Bilingualism and Structural Change in Burma and the Reef Islands

Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 brill.nl/jlc

Who changes language? Bilingualism and structural change in Burma and the Reef Islands

Åshild Næss and Mathias Jenny University of Zürich [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract In this paper we discuss two cases of contact-induced language change where lexical and grammatical borrowing appear to have gone in opposite directions: one language has borrowed large amounts of vocabulary from another while at the same time being the source of structural borrowings into the other language. Furthermore, it appears in both cases that the structural borrowing has come about through bilingualism in L1 speakers of the source language, while L1 speakers of the language undergoing the structural change are largely monolingual. We propose that these two unusual factors are not unrelated, but that the latter is the cause of the former: Under circumstances where the numerically much smaller language in a contact situation is the contact language, the L2 speakers’ variety, inﬂuenced by their L1, may spread into the monolingual community. The lexical borrowing naturally happens from the bilingual speakers’ L2 into their L1, resulting in opposite directions of lexical and structural borrowing. Similar processes have been described in cases of language shift, but we show that it may take place even in situations where shift does not occur.

Keywords structural borrowing ; lexical borrowing ; imposition; bilingualism; Mon; Burmese ; Äiwoo ; Vaeakau-Taumako

1. Introduction

The literature on contact-induced language change makes two assumptions about what we will refer to as structural borrowing, i.e. transfer of grammatical structure from one language in a contact situation (which we will call the source language) to another (the recipient language)1 . The ﬁrst assumption is

1 We are aware of the frequently-made distinction between borrowing as coming about through agentivity on the part of speakers of the recipient language and imposition as being brought about through agentivity on the part of source language speakers (Van Coetsem 1988 ).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 218 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 that structural borrowing comes about through bilingualism in L1 speakers of the recipient language. That is, a speech community has a second language which it uses as an intergroup language, and structural borrowing consists of the adaptation of the group’s first or emblematic language to structural patterns of the intergroup language (e.g. Ross, 1996 , 2003 , Thomason, 2001 : 78, Heine and Kuteva, 2005 : 13). The second assumption is that structural borrowing is the endpoint of a process which starts with lexical borrowing; that is, that structural borrowing does not take place independently of lexical borrowing. While counterexam- ples to this claim are well known, and it is not adopted by all researchers in the field (e.g. Aikhenvald, 2006), it is nevertheless widely considered to hold as a general principle (e.g. Thomason, 2001 : 96). This paper will present two case studies of contact situations where neither of these conditions hold: Mon and Burmese in southern Burma, and Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako in the Reef Islands group in the Solomon Islands. In both these cases, structural borrowing seems to have come about through bilingualism among speakers of the source language (Mon and Äiwoo), not the recipient language, and lexical and structural borrowing appear to have gone in opposite directions, with one language being at the same time the source of the lexical borrowings and the recipient of the structural borrowings, and vice versa. We will argue that these apparent exceptionalities share a common cause, namely the diffusion of the L2 variety spoken by a numerically superior bilingual community into a community of potentially monolingual speakers of the recipient language. As a source of structural borrowing, this situation has occasionally been mentioned in the literature, but generally in the context of language shift. We show, however, that shift is not a necessary consequence of such a situation, and that stable situations may occur in which the language of monolingual speakers is influenced by the L2 variety of a numerically superior bilingual group.

2. Mon and Burmese in southern Burma

2.1 The languages and their history

Mon and Burmese share at least one millennium of common history. Apart from the earliest Mon inscriptions, dating from the 6th century CE onwards

By this deﬁnition the changes we describe are clearly an instance of imposition rather than borrowing. However, we have found it useful for the purposes of discussion to retain “borrowing” as a general term for change occurring in one language on the model of another, regardless of the exact mechanisms by which this takes place.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 219 in the Chao Phraya valley (now central Thailand), all documented stages of Mon are potentially subject to interference from Burmese. The pre-Burmese inscriptions in Old Mon are all rather short and do not offer much insight into the structure of the language. The bulk of Old Mon language material was produced in the Burmese kingdom of Pagán, where Mon was obviously a prestige language of the court for some decades. Burmese inscriptions do not appear until a few decades after the first Mon inscriptions in Pagán in the 11th century. While Mon was an important literary language in Pagán, it was probably not spoken there by large segments of the population, which was Burmese rather than Mon. Mon was the vernacular spoken in lower Burma all the way down to the Malay peninsula and the Irrawaddy Delta, intermingled from early times with communities speaking Karen varieties and Burmese dialects such as Tavoyan and Merguese. After the (final) fall of the independent Mon kingdom centred at Pegu in 1757, the status of Burmese as a language of official and commercial communication was reinforced, pushing back Mon to mere vernacular status of the villages and home communication. Substantial numbers of original Mon speakers shifted to monolingualism in Burmese, while Mon continues to be the native language of a population of some 900,000 in Burma, and much fewer (probably no more than 50 000) in old migrant communities in central Thailand. Almost all Mon speakers today are bilingual, speaking also Burmese or Thai.

2.2 General structural properties of Mon and Burmese

Mon and Burmese belong to two unrelated language families, namely Austro- Asiatic in the case of Mon and Tibeto-Burman in the case of Burmese. The two languages differ greatly in many aspects of their linguistic systems, both on the phonological and morphosyntactic level. Unlike its neighbouring languages, Mon is not a tonal language but has two distinct registers, that is normal or clear versus breathy phonation, in some cases accompanied by differences in vowel quality. This makes for a rich inventory of vowels and diphthongs, though without a phonemic length distinction. Words in Mon are mostly mono- or sesquisyllabic, that is consisting of a weak syllable with reduced phonological possibilities (restricted set of initials, no register distinction, no final consonant, only ə as vowel) followed by a full syllable. The basic stress pattern is phrase final. Traces of old morphological processes, consisting of pre- and infixes, are still present in modern Mon, though hardly any of these processes are still productive. The only truly productive affix seems to be the “universal prefix” h ə- which marks a derived form of some kind, usually deverbal, but with no specific meaning covering all instances.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 220 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

Word order in Mon is basically SVO, with prepositions, modifiers following modified and subordinate clause following main clause with a clause initial subordinator. Numeral classifiers, though officially present in the language, are hardly used except for some contexts in literary style. The arrangement of elements in numeral expressions is noun - numeral (- classifier) for common nouns, as in ka mùə ‘one car’ and numeral - noun for measure words, including expressions of time, distance, etc., as in mù ə hnam ‘one year’. Mon makes regular use of secondary verbs or verb serialization to modify the meaning of a main verb in terms of direction, aspectuality, manner, and others. Serial verbs in Mon are of the root or nuclear type, with all verbs adjacent to each other and the arguments following. In directional secondary verbs, Mon regularly distinguishes between basic and causative forms, the latter being used whenever the object is affected in such a way that it moves in space. Burmese distinguishes three (four according to some authors) tones, some with a phonation (register-like) component. Words are mostly monosyllabic, though a fair number of polysyllabic words (not compounds) occur. The main stress usually falls on the final syllable of a word or phrase, with a marked lower ing of the pitch on the final syllable of a finite clause. Two fossilized morphological processes can be observed in Burmese, namely aspiration of the initial consonant in causative verbs and the voicing of the initial consonant of a verb to form a noun. In addition there are two (semi)productive processes, namely the prefix ʔə - which forms deverbal nouns and adjectives, and the “induced creaky tone”, that is, a change of the tone on the final syllable of an expression to mark an attributive or otherwise dependent form. The basic word order is verb-final, with the immediate preverbal position filled by the main focal element. Semantic and syntactic relations are expressed by postpositional particles. Modifiers, including attributive clauses, demonstratives and posses- sives, usually precede modified elements (except for some adjectives), as do subordinate clauses their matrix clauses. Numeral classifiers are always used in counting common nouns, but not nouns expressing units of time, space, or similar. The latter function as classifiers themselves. The numerals ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘seven’, and the interrogative quantifier ‘how many’ are cliticized to the classifier. The word order in numeral expressions is noun - numeral - classifier. Secondary and serial verbs are used, but often overt connectors are introduced between the verbs, so that these expressions are formally better analysed as sequential or subordinate structures. Extended contact between Burmese and Mon speakers, as well as continu- ously shifting political and commercial dominance, has led to mutual influence in both languages. These contact induced influences reflect the history of the two languages and their speakers. In the following sections both directions

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 221 of influence will be briefly described, before focussing on the influence Mon has had on the southern variety of spoken Burmese.

2.3 Lexical borrowing

During a thousand years of more or less intimate contact, many lexical items travelled between Mon and Burmese. It is not always clear which was the source and which the recipient language, especially in the case of old loans that have been integrated into the linguistic system of the recipient language. In many cases, for example, verbs common to both languages exhibit morphologically derived forms within the respective language. This is witness to the age of the borrowing, but no indication of the direction. While earlier lexical borrowings went in both directions, the present situation is rather one-way, with Mon borrowing heavily from Burmese, but hardly any Mon words enter- ing the Burmese language.

