inalienable nor Edible. 2.3 Possessive Particles All Oceanic possessive constructions include a possessive particle (herein glossed as Poss) which serves to distinguish the three types of constructions. In Pawley's reconstructions of PEO possessives, these particles also vary according to the type of possessor present in the construction, whether pronominal or non-pronominal. POC oossessive parti­ cles utilized with non-pronominal possessoi:s were not included in Pawley's 1973 reconstruction; however,,the POC particles used with pronominal possessors are included in the following chart: Personal Pronominal Name Inanimate ::::;::Relationshi POC I PEO PEO PEO Inalienable *r/J *qi Edible *ka *ki *ni Neutral *na I *no *ki Figu:i:e 1 Pawley's Reconstruction of PEO/POC Possessive Particles Human possessors which are non-pronominal and non-personal name have been omitted from the chart. They were not discussed in detail in Pawley's POC reconstruction. In his reconstruction of PEO, Pawley noted that human possessors were apparently utilized in either personal name­ type or pronominal-type possessive constructions, 4 although in the former, Poss *ni may have been obligatory (Pawley 1972:35). Because of this un­ certainty, they will not be examined as a separate category here, • 2.4 Possessor The type of possessor affects the possessive construction in two ways: (a) the shape of the possessive particle (see Fig. 1) (b) the order of constituents In all the PEO constructions involving personal name and inanimate possessors, and in Inalienable constructions with pronominal possessors, the order of constituents is as follows: ART HN POSS PSR - 4 - where: ART = Article HN = Head Noun POSS = Possessive Particle PSR = Possessor For example: Inalienable construction with pronominal possessor: (5) PEO: *na tama-'6-mu Art father-Poss-your 'your sg. father' (Pawley 1972: 34) (6) Lotora: na limwa-,S-ku Art arm-Poss-my 'my arm' (Ivens 1939:684) Inalienable construction with personal name possessor: (7) PEO: *na tama qi x • Art father Poss X 'X's father' (Pawley 1972:34) (8) Bauan: na liga i Lui Art hand Poss Lui 'Lui's hand' (PEO *qi > Bauan i) (Pawley and Sayaba 1971:421) Neutral construction with personal name possessor: (9) PEO: *na kiRa ni X Art adze Poss X 'X's adze' (Pawley 1972:34) Inanimate possessor: (10) PEO: *na ndau ni kayu Art leaf Poss tree 'tree leaf' (Pawley 1972:34) When the construction is Alienable, i.e., Edible or Neutral, and the possessor is pronominal, there is a different order of constituents. In this case, both POSS and PSR precede the head noun: ART POSS PSR HN For example: Edible construction with pronominal possessor: (11) PEO: *na ka-mu qupi Art Poss-your yam 'your sg. yam' (Pawley 1972:34) (12) Roviana: ge-ku ika Poss-my fish 'my fish' (PEO *ka > Rov. ~) (Pawley 1973:161) Neutral construction with pronominal possessor: (13) PEO: *na no-oku waoka Art Poss-my canoe 'my canoe' (Pawley 1972:34) (14) Bauan na no-qu vale Art Poss-my house 'my house' (Pawley and Sayaba 1971:422) - 5 - 2.5 The PEO possessive constructions can thus be sununarized as follows: Personal Pronominal Inanimate Name ~p Inalienable (ART) HN *r/J PSR ART HN *qi PSR Edible ART *ka PSR HN ART HN *ki PSR ART HN *ni PSR Neutral ART *no PSR HN ART HN *ni PSR Fig. 2 Pawley's Reconstruction of PEO Possessives The only difference between the constructions presented here and those present in POC is that, in POC, the possessive particle used in Neutral constructions with pronominal possessors is *na rather than *no (Pawley 1973:158). - - The complexities of the Oceanic possessive system are readily ap­ parent from this chart. First, the possessive particles have different shapes, according to both the type of construction, i.e., the relation­ ship between the head noun and the possessor, and the type of possessor present, i.e., pronominal or non-pronominal. Secondly, the order of con­ stituents also varies, with one constituent order being utilized in Alienable constructions with pronominal possessors (illustrated in Fig. 2 with double lines),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Polynesian Case