2.3.1 Mon elements in Burmese Early Mon loans in Burmese can be detected by their phonological shape and/ or cognate forms in other Mon-Khmer languages. Some Pali loans in Burmese can also be shown to have entered the language via Mon.2 One case in point is the Pali word pūjā ‘worship (by offering donations)’, which in Old Mon became pūjāw with a paragogic final consonant due to the unacceptability of word-final open syllables in Old Mon.3 Burmese does not have this restriction on syllable structure, but the form in spoken Burmese puz ɔ goes back to an earlier pūjow < pujāw . Burmese tends to lengthen final short a in Pali words, while in Mon the final short a is dropped. Short vowels of Pali words in Mon frequently are centralized, while in Burmese they retain their original value. Forms like pai ʔ ‘stanza, verse’ in Burmese thus reflect Pali pada only indirectly, via a Mon form p ət . A regularly developed Pali form in Burmese is for example y əthà from Pali ratha ‘wagon’. This word has more recently entered Mon from Burmese in the form y ətha ‘train’. Indigenous Mon words in Burmese are found mostly in the domain of officialdom and ceremony, for example k ədɔ ‘official’s wife’ from Middle Mon kandaw and k ədɔ́ ‘make obeisance’ from Old Mon

2 The Indo-Aryan Pali was probably in use only as literary language, mostly in religious (Buddhist) contexts. Its inﬂuence on the structure of the written local languages was presumably greater than on the spoken varieties, though in both cases not much convergence can be seen. 3 A similar case is Old Mon dewatāw ‘god, deity’ from Pali devatā , which is not found in Burmese.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 222 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 kindo ʔ/kinḍoʔ . 4 Hardly any recent Mon loans, that is, lexical items that were borrowed after the Middle Mon period, are found in Burmese apart from some cultural and biological terms (for example ﬁsh names starting in ká from Mon ka ʔ ‘ﬁsh’), which may or may not be of later date.

2.3.2 Burmese elements in Mon Since Middle Mon, Burmese pressure on the Mon language has become stron- ger, a fact that is seen in an increase in lexical and structural loans. The fact that Burmese words have been integrated into the Mon lexicon over a long time is shown by the different shapes in which they appear in Mon. Burmese lexemes borrowed during Middle Mon, that is at a time when morphological processes were still productive in Mon, have adopted Mon morphology. One example is Burmese pye ‘be satisfied, relieved’ with the causative form phye ‘answer’. The base verb in Mon ispre ‘be satisfied, relieved’, the causative is built according to Mon morphology by a vocalic infix: p əre ‘satisfy, relieve’. Mon cɔn-ca ‘consider, think’ from Burmese sìn-zà shows the original value of the Burmese palatal series, which changed to alveolar fric- a tives fairly recently (probably not earlier than the 18th century). More recent Burmese loans in Mon appear in a form reflecting Burmese pronunciation as closely as possible, as illustrated by words like Mon se-y ɤ̀ŋ ‘hospital’ from Burmese shè-youn . Most English loans also have entered Mon via Burmese, sometimes with adaptation to Mon syntax, as in Mon ka-là ɲ ‘bus’ from Burmese làin-kà ‘bus’ for English line-car .

2.4 Structural borrowing: Burmese structures in Mon

Together with Burmese political dominance in areas formerly under Mon rule at different periods since the 15th century, the Burmese language had increasing impact on Mon structure, a phenomenon that goes on at the present time. Burmese influence is evident in Mon syntax as well as lexical structures, the latter in the form of shared polysemy or idiomatic calques. Among the most prominent “foreign” features emerging in Mon after the 14th or 15th century is an increasing change of constituent order on the clause level. Subordinate clauses (except relative clauses) tend to be positioned before the matrix clause with clause final particles imitating the Burmese subordinators. One such particle is the topic marker teh used in conditional clauses, comparable in function and position to Burmese clause final yin (Jenny, to appear). The pragmatic

4 The form of the Burmese word suggest a borrowing from Middle Mon rather than the Old Mon kindar/kandar .

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 223 particles raʔ ‘focal/predicative particle’ and roŋ/noŋ ‘assertive particle’ are used to imitate the Burmese finite verb clause markers dɛ ‘non-future/realis’ and mɛ ‘future/irrealis’ respectively (Jenny, 2006 ). One area of Mon grammar that has proved remarkably resistant to Burmese (and Thai) influence is the (non)use of classifiers, which are obligatory in combination with numerals in Burmese, but only occasionally occur in Mon.

2.5 Structural borrowing: Mon structures in Burmese

During the early phase of the Burmese kingdom of Pagán, Mon influence made itself felt in the Burmese language. This early contact may have been a situation of Mon as the superstrate language, that is, the language of the elites and of writing, which according to some authors may have lasted until the late 12th century (LaPolla, 2001 : 236ff). Mon influence in Burmese which is attributed to this period includes phonological features such as palatal finals, common in Mon-Khmer but absent in mainstream Tibeto-Burman, the neutralization of the common Tibeto-Burman distinction between /ts/ and /ʨ/, phonation-type tones, as well as widespread sesquisyllabicity, again a typical Mon-Khmer feature not widely found elsewhere in Tibeto-Burman (LaPolla, 2001 : 238, and references therein).5 Neither LaPolla nor Bradley (1980) mention any structural influence beyond phonology. Bauer (2006) lists half a dozen grammatical words common to Mon and Burmese, most of which he assigns to Mon origin, based on their occurrence in Old Mon, but not Old Burmese inscriptions. Bauer gives no examples of Mon-influenced structural features in Burmese. It therefore looks like Mon influence on Burmese was restricted to the phonology and some instances of matter replication, but no pattern replication. One syntactic structure in Burmese which has been claimed to be of Mon origin is the use of preverbal pè ‘give’ as permissive causative marker (Okano, 2005). This construction is not widely found in written Burmese and considered substandard by many (educated urban) speakers, but common in the spoken language at least as far north as Rangoon. While the construction is common in many Southeast Asian languages, and its structure fully transparent, the use of ‘give’ as causative marker is much less widespread in Tibeto- Burman languages. A similar structure is found, for example in Lisu, where a “[p]reposed causative marker g ɯ 21 is more frequent in the Lipo dialect” (Yu 2007:223) and may be due to areal convergence. In Angami Naga the causative prefix pê- seems to be connected to the full verb piê ‘give’ (Giridhar

5 The question how Mon, as a primarily literary language, could have inﬂuenced the phonetic/phonological system of Burmese remains to be answered and needs further investigation.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 224 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

1980 :66ff). In Burmese, the construction shows some non-typical syntactic features and a lower degree of grammaticalization than in Mon and Thai, for example. This is in accordance with Heine and Kuteva’s (2010: 88ff) observation that contact-induced grammatical replication does not necessarily achieve the same stage of grammaticalization it has in the source language, as the grammaticalization process has to go through all stages in the replica language, and this process can stop at any point. In Mon the preverbal (or better pre-clausal) ‘give’-construction also has what Enfield (2009 : 811) calls a “dummy causative” function, that is, merely indicating a different subject with verbs of wanting, wishing, praying, and similar. This function is not present in Burmese. The word order in Burmese ditransitive expressions is A REC-ko T V, as seen in (1). The structure in Mon is A V REC T, as in (2).6 (1) ʨə nɔ θú ko θəyɛʔ-θì tə=lòun pè dɛ. 1m 3. attr obj mango-fruit one= cl give nfut ‘I gave him a mango.’ (2) ɗɛh kɒ ʔuə sɔt-krɤk mùə (mɛ̀ʔ) 3 give 1 sg fruit-mango one ( cl ) ‘He gave me a mango.’ In Mon the place of the theme can be filled with a verbal clause, resulting in a permissive or jussive reading, which can be neutralized as a general causative or merely an indication of different subject. (3) ɗɛh kɒ ʔuə ɕiəʔ sɔt-krɤk mùə. 3 give 1 sg eat fruit-mango one ‘He let/made me eat a mango.’ (4) ʔuə hɒm kɒ ɲèh ɕiəʔ sɔt-krɤk mùə. 1 sg speak give person eat fruit-mango one ‘I told him to eat a mango.’ In (formal) standard Burmese, the postverbal causative marker se or the semi- independent secondary verb khàin ‘order’ is used, the former to express a neutral causation, the latter with a clear jussive meaning. (5) θ u ʨənɔ́ ko θəyɛʔ-θì tə=lòun 3 1m. attr obj mango-fruit one= cl

6 For Burmese examples, I use a broad phonemic transcription based on IPA. I do not indicate automatic voicing of initial consonants in close juncture. Voicing in these cases is not dis- tinctive and occurs less regularly in southern dialects than in standard Burmese. The sentence ﬁnal particles d ɛ and bù are always voiced irrespective of the context by all consultants I have recorded and are thus spelt as voiced. For the transcription of Mon, see Jenny ( 2005 ).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 225

sà se / sà khàin dɛ. eat caus / eat order nfut ‘He let/made me eat a mango.’ The postverbal causativizerse is used in colloquial Burmese almost exclusively in desiderative and prohibitive contexts as (NEG) V CAUS DES (NEG) and NEG V CAUS PROH. Postverbal khàin is used to express the jussive, while permissive expressions regularly use preverbal pè ‘give’ in the pattern A P-ko pè V: (6) ʨənɔ θú ko θəyɛʔ-θì tə=lòun pè sà dɛ. 1m 3. attr obj mango-fruit one- cl give eat nfut ‘I let him eat a mango.’ The construction [GIVE V] is atypical for Burmese syntax and looks like a direct loan from Mon, without adaptation to Burmese syntactic structure, which might be an indication of a rather recent loan.

2.6 Structural borrowing: Mon structures in southern Burmese dialects

Southern Burma covers Mon State and parts of Karen State, as well as Tenasserim Division, with the main urban centre at Moulmein, official capital of Mon State. The area is traditionally seen as core of the Mon population, though Burmese settlements have been established there probably since the Pagán period. The Tavoyan dialect shows a number of archaisms not found in modern spoken or written Burmese, such as the retention of medial /-l-/, which in Burmese merged with or , both /y/. The Burmese dialect spoken today in Mon State and parts of Karen State in southeastern Burma differs from standard Burmese in phonology and some syntactic constructions, some of which can be ascribed to Mon influence. The differences in pronunciation, such as the realization of standard [θ] as dental [t], while standard [t] is pushed back and pronounced as (post-)alveolar stop, as well as the less regular voicing of intervocalic consonants across word boundaries in close juncture, do not affect the phonemic system as such. Mon lacks the dental [θ] as well as voiced stops and fricatives and can thus be seen as source of the non- standard realization of these phonemes in southern dialects, at least partly caused by shifting speakers. Sesquisyllabicity in Burmese has been claimed to be of Mon origin. This thesis finds some support in the fact that sesquisyllabic structures seem to be more widespread in southern Burmese, where they are found also on the phrasal level. The preverbal directional/purposiveθ wà ‘go’ is often shortened

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 226 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 to [θə] in the south, but not in standard Burmese, as in th əmìn θə=sà mɛ ‘I am going to eat’ vs. standard th əmìn θwà sà mɛ . 7 The phonetic changes can easily be explained as a “new primary lect [which] is a phonologically coloured version of the old secondary lect” (Ross, 2003 : 191), that is, a Burmese variety arising from a language shift from Mon to Bur mese with substrate interference. Morphosyntactic interference, on the other hand, should happen only in the original primary lect (in this case Mon) among bilingual speakers, who import features of their secondary lect (here Burmese), according to Ross ( 2003 : 191): “metatypy affects a polylectal community’s primary, but not its secondary, lect”. There are a number of constructions in southern Burmese that are most easily explained as influence from Mon, although the vast majority of Burmese speakers are monolingual, with only a few also speaking Mon. The putative Mon influence in southern Bur- mese is illustrated with a few examples, together with the corresponding constructions in Mon, namely word order in negated complex verbal predicates, secondary verb usage, and morphological genitive.

2.6.1 Word order and negation The clitic negation markerm ə is placed before the verb to be negated, or, in the case of complex verbal predicates, in front of the whole verbal expression, with the original negation reinforcing particle bù after the verb complex in standard Burmese: [m ə V v bù ] (7) θu yòdəyà-zəgà m ə=py ɔ ̀ bù. 3 Thai-language neg =speak neg ‘He doesn’t speak Thai.’ (8) θu yòdəyà-zəgà m ə=py ɔ ̀ ʨhin bù. 3 Thai-language neg =speak des neg ‘He doesn’t want to speak Thai.’ (9) θu yòdəyà-zəgà mə=pyɔ ̀ taʔ bù. 3 Thai-language neg =speak know.how neg ‘He cannot speak Thai.’ While the desiderative marker ʨ hin in (8) cannot occur as a free form (Jenny, 2009 ) and cannot be separated from the main verb, the modal ta ʔ in (9) still has full verbal status and can occur independently. In this case the preferred negation pattern in southern Burmese is [V m ə= v (bù) ], with frequent omission

7 One open question is how Mon could have inﬂuenced Burmese on the phonological level if it was only a literary language at Pagán, not a widely spoken vernacular. Convergence on the phonological level is normally rather ascribed to substrate inﬂuence of shifting speakers.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 227 of the postverbal negation particle. Note also the use of ɕ àn for ‘Thai’, a word that means only ‘Shan’ in standard Burmese, in example (10) from southern Burmese. Mon has sem here, which can mean either ‘Thai’ or ‘Shan’. (10) θ u ɕàn-zəgà pyɔ̀ mə=taʔ (bù). 3 Thai-language speak neg =know.howneg ( ) ‘He cannot speak Thai.’ Negation in Mon involves the narrow scope negation marker hù ʔ , which occurs directly in front of the verbal element to be negated. A negation reinforcing particle, pùh , an obvious loan from Burmese, can optionally be added after the verbal expression. In the sentences corresponding to (7) and (9) above, Mon regularly places the negation marker in front the modal auxiliary, which in case of the desiderative məkɤ̀ʔ/mòc precedes the verb, while the abili- tive lèp follows, as in examples (11) and (12). (11) ɗɛh hùʔ mòc hɒm ʔərè sem. 3 neg des speak language Thai (12) ɗɛh hɒm ʔərè sem hù ʔ lèp (pùh). 3 speak language Thai neg know.how ( neg ) This pattern, though present in colloquial Rangoon Burmese, is considered substandard by many speakers. We seem to be dealing here with a case of contact-induced change from minor to major use pattern (Heine and Kuteva, 2005 : 44ﬀ) in Burmese.

2.6.2 Secondary verbs Both Mon and Burmese make extensive use of secondary verbs to express aspectual, modal, directional and other categories. Generally these constructions are semantically and syntactically transparent. In many cases the same lexical verbs are employed in grammatical functions in Mon and standard Burmese, but in some cases the two languages diverge markedly. Southern Burmese dialects obviously calque Mon usage as illustrated in examples (13) – (16) by the verbs ‘eat’, ‘touch’, and ‘take’ in southern Burmese. (13) la mə=py ɔ ̀ sà nɛ.́ come neg =speak eat proh ‘Don’t tell me about it!’ (14) θ wà mə=py ɔ ̀ thí t ɔ́ bù. go neg =speak touch contr neg ‘You don’t have to go to tell him anymore.’ (15) ʨənɔ θ wà mə=thí bù . 1m go neg = touch neg ‘I don’t know the way.’

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 228 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

(16) ʨənɔ́ sa ko ʨənɔ yè yu mɛ. 1m. attr text obj 1m write take fut ‘I will write my text myself.’ These expressions are considered ungrammatical by standard Burmese speakers and in most cases not understood by speakers of other dialects. In the case of thí ‘touch, come into contact with’, the position of the negation deter- mines the interpretation. The same verb in Mon,t ɛ̀h, can be used as a preverbal dependent auxiliary with the meaning ‘must, have to’, or as an independent postverbal (quasi-resultative) verb meaning ‘correctly’. In Burmese the position of secondary verbs is generally postverbal, but the dependence status of the auxiliary is retained by the positioning of the negation marker. This cor- responds to the use of the verb yá ‘get’ as dependent modal meaning ‘must’ and as independent modal meaning ‘can, may’ (Jenny, 2009). Compare the Mon sentences in examples (17) – (20) with the southern Burmese expressions above: (17) ɗɛh lè ə ɕiəʔ k ɒ ʔuə. 3 tell eat obl sg ‘He told me.’ (18) pèh hùʔ t ɛ̀h ʔa raʔ. 2 neg touch go foc ‘You don’t have to go any more.’ (19) ʔuə ʔa hùʔ tɛh̀ . sg go neg touch ‘I don’t know the way.’ (20) lòc ʔuə kɔ̀h, ʔuə khyu ket . text sg dem:med sg write take ‘I will write my text myself.’ In Mon, ɕ iəʔ ‘eat’ as a secondary verb has a number of diﬃcult-to-deﬁne functions. Usually a notion of ‘agent-directedness’ is involved, though this is not always obvious. In standard Burmese, sà ‘eat’ occurs in some lexical compounds, such as louʔ-sà ‘do for a living’, khan-zà ‘feel’, sìn-zà ‘consider, think’,8 but, unlike Mon, the process is not productive. The verbket ‘take’ in Mon is the normal way to express ‘agent-focus’, that is, an activity that the agent performs by or for himself, a use which is completely unknown in standard Burmese. The secondary verbyu ‘take’ here can only be used with a restricted set of verbs to describe an activity done for (not by) the subject himself.