    Lexicostatistics Compared with Shared Innovations: the Polynesian Case jK=dÉääJj~ååI=fK=mÉáêçëI=pK=pí~êçëíáå Santa Fe Institute The Polynesian languages, together with Fijian and Rotuman, consti- tute the Central Oceanic branch, which is usually included in a bigger Oceanic family, part of Austronesian. The Polynesian language family consists of 28 languages ([BIGGS 98]) most of which are fairly well known. The history of the family is also well investigated: we have the phonological reconstruction of its protolan- guage ([BIGGS 98], [MARCK 2000]), suggestions about morphology and syntax ([WILSON 982]; [CLARK 96]), and a detailed comparative diction- ary of the family — probably one of the best etymological dictionaries for languages outside Eurasia ([BIGGS n.d.]) The Proto-Polynesian consonantal system is reconstructed as ([BIGGS 98: 08–09]): *p *m *f *w *t *n *s *l *r *k *ŋ (*h) `*ʔ Using the principle of «irreversible changes», one can see that the systems of daughter languages could be derived from Proto-Polynesian through a sequence of simple innovations (mostly mergers): . Proto-Tongan: *p *m *f *w *t *n *s > *h *l *r > *k *ŋ *h *ʔ .. Tongan p m f w t n h l k ŋ ʔ 2. Proto-Nuclear Polynesian: *p *m *f *w *t *n *s *l = *r *k *ŋ *h > * GÉää-M~åå, PÉáêçë, S. Sí~êçëíáå. Lexicostatistics & Shared Innovations . 2. Samoa p m f w t n s l *k > ʔ ŋ 2.2. East Polynesian *p *m *f *w *t *n *s > *h *l *k *ŋ * 2..3. Tahitian p m f v t n h r *k > ʔ *ŋ > ʔ 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflexives Markers in Oceanic Languages
    DGfS-CNRS Summer School: Linguistic Typology (3) Koenig/Moyse-Faurie Reflexives markers in Oceanic Languages Ekkehard König (FU Berlin) & Claire Moyse-Faurie (Lacito-CNRS) 1. Previous views 1.1. A lack of reflexive markers ? “[Oceanic languages] have morphological markers used to encode reciprocal and certain other situations, but not reflexive situations” (Lichtenberk, 2000:31). “Assuming that reflexivity is inherently related to transitivity, we understand why we do not find morphosyntactic reflexivisation in Samoan: Samoan does not have syntactically transitive clauses” (Mosel, 1991: ‘Where have all the Samoan reflexives gone?’) “There is no mark of reflexive, either in the form of a reflexive pronoun or of a reflexive marker on the verb – one simply says I saw me” (Dixon, 1988:9). Out of context, there are indeed many cases of ambiguity with 3rd persons, due to the frequent absence of obligatory grammaticalized constructions to express reflexivity: XÂRÂGURÈ (South of the Mainland, New Caledonia) (1) nyî xati nyî 3SG scold 3SG ‘He is scolding him/himself.’ NUMÈÈ (Far South of the Mainland, New Caledonia) (2) treâ trooke nê kwè nê ART.PL dog 3PL bite 3PL ‘The dogs are biting them/each other.’ MWOTLAP (North Central Vanuatu) (3) Kēy mu-wuh mat kēy 3PL PERF-hit die 3PL ‘They killed each other/themselves.’ (François, 2001:372) TOQABAQITA (South East Solomon) (4) Keero’a keko thathami keero’a 3DU 3DU like 3DU ‘They liked them/each other/themselves.’ (Lichtenberk, 1991:172) 1.2. Confusion between middle markers and reflexive markers “In East Futunan, the reflexive meaning is either lexicalised (i.e. expressed by lexically reflexive verbs) or by transitive verbs, the two arguments of which refer to the same entity.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential and Locative Predication in Some Eastern Oceanic Languages Claire Moyse-Faurie
    Existential and locative predication in some eastern Oceanic languages Claire Moyse-Faurie To cite this version: Claire Moyse-Faurie. Existential and locative predication in some eastern Oceanic languages. Te Reo: Journal of the New Zealand Society, Linguistic Society of New Zealand, 2019, Special Issue in Honour of Frantisek Lichtenberk, 62 (1). hal-02868639 HAL Id: hal-02868639 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02868639 Submitted on 19 Jun 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Te Reo the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Volume 62 Issue 1 (Special Issue): Issue in Honour of Frantisek Lichtenberk Research Article 2019 pp. 49–74 September 2019 Existential and locative predication in some eastern Oceanic languages Claire Moyse-Faurie Lacito-CNRS, France This paper is a peer-reviewed contribution from https://nzlingsoc.makeitso.nz/journal/current-issue ©Te Reo – The Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Guest Editors: Andreea S. Calude & Suzanne Kemmer Claire Moyse-Faurie 49 Existential and locative predication in some eastern Oceanic languages Claire Moyse-Faurie Abstract In many Oceanic languages a category of plain verbs expressing existence, and their negative counterparts, is found.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammaticalization in Oceanic Languages Claire Moyse-Faurie