8 The voicing ofsà to zà in close juncture after vowels is regular.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 229

2.6.3 Morphological genitive Burmese marks syntactic and semantic dependence of an element, both phrasal and clausal, by changing the final syllable to the high (creaky) tone in some cases, (Okell and Allott, 2005 : 237ff). Pronouns and some nouns thus marked receive possessive/attributive reading: ʨənɔ ‘I’ vs. ʨənɔ́ ʔein ‘my house’. In southern Burmese, the genitive is regularly marked only on personal pronouns and some kinship terms, much less on personal names and common nouns. (21) Standard Burmese Southern Burmese Gloss θú ʔein θú ʔein ‘his house’ ʔəmé shain ʔəmé shain ‘mother’s shop’ θà.θá ʔein θà.θà ʔein ‘Tha Tha’s house’ sh əyá sa.ʔouʔ sheya sa.ʔouʔ ‘the teacher’s book’ In Mon, possessive expressions are formed by simply juxtaposing the posses- sum and the possessor, in this order: (22) h ɒəʔ ɗɛh ‘his house’ chɔɲ ʔəmè ‘mother’s shop’ hɒəʔ ta.ta ‘Tha Tha’s house’ lòc ʔəca ‘the teacher’s book’ The reduced use of the morphologically marked possessive in southern Bur- mese can be due to the non-existence of a corresponding form in Mon, or to the non-existence of tones in Mon, or both. The influence can thus be seen as a combination of phonology and morphology. The above examples show how well established structural influence from Mon is in southern Burmese, going beyond merely ‘colouring’ the phonology of Burmese with Mon sounds.

2.7 Language contact and bilingualism

According to Bradley (1996 , map 87) all of (south)eastern Burma except Tavoy to Mergui, is Burmese L2 area. This clearly does not correspond to the present-day language situation. There are numerous L2 Burmese speakers, but many speakers are monolingual, some shifted original Mon or Karen speakers, others Tavoyan or Merguese, with substantial numbers of original Burmese speakers who migrated to the area during the past centuries. The features described in this section are found in the speech of all (except possibly some highly educated and language-conscious) speakers, including monolingual L1 Burmese. How can this spread of Mon features into the dominant language be explained? It does not correspond to the received understanding of structural borrowing as taking place from the L2 into the L1 of bilingual speakers, since

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 230 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

Burmese speakers in the area are not necessarily bilingual. At the same time, recall that lexical borrowing in the area has largely taken place in the opposite direction, from Burmese into Mon (2.3.1). This again contradicts an understanding of structural borrowing as being dependent on lexical borrowing. Nothing obviously parallel happened in neighbouring Thailand, where the status of Mon in some areas has been comparable to Burma for at least three centuries. In heavily bilingual communities, Mon speakers adopt many Thai lexical items in their L1. They speak Thai with a more or less heavy Mon accent and use Mon structures in Thai, but no spread of these features to monolingual Thai speakers can be observed. One factor that has certainly favoured the development in Burma and inhibited a parallel development in Thailand is the different level of centralization and standard- ization through communication, education and, more recently, mass media. In the remote areas of southern Burma, local influences can make themselves felt more easily than in Thailand, where communication routes, both physical and virtual, are much more developed. In summary, the pattern of structural vs. lexical borrowings observed in southern Burma appears difficult to explain through standard models of contact-induced linguistic change: the “wrong” community appears to have been bilingual for the observed structural borrowing to have taken place, and lexical and structural borrowing, rather than being connected as stages of the same pattern of influence, have gone in opposite directions between the two languages. Given the complex contact history of the languages involved, there may of course be an equally complex explanation to the present-day situation. Southern Burma is, however, not unique in posing this type of problem. Our second case study, from the Reef Islands in the southwest Pacific, shows a strikingly similar pattern; we will argue that the two areas have important features in common which can ultimately provide an explanation for the observed changes.

3. Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako in the Reef Islands

3.1 The languages and their history

The Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako (also known in the literature as Pileni) languages are spoken in a small group of islands known as the Reef Islands, in the Santa Cruz archipelago in the easternmost province of the Solomon Islands in the southwest Paciﬁc Ocean. Of the two language communities, the Äiwoo

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 231 speakers no doubt have the longest history in the area; the present-day community is thought to be the descendants of a group which, on archaeological evidence, arrived in the Reefs at least 3,200 years ago (Spriggs, 1997 : 97). Äiwoo is classified as belonging to the “Temotu” first-order subgroup of Oceanic, which is again a subgroup of the Austronesian language family (Ross and Næss, 2007 ). Vaeakau-Taumako is a Polynesian Outlier, that is, a Polynesian language spoken west of the so-called Polynesian Triangle defined by the three cor- ners of Hawai’i, New Zealand and Easter Island. The Polynesian Outliers are thought to have arrived in their present locations – a scattering of small islands in the Melanesia/Micronesia area – though back-migration from the core Polynesian areas after these were originally settled from the west. While no exact date is known for the arrival of Vaeakau-Taumako speakers in the area, signs of Polynesian settlement on nearby Tikopia island first appear in the archaeological record around 1200 AD (Kirch, 2000: 144); accordingly we assume an arrival date of around 800-1,000 years ago. Polynesian being a subgroup of Oceanic, Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako are clearly related languages, though only distantly so. As Temotu, to which Äiwoo belongs, is a first-order subgroup of Oceanic, the ancestor of today’s Temotu languages is assumed to have split off directly from Proto-Oceanic, thought to have been spoken in the Bismarck Archipelago east of New Guinea around 3,300 years ago. As the Polynesian languages belong to a different branch of Oceanic, Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako have no common ancestor more recent than Proto-Oceanic. The two languages are spoken on different islands within the Reefs group: Äiwoo in the larger islands southeast in the group known as the Main Reef Islands, Vaeakau-Taumako in the tiny scattered coral islets in the northwest, the Outer Reef Islands. In local administration, the Polynesian-speaking islands in the Reefs are collectively known as Vaeakau; the language is also spoken in the Duff Islands group (Taumako) some 100 kilometres northeast of the Reefs. In the Reef Islands, speakers of Äiwoo number some 5-6,000, while the number of Vaeakau-Taumako speakers is in the region of 5-600 (1999 census). The two language communities in the Reefs overlap only slightly at the northern end of the island of Fenua Loa. The distance between Fenua Loa, dominated by Äiwoo speakers, and Nifiloli, populated exclusively by Vaeakau- Taumako speakers, is around 800 metres and may be waded at low tide. The exact relationship and contact situation between speakers of the two languages will be discussed in detail in 3.5 below.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 232 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

3.2 General structural properties

Although Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako are distantly related, they are of very different structural types. Polynesian languages are generally characterized by a scarcity of bound morphology; while they do show some degree of affix- ation, most grammatical morphemes are usually classified as particles or clitics rather than affixes. For example, tense, aspect and mood are indicated in Polynesian languages by preverbal particles, and the verb itself lacks inflec- tional marking of any kind9 . ( 23) Ko=ko to-a ko te-ia nohine a-ku. sg = incp take-tr incp hit- tr wife poss-sg ‘You killed my wife’ . By contrast, Äiwoo verges on the polysynthetic, with affixal marking of subject and object on the verb, aspect-mood prefixes, and the frequent appearance of several lexical roots within a single inflected form. (24) Nepä da-no nä-ngäbe-eke-nyi-kä-mu. betel.mix poss:betel-min irr -pound-fast- tr-dir:-min.a ‘Pound my betel quickly.’

3.3 Lexical borrowing

Not just Äiwoo, but all languages in the Santa Cruz archipelago for which data is available, show a large amount of Polynesian loanwords assumed to originate mainly from Vaeakau-Taumako. This situation is presumably the result of the long-standing role of Vaeakau-Taumako speakers as shipbuilders and navigators. For a long time, the area was home to an extensive trade network in which the Vaeakau-Taumako speakers were the driving force. Large sea- going canoes were built in the Duﬀ Islands (Taumako), which are also populated by Vaeakau-Taumako speakers; these were then sailed to the Reef Islands and sold to Vaeakau-Taumako speakers there, who in turn used them in trade voyages throughout the area. The practice came to an end in the early decades of the 20 th century as a result of restrictions imposed by the British administration, both on long-distance voyaging in general, considered too dangerous, and on the export of women (mainly as wives, but also to some extent as pros- titutes maintained by a group of men) which were the Reef Islands’ main contribution to the interisland trade (Davenport, 1968 ).

9 A handful of verbs take what appears to be a fossilized plural marker; see Næss and Hovdhaugen ( 2011 : 196-197).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 233

Vaeakau-Taumako loanwords in Äiwoo are extremely numerous. They are most easily recognized in the nominal lexicon, since nouns tend to be borrowed with the Polynesian specific article te (assimilated to to in some present-day Äiwoo forms); some verbs, too, have acquired an article-like prefix in the process of borrowing, e.g. temakona ‘be strong’ (VAT makhona ), tepeu ‘be stupid, simple’ (VAT peu or peupeu ), tepepe ‘be bald’ (VAT pepe ). The loanwords include words for landscape and natural phenomena, such as teuwâ ‘rain’ (VAT ua ), temotu ‘island’ (VAT motu ); plants and animals, e.g. tepulâkâ ‘species of Cyrtosperma taro’ (VAT pulaka ), kuli ‘dog’ (VAT kulī ), poi ‘pig’ (VAT poi ), tepeka ‘flying fox’ (VAT peka ), toponu ‘turtle’ (VAT fonu ); artifacts, e.g. tepukei ‘large sea-going canoe’ (VAT puke ), tematâu ‘fishhook’ (VAT matau ), teulunga ‘carved wooden headrest’ (VAT ulunga ), teviki ‘axe’ (VAT viki ); winds and cardinal directions, e.g. tetonga ‘southeast wind’ (VAT tonga ‘east wind’), tekelâu ‘west wind’ (VAT tokelau ‘north, northwest wind’). As can be seen, loanwords are pervasive throughout the lexicon, and include basic and highly frequent vocabulary. By contrast, Äiwoo loanwords in Vaeakau-Taumako appear to be relatively few, although with the reservation that our knowledge about Äiwoo has until recently been much more limited than of Vaeakau-Taumako; accordingly, more borrowings are likely to be identified as comparative work on the two languages proceeds. Nevertheless, it seems quite clear that nothing like the profusion of borrowings found in Äiwoo from Vaeakau-Taumako can be found in the other direction. The examples we have identified includeotanehi ‘orange (fruit; Äiwoo vatinesi )’, melō ‘peace, peaceful’ (Äiwoo meloo ), uabelia ‘aimlessly, without purpose or system’ (Äiwoo väbelia ‘scattered, all over the place’), nienie, niadoa ‘kinds of tree’ (Äiwoo bound noun nya - ‘tree’). In a contact situation between languages of unequal size or social prestige, borrowing is generally assumed to take place into the smaller and/or less prestigious language from the larger and/or more prestigious language (Myers- Scotton, 2002 : 238-239). From a present-day perspective, the flow of Vaeakau-Taumako loanwords into Äiwoo appears highly anomalous, given that the Äiwoo speech community is not only considerably larger but also clearly economically dominant, inhabiting as they do the larger and more fertile islands with a relative abundance of natural resources. Historically, however, though the Vaeakau-Taumako community has presumably always been smaller in size, their role as shipbuilders and navigators would presumably have conferred on them a social prestige and economic status which may explain the predominant direction of lexical borrowing (Næss and Hovdhaugen, 2007 , 2010 ). Turning to structural borrowing, we find a rather different pattern, however.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 234 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

3.4 Structural borrowing

Since the Polynesian languages are quite closely related, and since good grammatical descriptions exist of several of them, we have a good deal of knowledge of which kinds of structural properties are characteristic of Polynesian languages in general. Where Vaeakau-Taumako deviates from these characteristic properties, and where structural parallels to those in Vaeakau-Taumako are found in Äiwoo, it seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the properties in question have come about as a result of structural borrowing from Äiwoo into Vaeakau-Taumako. This section will describe three such properties not normally displayed by Polynesian languages, but present both in Vaeakau- Taumako and Äiwoo.

3.4.1 Verb serialization Serial verb constructions have not generally been posited in the analysis of Polynesian languages. Partly, this may be because the lack of bound morphology in Polynesian, as well as the tendency for lexical forms to have both nominal and verbal uses, make it diﬃcult, or perhaps even impossible as a matter of principle, to distinguish possible serial verb constructions from other cases of modiﬁcation or compounding (cf. Crowley, 2002 : 158; Paia and Vernaudon, 2004 ; Mosel, 2004 ). However, as noted in Blust (2008 : 447), grammatical descriptions of Polynesian languages generally make no reference to verb serialization. Dougherty (1983: 137-139) describes what she calls serial constructions for the Vanuatu Outlier Futuna-Aniwa, though these are core-layer constructions where each verb receives a distinct tense-aspect marker, and it is not clear whether they are in principle distinguishable from sequences of jux- taposed clauses with equi-deletion of shared arguments. Moyse-Faurie ( 1997 : 124-125) describes what appears to be nuclear-layer serial verbs (séries ver- bales) in the Outlier East Futuna. Verb serialization, then, is not completely unheard of in Polynesian. In Vaeakau-Taumako, however, serial verb constructions are not only highly frequent, but they show particular structural properties which are not described for any other Polynesian language that we are aware of, but which have obvious parallels in Äiwoo. The most common serialization type in Vaeakau-Taumako is nuclear-layer serialization, where two lexical verbs make up a single verb-phrase nucleus with a single TAM marker and a single set of postverbal particles: (25) Ko Tulikabe ko maki pepio loa. top Tulikabe incp ill lie emph ‘Tulikabe pretended to be ill.’

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 235

When the first verb in a nuclear-layer SVC is transitive, the modifying verb takes the suffix –ina . This is the productive form of a suffix found on all transitive verbs in Vaeakau-Taumako, which may also derive transitive from intransitive verbs, as in avanga ‘get married’ ~ avangaina ‘marry, consummate marriage’, kata ‘laugh’ ~ kataina ‘laugh at’. Though there are several forms of the transitive suffix in Vaeakau-Taumako, the fact that –ina is the productive variant can be seen from the fact that it is the only form appearing on loanwords from English or the English-based lingua franca Solomon Islands Pijin: alaoina ‘allow’, helpina ‘help’. Note that the form of the suffix found in the SVC is always –ina , regardless of which suffix the verb in question would take in isolation.

(26) a. A-na ni o-u ko piki-a lavoi-ina. then- dem: pp poss-sg sg.hort hold- tr good- tr ‘This one is yours, take good care of it.’ b . No-i motu~motu-ia pa-liki-ina a taveli. ipfv-sg red ~cut- tr pl -small-tr coll banana ‘He is cutting the bananas into small pieces.’ While similar suffixes are found in all Polynesian languages, their use as “transitive agreement markers” in verb serialization is not attested elsewhere. The Vaeakau-Taumako pattern closely parallels the marking found in the highly frequent nuclear-layer serial verb construction in Äiwoo. In such constructions, an initial verb is modified by one or more following verbs within a single inflected form; an intransitive verb modifying a transitive verb takes the suffix –i or –nyi, exactly parallel to the use of –ina in SVCs in Vaeakau-Taumako:

(27) I-malei-päko-i-du-gu-i. pfv -care.for-good- tr -all-min.a-aug.o ‘She looked after all of them properly.’ It should be noted that though the nuclear-layer SVCs in Äiwoo constitute single grammatical words, with a single set of inﬂectional and derivational markers, they do not constitute single phonological words. Each verbal stem in an SVC is pronounced with a separate main stress, and speakers tend to be critical of such constructions being written as single words, which they per- ceive as a misrepresentation of the structure of their language. Vaeakau-Taumako also has core-layer SVCs, though these are more restricted: they occur only with the verb toa ‘take’ as V1. As described in Næss (2004) and Næss and Hovdhaugen ( 2011 ), there are actually two structurally and semantically distinct types of core-layer SVCs with toa in Vaeakau- Taumako; here we will focus on one of the types, which is the most grammati- calized both in terms of structure and function.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 236 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

In this construction, toa occurs as V1, and the V2 is most frequently transitive. Though each verb takes a separate TAM particle, nothing else may inter- vene between the two verbs. The function of thetoa serialization construction is to emphasize the volitional instigation of the act described by the V2. This is illustrated by example 28, which describe an act which may, in principle, be either intentional or non-intentional (hapolengia ‘startle’). The use of thetoa construction here emphasizes that the act is in this case volitional and leads to the victim falling into the sea, where he is eaten by sharks, leaving his sisters, whom the perpetrator covets, unprotected: (28) Ko ia ne mohi~mohi oho hua-lavoi la top sg pfv red ~creep go.vertically caus -good dem :3 le~le~le-oho na ko-i to-a red ~ red ~go-go.vertically dem: incp-sg take- tr ko-i hua-pole-ngia la mha-la. incp-sg caus -jump- tr dem :3 man- dem :3 ‘He crept up slowly, he came down and (intentionally) startled the man.’ In Äiwoo, we ﬁnd a core-layer serial verb construction with the verb luwa ‘take’, with the exact same function: (29) lâto luwa-kä toponu=kä, ilâ nyâ-nou then take- dir :3 turtle= obl.pro deic:dist tree-banana eângâ=kâ, luwa-kä=nä dem:dist=deic:dist take- dir :3= obl.pro i-vägulo go nyimä pfv -hit.with.long.instrument with hand. min ‘Then the turtle, that banana tree, he struck it with his hand.’