    Grammaticalization in Oceanic languages Claire Moyse-Faurie To cite this version: Claire Moyse-Faurie. Grammaticalization in Oceanic languages. Grammaticalization from a Typolog- ical Perspective, 2018. hal-02868646 HAL Id: hal-02868646 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02868646 Submitted on 19 Jun 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Comp. by: Bendict Richard Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0003616733 Date:2/5/18 Time:22:28:54 Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0003616733.3D Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 282 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 2/5/2018, SPi 14 Grammaticalization in Oceanic languages CLAIRE MOYSE-FAURIE . INTRODUCTION This chapter on grammaticalization in Oceanic languages is structured as follows. In section ., after a presentation of the Oceanic languages subgroup, and the list of languages cited (..), the main typological features found in these languages with regard to grammaticalization processes will be set out (..). Section . will present processes with verbs as sources, most often starting out from serial verb constructions. Verbs that have changed to grammatical morphemes may still func- tion as main verbs. The relevant verbs mainly belong to specific semantic classes, such as verbs of posture and motion, phasal verbs, verbs of transfer and saying, and from these sources they have developed into a wide variety of functional types of morphemes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphosyntactic Typology of Oceanic Languages*
    LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 5.2:491-541, 2004 2004-0-005-002-000082-1 The Morphosyntactic Typology of Oceanic Languages* Malcolm D. Ross The Australian National University The main goal of this paper is to describe some morphosyntactic characteristics that are common to a majority of Oceanic languages. Amidst the typological variety of Oceanic languages, the author defines a canonic language type, i.e., a type widely represented both genealogically and geographically. This type is SVO and has prepositions. Subjects are coreferenced by a prefix or proclitic to the verb, objects by a suffix or enclitic. Verbs often fall into morphologically related pairs with a transitive and an intransitive member. In some languages these verb pairs in turn fall into two classes. With A-verbs, the subject of both members is the Actor. With U-verbs, the subject of the intransitive is the Undergoer, which is to say, it corresponds to the object of the transitive. Against this background the (de-)transitivising morphology of Oceanic languages is described. Possession in the canonic language type takes two forms, direct and indirect. The direct construction encodes inalienable possession, the indirect (which entails a possessive classifier) encodes alienable possession. The paper finishes with a discussion of interclausal relationships in canonic languages. Adverbial and complement clauses display little desententialisation. It is also suggested that subjects in canonic languages generally have only a semantic function, not a reference-tracking function. Key words: Oceanic languages, canonic type, typology, morphosyntax, verbal marking of subject, verbal marking of object, (de-)transitivising morphology, possession, interclausal relations, function of subject 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Loanword Strata in Rotuman
    Loanword Strata in Rotuman by Hans Schmidt In Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy: Papers from the Workshop on Linguistic Stratigraphy and Prehistory at the Fifteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 17 August 2001, pp. 201-240 (2003). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. (c) 2003 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Not to be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. LOANWORD STRATA IN ROTUMAN Hans Schmidt University of the South Pacific, Vanuatu 1. Introduction Rotuma is a small island in the South Pacific.1 It lies roughly at the crossroads of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. Politically, the island forms part of the Republic of Fiji; though the closest Fijian island, Cikobia, is about 465 km distant (Woodhall 1987:1). The island is accessible from Suva, the capital of Fiji, by a two-day boat trip or in two hours by plane. In contrast to its Northern neighbor Tuvalu, Rotuma is not a coral