3.4.2 Tail-head linkage The term “tail-head linkage” describes a pattern of discourse whereby the ﬁnal element of a clause is repeated at the beginning of the following clause; it is a common feature of narrative discourse in the Melanesian area (Crowley, 2002 : 69). It is not, however, described for any language of the Polynesian Triangle that we are aware of; indeed it is typically taken to be a characteristic mainly of Papuan languages (de Vries 2006 : 812). Vaeakau-Taumako has extensive tail-head linkage in narratives; it follows a pattern closely parallel to that found in Äiwoo, where it is equally frequent. The repeated sequence is usually a verb or verb plus postverbal elements; the second occurrence is marked by a deictic particle in both languages. In Äiwoo, which has a two-term deictic system, the distal deictic =Câ is used, where C indicates a consonant which varies according to the person/number features of the element to which the deictic cliticizes. Vaeakau-Taumako has a three-term

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 237 demonstrative system, which basically follows a speaker-oriented pattern, with the form ne referring to location close to speaker, na close to addressee, and la away from both speaker and addressee, or close to a third person. There are some indications, however, that the addressee form na is taking on charac- teristics of a medial or neutral term within more distance-oriented system; it is used, among other things, to indicate items which are neither seen as particularly close or particularly far away, even if they are not located close to the addressee (Næss and Hovdhaugen 2011 : 122). It is this medial/ neutral form which is found in tail-head linkage. The close parallels between the tail-head linkage structures in Äiwoo and Vaeakau-Taumako can be seen in (30): ( 30) a. Äiwoo: Ikâ lâto ki-dâ=to=wâ, uule=kâ mo lâ heron then ipfv -float= ph=deic:dist drift= deic:dist and deic:dist ki-dâ=kâ. I-da=kâ, lâ i-de-to=to ipfv -float= deic:dist pfv -float=deic:dist deic:dist pfv -wash.up-go.in= ph ngä nye-lägä=kâ, lâto ki-ko=kâ mo lâ in nmlz:loc -dry= deic:dist then ipfv -lie= deic:dist and deic:dist ki-mibiou=kâ I-mibiou=kâ , nye-päko ipfv -rest=deic:dist pfv -rest= deic:dist nmlz:loc -good ilâ i-pe-usi-kä=jo=wâ. deic:dist pfv -feel-again- dir:=prog=deic:dist ’The heron started drifting, he drifted slowly. He drifted until he washed up in a dry place, then he lay there and rested. He rested until he started feeling better again.’

b. Vaeakau-Taumako: Thai langi na ko noho~noho na ko hano loa one day dem: incp red ~stay dem: incp go. sg emph ko kaukau. incp bathe Ko hano ko kaukau na , ioko te pakhola ko incp go. sg incp bathe dem: conj sg.sp giant incp ne-ho ko-i to-a. go. sg -down incp-sg take- tr Ko-i to-a na ko hano loa ma ia. incp-sg take- tr dem: incp go. sg emph with sg ’One day she went to have a bath. She went to have a bath, and a giant came and took her. It took her and went oﬀ with her.’

3.4.3 Vaeakau-Taumako subject clitics Vaeakau-Taumako has a set of bound subject pronouns not attested in other Polynesian languages. While some, such as Samoan, do have a distinct set of

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 238 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 preverbal subject pronouns, these follow the verb’s tense-aspect-mood (TAM) particle (Mosel and Hovdhaugen, 1992 : 374)10 , whereas in Vaeakau-Taumako they systematically precede it: (31) a. A koe ko=ko kai-na? pers sg sg=incp eat- tr ‘Have you eaten?’ b . Kholu=no fulo ki hea? du=ipfv run.pl to where ‘Where are you (du.) going?’ c. Lhatu=ko moe loa i mua na. pl=incp sleep emph lda place dem :2 ‘They slept in that place.’ The Vaeakau-Taumako subject clitics are not obligatory, but they are highly frequent. When they occur, they function as subject arguments of the verb, and may not cooccur within the clause with an independent subject pronoun or noun phrase, though a coreferent subject phrase may be left-dislocated out of the clause (Næss and Hovdhaugen 2011 : 320-322). In Äiwoo, the person and number of the subject is systematically marked by bound morphology on the verb. In the case of intransitive verbs, this marking takes the form of prefixes preceding the verb’s aspect-mood prefix: (32) a. I-ku-wä min.s-ipfv -go ‘I go’ b . Mi-ku-wä min.s-ipfv -go ‘You go’ c. Ji-ku-wä + min.s-ipfv -go ‘You and I go’ In Äiwoo, the prefixes are the only obligatory indication of subject; independent pronouns are only used in cases of contrast or emphasis: (33) Iumu täve=ta, mo iu i-ki-mele=ta. 2 min hang=just conj min min.s-ipfv -fly=just ‘You keep hanging, and I’ll just fly off.’

1 0 There is one exception to this pattern in Samoan, namely the formte of the general TAM particle, which only occurs when the clause has a preverbal pronoun (Mosel and Hovdhaugen, 1992 :364, 374).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 239

Table 1 Vaeakau-Taumako personal pronouns Independent pronouns SG DU PL 1. incliau thaua thatou 1. exclmhaua mhatou 2.koe khoulua khoutou 3.ia lhaua lhatou Clitic pronouns SG DU PL 1. inclu=, ku= tha(u)= that(u)= 1. exclmha(u)= mhat(u)= 2.ko= khol(u)= khot(u)= 3. Ølha(u)= lhat(u)=

It seems likely that the Vaeakau-Taumako subject clitics are modelled on the Äiwoo intransitive subject preﬁxes. The forms of the clitics are clearly reduced variants of the Vaeakau-Taumako independent pronouns, as shown in Table 1 , and so there has been no borrowing of form. Note, however, that there is no overt subject clitic for the 3 rd person singular. This parallels the situation in Äiwoo, where the preﬁx for a 3rd person minimal subject is zero. By contrast, the Samoan 3sg preverbal pronoun is ia or na , where the former is identical to the 3sg independent pronoun.

3.5 Language contact and bilingualism

It is impossible to reconstruct the historical language-contact situation in the Reef Islands with any certainty. That there has been considerable contact between speakers of the two languages for a long time is indisputable; presumably such contact dates back to the ﬁrst arrival of Vaeakau-Taumako speakers in the Reef Islands. As noted above, the role of the Vaeakau-Taumako community as shipbuilders and navigators brought them into regular contact not just with Äiwoo speakers, but with language communities throughout the area; though it seems reasonable to assume that their most frequent interactions would have been with their nearest neighbours. Intermarriage between the two communities is likely to have been common, and to some extent continues today; traditionally, Polynesian wives were sought after throughout the region. Today, there is little day-to-day contact between the two language communities. Vaeakau-Taumako speakers in the Reefs travel regularly to the trade store on Pigeon Island in the Äiwoo-speaking area, though this store is run by a man of British origin who communicates with customers in Solomon Islands

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 240 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

Pijin rather than Äiwoo. Vaeakau-Taumako speakers also regularly buy staple foods from the larger and more fertile Äiwoo-speaking islands. There appears to be little travel in the opposite direction; indeed, adult Äiwoo speakers have several times asked to be taken along on day-trips made by visiting linguists to the Vaeakau islands, for the simple reason that they have never been there and wish to see what these islands are like. This is so even though, as mentioned in 3.1 above, distances are small and several of the Vaeakau islands are little more than half an hour’s travel away in a boat with outboard engine. The spread of Solomon Islands Pijin as a lingua franca has largely replaced the extensive bi- or multilingualism which must have characterized the area in earlier times. Today, when asked whether they speak Äiwoo, Vaeakau-Taumako speakers in the Reef Islands say that they do not, claiming that the language is too difficult to understand. By contrast, Äiwoo speakers often claim knowledge of the Vaeakau-Taumako language. The picture is almost certainly more complicated in practice; it seems that many male Vaeakau-Taumako speakers do have at least some knowledge of Äiwoo and will use it if the situation demands it, though Vaeakau women apparently never learn Äiwoo unless they marry an Äiwoo speaker and move to his home village. Previous publications (Næss and Hovdhaugen, 2007 , 2010 ) suggested that the reluctance of Vaeakau speakers to admit to any knowledge of Äiwoo stems from their recent loss of social prestige and high economic status resulting from the collapse of the trade network; in effect, having lost the skills and practices which set them apart as a group, they have turned to their language as a sole means of asserting their distinct Polynesian identity, and bilingualism has become suspect as a result. It must be admitted, however, that this analysis was partly motivated by the need to assume a bilingualism which, it was thought, was the only way to explain the extensive structural borrowing from Äiwoo into Vaeakau-Taumako, and that we do not in fact have any reliable indication of how many Vaeakau speakers also speak Äiwoo, or of their level of proficiency in the language. Furthermore, what historical sources are available seem to contradict such an explanation. Ivens (1918 ) is a work mainly concerned with the language of Sa’a and Ulawa farther west in the Solomon Islands, but also commenting on the language situation in other parts of the Solomons, including the Santa Cruz archipelago. There, it is noted that “The peoples speaking Polynesian never learn the Melanesian tongues [i.e. Äiwoo and its relatives in Santa Cruz, Utupua and Vanikoro islands, ÅN], whereas those who speak Melanesian are nearly always bilingual”. This observation was made at a time when the trade network was still in operation, and therefore, if it is correct, the explanation of a recent turn away from bilingualism does not appear to be valid. As the rise

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 241 of Solomon Islands Pijin has to a large extent eradicated historical patterns of multilingualism, there is little in the present situation which would serve to support or disconfirm this claim. One minor point in favour might be the situation in Paiu village on Vanikoro, where half the population are Polynesian speakers from Vanikoro island, while the other half speak the Vanikoro language Teanu; here, it appears that Teanu speakers have at least a passive knowledge of Tikopian, whereas the reverse seems not to be the case (Alexandre François, p.c.). The fact that Vaeakau-Taumako loanwords in Äiwoo are overwhelmingly more frequent than Äiwoo loanwords in Vaeakau-Taumako further appears to point in the direction of Vaeakau-Taumako being spoken as a second language by Äiwoo first-language speakers. While lexical borrowing does not as such presuppose bilingualism, the sheer amount of Vaeakau-Taumako loanwords in Äiwoo, as well as the fact that a large proportion of these refer to items or phenomena which must have been well known to Äiwoo speakers before the arrival of the Polynesians (e.g. teuwâ ‘rain’, temotu ‘island’, tepeka ‘flying fox’, among many others) strongly suggests that the lexical borrowing is a result of some degree of bilingualism on the part of Äiwoo speakers. It is clear that the level of bilingualism required within a community to allow lexical borrowing to take place is relatively low compared to that required for other types of contact-induced change (Myers-Scotton, 2002 : 238), but the large amount of loanwords in Äiwoo for often very basic concepts cannot plausibly have come about through bilingualism of just a few individuals. It seems, then, as though it may be reasonable to take the claims at face value, and to assume that Vaeakau speakers have, and historically have had, only a limited command of the Äiwoo language, whereas Äiwoo speakers have a long-standing history of bilingualism in Vaeakau-Taumako. If this is the case, we are left with the question of how this may account for the observed linguistic facts.

4. Discussion

4.1 Explanations for structural borrowing

As mentioned in the introduction, structural borrowing is most frequently assumed to come about through bilingualism in the speakers of the recipient language, who adapt their ﬁrst or emblematic language structurally on the pattern of their second language, which serves as an intergroup language (Ross, 1996 , 2003 ). Such an explanation is explicitly contradicted by the data

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 242 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 presented above, where it appears to be the speakers of the source language that have been bilingual. A second explanation which has been advanced for structural borrowing is language shift. When a speech community abandons its original language in favour of another, they may learn the new language imperfectly, incorporating structural features of their original language into their variety of the recipient language (Matras, 2009 : 68ff). It should be noted that most cases of language shift presumably do not involve imperfect learning. Children growing up bilingual presumably acquire both languages to a native-like level and will therefore have full mastery of the target language when the source language is lost. Analyses based on imperfect learning therefore implicitly assume a stage of second-language acquisition by adult speakers, though it is of course conceivable that their imperfectly learned variety is acquired by children at a later stage.11 Treffers-Daller (1999 ) proposes a shift-based explanation for a situation which in many respects resembles those described above, namely that of contact between French and Dutch in Brussels, and between French and Alsatian in Strasbourg. In both these cities, there has been extensive lexical borrowing from French into the Germanic language, but little in the opposite direction; whereas the French spoken in both cities appear to have undergone structural influence from the Germanic languages, especially in the domain of word order. By contrast, there appears to have been little structural influence from French into the Germanic languages. Treffers-Daller explains this situation by reference to the higher prestige of French in both communities. This directly explains the direction of lexical borrowing, which, as noted above, is thought to generally take place in the direction from a more prestigious language to a less prestigious one. The structural influence in the opposite direction is explained indirectly, through language shift: speakers of Dutch and Alsatian have shifted to French, leading to shift-induced interference, which has subsequently spread into the French- speaking community in general. A shift-based explanation is also given by Thurston (1982) for the structural similarities between the Austronesian language Lusi and the non-Austronesian (“Papuan”) Anêm in New Britain east of mainland New Guinea, where he argues that imperfect learning of an intrusive Austronesian language by Anêm speakers was the source of present-day Lusi (Thurston 1982: 61). At the same time, modern-day Anêm has extensive lexical borrowings from Lusi, thus making this situation to some extent similar to what we have described above.

1 1 We thank Malcolm Ross for pointing out this distinction.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 243

However, there is no evidence that shift has taken place in the situations described in sections 2-3, or that shift can explain all the phenomena observed. While a considerable number of original Mon speakers certainly shifted to Burmese during the past few centuries, there is a substantial part of the population that must be assumed to be original speakers of Burmese. This is supported by archaic dialects further south (Tavoyan, Merguese), as well as by historical data. Migration to the resource-rich coastal area of the gulf of Marta- ban from other parts of Burma, including Rangoon, the Irrawaddy Delta and central Burma, has been going on for centuries, ensuring a steady influx of varieties of Burmese closer to the standard language. These varieties seem to have assimilated quickly to the local dialect of the region. There is no reason to assume that speakers of Äiwoo have shifted to Vaeakau- Taumako, beyond the individual instances of women marrying into Vaeakau communities and being expected to shift to the language of their new home. Whether such individual shifts would be enough to fundamentally change the structure of the language of the host community is doubtful, though it must be conceded that the Vaeakau-Taumako-speaking communities are very small, with between about 50 and 200 people on each island in the Reefs. There is, however, a third possibility which is sporadically mentioned in the literature, but which to the best of our knowledge has not been addressed in a broader theoretical context. This is a situation where there is a considerable numerical imbalance between two (or more) language communities in contact, and where it is the larger community that is bilingual – or, to put it another way, the smaller language is the intergroup language. In such situations, the variety of the intergroup language spoken as an L2 may over time become the norm even for the L1 speakers, simply because the L2 variety is more frequently heard and used. Thomason ( 2001 : 78-79) describes such a situation in a context of shift, suggesting that “If the shifting group is large relative to the population of recipient-language speakers – either of the recipient language as a whole or of a subcommunity that is forming a single new speech community with the shifting speakers, isolated from the larger TL speech community – then the chances are good that at least some of the shifters’ interference features will become fixed in the recipient language. This is what happened with Irish Gaelic features in what is now called Irish English: the shifters’ variety of English was able to influence the English of Ireland as a whole because the shifters were numerous relative to the original native speakers of English in Ireland.” However, shift does not appear to be a prerequisite for an L2 variety to spread to L1 speakers. Slater ( 2003 : 8), discussing the Chinese language of China’s Gansu province, states that “it is likely that the non-native speakers of

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 244 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

Chinese outnumbered the native speakers during much of this earlier period, since the Sinitic-speaking communities tended to be small, isolated settlements in river valleys, which certainly required significant economic interac- tion with their immediate neighbors. Since the Han had access to trade routes leading into the region, other local inhabitants would have had significant motivation to learn enough Chinese to carry out economic negotiations with them. As a result, the grammar of the non-native speakers’ first languages gradually became the regional standard, even for Sinitic language varieties.” In other words, it appears to be possible for a distinct L2 variety of a language, influenced by structural features of the L2 speakers’ first language, to become adopted by L1 speakers if the L2 speakers significantly outnumber the L1 speakers within an area. This is the case for both the regions we have presented. In Burma, Burmese is the lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication. As the sole language of administration, official commerce and education, Burmese is learned by children when they enter school as well as by adults. As formal education is not available to all children and the use of Burmese is in many areas restricted to a specific set of communicative environ- ments, Burmese is not fully acquired by many L2 speakers. At least in some areas in southern Burma, L2 speakers speaking Mon-influenced versions of Burmese outnumber L1 speakers. They may also be the prestige group in some social sectors. We suggest that it is this numerical superiority, together with (however local) social prestige, that has led to the observed spread of Mon influenced features into the speech of monolingual L1 speakers of Burmese and to the creation of a markedly distinct dialect in southern Burma. Similarly, in the Reef Islands the numerically much smaller Vaeakau- Taumako language served as the intergroup language, probably on the basis of the social prestige held by the Vaeakau-Taumako L1 speakers as a consequence of their status as shipbuilders, traders and navigators. Given that it would have been used by Äiwoo speakers mainly in the context of trading, it is reasonable to assume that, at least in the first few generations of contact, the Äiwoo speakers learning Vaeakau-Taumako would have been adults, a context con- ducive to imperfect learning. Exactly how this Äiwoo-influenced variety would later have spread back into the monolingual Vaeakau-Taumako community is of course difficult to establish. However, given that the tiny Vaeakau-Taumako community would have been entirely dependent on the trade with their larger neighbours for survival12 , one hypothesis is that they would have accommodated

1 2 Though the trade voyages have long since ceased, this pattern of dependency still exists in the Reef Islands communities, where the Vaeakau islands depend on food imports from the Main Reefs to supplement their own meagre resources.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 245 their speech to their customers’ variety. Today, Äiwoo speakers outnumber Vaeakau-Taumako speakers to the order of around ten to one in the Reef Islands, and historical population patterns must be assumed to have been comparable; in other words, the L2 speakers of Vaeakau-Taumako greatly outnumbered the L1 speakers, and their variety seems to have come to pre- dominate in the islands as a whole.