atoll but a so called ‘high’ island of volcanic origin (Pleistocene), its surface area is 46 km2 and its soil is very fertile. Rotuma has a population of approximately 2,700 inhabitants who live in twenty villages scattered along the coast. This constitutes the highest population density (59 per km2) for all Fijian islands (Walsh 1982:20), although three quarters of the Rotumans have left their home island for the urban areas of Fiji or overseas. Many of these Fiji-Rotumans have never been on Rotuma or at most for a brief Christmas holiday. In contrast to its small number of speakers, Rotuman has featured frequently in works of general and comparative linguistics.2 What makes Rotuman so interesting in the eyes of linguists? Its productive metathesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction and Diversification in the Austronesian Colonization of Remote Oceania
    For Workshop on Migration, Ile de Porquerolles, France, Sept. 5-7 2007 Why do Polynesian island groups have one language and Melanesian island groups have many? Patterns of interaction and diversification in the Austronesian colonization of Remote Oceania ANDREW PAWLEY AUSTRALIAN NATONAL UNIVERSITY 1. The puzzle of different language densities in Polynesia and Melanesia The islands and seas of the southwest and central Pacific are conveniently subsumed under the heading ‘Oceania’.1 In the anthropological and geographic literature Oceania is generally divided into three regions: Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia. This division, based on 19th century perceptions of racial and cultural groupings, is unsatisfactory especially because ‘Melanesia’ is not a coherent entity of the same order as the other two, but it remains a standard frame of reference. 2 The prehistoric human settlement of Oceania has left many complex and sometimes puzzling cultural, linguistic and biological patterns. This paper investigates one particular puzzle – the striking differences between Polynesia and Fiji, on the one hand, and almost all of Island Melanesia, on the other, in the density of languages per island group. (‘Island Melanesia’ is that part of Melanesia that excludes the 2400 km long island of New Guinea.) In Polynesia the norm is one language per island group; in Island Melanesia it is many languages. Thus, Samoa, Tonga, the Tokelaus, Tuvalu, the Southern Cooks, the Societies, the Marquesas and Tuamotus at first European contact each had a single language, generally with no more than modest regional variation. The large Fijian archipelago can be said to have just two distinct languages, though each ‘language’ is a dialect chain of considerable diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Yapese, a Micronesian Language: Past and Future
    International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies Volume 2, Issue 7, July 2015, PP 1-9 ISSN 2394-6288 (Print) & ISSN 2394-6296 (Online) Yapese, a Micronesian Language: Past and Future Lily Halsted 1Department of Psychology, Queens University of Charlotte, Charlotte, United States ABSTRACT The following is an examination of the linguistic history of the Micronesian islands in general and the island of Yap more specifically. It explores how through historical events and foreign hegemony, the local languages of Micronesia have lost ground to more globally dominant languages. An in-depth interview was conducted with a small number of the islanders of Yap about their knowledge of the Yapese language, as well as their frequency and situational use of the language. Additionally, the participants were asked about the level of mastery of Yapese and other island languages among their parents and their grandparents. Based on the Yapese interviewed in this study, it seems the local languages are indeed losing ground to English. Keywords: Yapese, Micronesia, Intergenerational Transmission, Language Erosion INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, linguists around the world have come to the alarming realization that languages are dying at a surprisingly rapid rate. This rate of language death seems to be out-pacing that of endangered biological species. Depending on what is considered a language as opposed to a dialect, it has been estimated that there are between 6,000 to 6,500 living languages currently in existence in the world. Out of this number, it is estimated that between 20% to 50% of these languages are destined for extinction or are currently “moribund”.
    [Show full text]
  • Cook Island Maori English
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproductionFurther reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating the Origins of Eastern Polynesians Using Genome-Wide
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Investigating the origins of eastern Polynesians using genome-wide data from the Leeward Society Isles Received: 15 November 2017 Georgi Hudjashov1,2, Phillip Endicott3, Helen Post2, Nano Nagle4, Simon Y. W. Ho 5, Daniel Accepted: 11 January 2018 J. Lawson 6, Maere Reidla2, Monika Karmin 2, Siiri Rootsi2, Ene Metspalu2, Lauri Saag2, Published: xx xx xxxx Richard Villems2, Murray P. Cox 1, R. John Mitchell4, Ralph L. Garcia-Bertrand7, Mait Metspalu 2 & Rene J. Herrera7 The debate concerning the origin of the Polynesian speaking peoples has been recently reinvigorated by genetic evidence for secondary migrations to western Polynesia from the New Guinea region during the 2nd millennium BP. Using genome-wide autosomal data from the Leeward Society Islands, the ancient cultural hub of eastern Polynesia, we fnd that the inhabitants’ genomes also demonstrate evidence of this episode of admixture, dating to 1,700–1,200 BP. This supports a late settlement chronology for eastern Polynesia, commencing ~1,000 BP, after the internal diferentiation of Polynesian society. More than 70% of the autosomal ancestry of Leeward Society Islanders derives from Island Southeast Asia with the lowland populations of the Philippines as the single largest potential source. These long- distance migrants into Polynesia experienced additional admixture with northern Melanesians prior to the secondary migrations of the 2nd millennium BP. Moreover, the genetic diversity of mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages in the Leeward Society Islands is consistent with linguistic evidence for settlement of eastern Polynesia proceeding from the central northern Polynesian outliers in the Solomon Islands. These results stress the complex demographic history of the Leeward Society Islands and challenge phylogenetic models of cultural evolution predicated on eastern Polynesia being settled from Samoa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oceanic Languages Typological Overview
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 30 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Oceanic Languages John Lynch, Malcolm Ross, Terry Crowley Typological Overview Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203820384.ch3 John Lynch, Malcolm Ross, Terry Crowley Published online on: 21 Dec 2001 How to cite :- John Lynch, Malcolm Ross, Terry Crowley. 21 Dec 2001, Typological Overview from: The Oceanic Languages Routledge Accessed on: 30 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203820384.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. CHAPTER THREE TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Although the Oceanic languages constitute a fairly well-defined sub grouping within the larger Austronesian family, as described in Chapter 1, they do certainly not constitute a typological unity. At the same time, however, there are certain patterns and structures which tend to recur over large geographical and genetic groupings of Oceanic languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Austronesian Syntax*
    To appear in: Bill Palmer (ed.) Oceania. Berlin: Mouton 1 * Austronesian syntax Maria Polinsky and Eric Potsdam 1 Introduction This chapter presents on overview of major syntactic issues in the analysis of Austronesian languages. Certain typologically unusual aspects of syntactic design are known to recur in the different groupings within the Austronesian family, and each raises interesting theoretical questions from both Austronesian-internal perspectives and general theoretical perspectives. The phenomena include widespread predicate-first (head-initial) word order, articulated voice systems, strict extraction restrictions, and articulated systems of possession marking. We hope to give a sense of the empirical picture and the theoretical issues that they raise, as well as address several other fundamental aspects of Austronesian syntactic structure. This survey is not intended to be comprehensive. We by no means want to claim full coverage of either languages or phenomena, nor will we be able to offer a definitive analysis of particular phenomena. Rather, we have tried to select the topics that are particularly relevant for Austronesian languages and at the same time present theoretical challenges that are of interest to linguists who work outside * We are indebted to our language consultants for their help with language data: John Akapito (Chuukese); Sisilia Lutui and Solia Pua (Tongan); Valentine Brotherson, Djelma Hiroa, Hinano Murphy, Goenda Rea, Reo and Ruben Tavai, and Jean-Luc Tere (Tahitian); Taina Rokotuiveikau and Salanieta Sucu (Fijian). For helpful discussions, thanks are also due to Byron Ahn, Winifred Bauer, Anna Margetts, Bill Palmer, Hazel Pearson, and Greg Scontras. All errors are our responsibility. To appear in: Bill Palmer (ed.) Oceania.
    [Show full text]