4.2 Structural predictions

On the account we are developing, the structural borrowings from Mon into southern Burmese and from Äiwoo into Vaeakau-Taumako are the result of imperfect learning of the recipient language as an L2 by speakers of the (local) majority language, with the L2 variety subsequently spreading to the L1 speakers. It is worth asking which kinds of structural change one would expect under an imperfect-learning scenario, and whether this fits the situation in southern Burma and the Reefs. Matras ( 2009 ) describes the types of changes which may be expected under conditions of imperfect learning. He notes, firstly, that “limited opportunity or motivation to immerse fully in the second language may result in consistent replication of patterns from the native language while using correct word- forms of the target language” (p. 237), and, secondly, that “we might expect the pressure to converge the inventory of constructions in the repertoire to begin with those that organise complex propositions” (p. 244). With “pressure to converge the inventory of constructions in the repertoire” is understood the need for a bilingual speaker to be able to choose freely from the repertoire made available to him by both (or all) his languages; that is, there will be a pressure towards using the same kinds of constructions in both (or all) languages, and this is likely to start with high-level structures of sentence and discourse organization. We see this in Treffers-Daller’s (1999) study, where word-order patterns, in particular the fronting of constituents, are the core domain of structural borrowing from Germanic to French. It also accounts well for our own data: in Burmese it is easily analyzable sentence structures, such as the placement of negation, and replication of transparent grammaticalization as in the case of secondary verbs. Furthermore, the Mon-like structures found in (dialectal) Burmese, apart from the preverbal permissive-causative, are not foreign to Burmese. They are cases of reinforcement of minor to major use patterns, or, as in the case of some secondary verbs, the extension of use to uncommon elements in common construction types. The system of the language as such remains unchanged. In Vaeakau-Taumako, the main structures adopted from Äiwoo are larger-scale patterns of syntactic and discourse

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 246 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 organization, such as tail-head linkage and the serialization of verbs. As noted above, though grammatically Äiwoo nuclear-layer SVCs form single words, they do not do so phonologically, and are not perceived by speakers as single words; thus such serializations are largely a matter of the structuring of the representations of events rather than of verb-internal morphological organization. The observed patterns in our data, then, conform well to Matras’ suggestion of the kinds of eﬀect one would expect to ﬁnd as a result of “consistent replication of patterns from the native language” into the recipient language.

4.3 Structural borrowing and lexical borrowing

The two cases we have described above have another thing in common, namely the fact that lexical borrowing and structural borrowing seem to have gone in opposite directions. This is an odd situation in light of most generally accepted assumptions about the relationship between lexical and structural borrowing; Thomason ( 2001 : 96), for example, states that “we expect to ﬁnd lexicon borrowed without structure, but not vice versa”. It is of course not necessarily the case that the patterns of lexical vs. structural borrowing we have described can both be brought back to a single set of socio- linguistic conditions. We would argue, however, that the scenario we have described above, where the L2 variety of a numerically superior community spreads into the monolingual L1 community, does provide a set of conditions which may simultaneously explain both patterns. Both types of change – lexical borrowing from language A to language B, and structural borrowing from B to A – originate in the same bilingual community. On the one hand, they borrow lexical items into their L1 from their L2; on the other, they change certain structures of their L2 on the model of their L1, a type of imperfect learning. Both of these processes are well known and well understood. The unusual situation arises when, because of the numerical imbalance between the two language communities, the variety of the intergroup language spoken as an L2 by the majority group spreads to the monolingual native speakers of the recipient language. This creates the apparent double anomaly of a largely monolingual community acquiring structural features from a neighbouring language, and of lexical and structural borrowing going in opposite directions between the two languages. In reality, however, both these properties fall out from processes that are well attested and well understood, as long as we accept the premise that the L2 speakers’ variety of an intergroup language may, under certain speciﬁc circumstances, spread to the L1 speakers.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 247

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have attempted to refine the prevailing understanding of the ways in which structural borrowing, in the broad sense of the reorganization of grammatical structure in one language on the model of another, may come about. We have shown that it may be possible for structural borrowing to result from substrate influence in L2 speakers; that is, a language used as an intergroup language takes on structural properties of the L1 of those speakers that speak the intergroup language as an L2, and these structural changes subsequently spread into the speech of monolingual speakers whose L1 is the intergroup language. The condition we have posited for such change to take place is numerical imbalance; when the L2 speakers significantly outnumber the L1 speakers, the variety of the former may eventually become the norm. While it may be unusual for the smaller language in such a situation to be the intergroup language, it is by no means unheard of; it may, for example, happen when the smaller language is perceived as more prestigious, as seems historically to have been the case with Vaeakau-Taumako in the Reef Islands, or with English in Ireland. Furthermore, we have argued that such circumstances influence the relationship between lexical and structural borrowing in a contact situation. Because the bilingual speakers borrow lexical items from their L2, while at the same time incorporating structural features from their L1 into their version of the L2, the result, after the L2 variety has diffused to the original L1 speakers, is that lexical and grammatical borrowing appear to have taken place in opposite directions. The processes that lead to this situation, however, are no different from those known from better-attested cases of lexical and structural borrowing, and they take place within a single bilingual language community; the only difference is that the bilingual community is the one for which the intergroup language is the L2.

Abbreviations

A transitive subject, ATTR attributive, AUG augmented number, CAUS causative, CL classiﬁer, COLL collective, CONJ conjunction, CONTR con- trastive, DEIC deictic particle, DES desiderative, DEM demonstrative, DIR directional, DIST distal, DU dual, EMPH emphatic particle, FUT future, HORT hortative, INCP inceptive, IPFV imperfective, IRR irrealis, LDA locative-directional-ablative, MED medial MIN minimal number, NEG negation, NFUT nonfuture, NMLZ nominalizing preﬁx, O transitive object,

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access 248 Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249

OBL oblique, PERS personal marker, PH phasal aspect, PL plural, POSS possessive, PP predicative possessive particle, PROG progressive, PROH prohibitive, RED reduplication, S intransitive subject, SG singular, SP speciﬁc, TOP topicalizer, TR transitive.

References

Blust , Robert . 2008 . Remote Melanesia: One history or two? An addendum to Donohue and Denham. Oceanic Linguistics 47 : 2 , 445 - 459 . Bradley , David . 1996 . South-East Asia (Continental) . In S. A. Wurm , P. Mühlhäusler and D. T. Tryon (eds.) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter , 745 - 786 (+ maps). Crowley , Terry . 2002 . Serial Verbs in Oceanic: A Descriptive Typology . Oxford : Oxford University Press. Davenport , William . 1968 . Social organization notes on the Northern Santa Cruz Islands: The Duff Islands (Taumako) . Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge, Band XVI . 137 - 205 . de Vries , Lourens . 2006 . Areal pragmatics of New Guinea: Thematization, distribution and recapitulative linkage in Papuan narratives . Journal of Pragmatics 38 : 6 , 811 - 828 . Dougherty, Janet . W.D. 1983 . West Futuna-Aniwa: An Introduction to a Polynesian Outlier Language . Berkeley : University of California Press . Enfield , Nick . 2009 . ‘Case relations’ in Lao, a radically isolating language . In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Case , 808 - 819 . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Foley , William A . 1997 . Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction . Oxford : Blackwell . Giridhar , P. P. 1980 . Angami Grammar . Mysore : Central Institute of Indian Languages . Heine , Bernd and Tania Kuteva . 2005 . Language Contact and Grammatical Change . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Heine , Bernd and Tania Kuteva . 2010 . Contact and grammaticalization . In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) The Handbook of Language Contact , 86 - 105 . Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell . Ivens , Walter G . 1918 . Dictionary and Grammar of the Language of Sa’a and Ulawa, Solomon Islands . Washington : Carnegie Institution . Jenny , Mathias . 2005 . The Verb System of Mon . Zurich : ASAS . Jenny , Mathias . 2006 . Mon ra’ and nong : assertive particles? Mon-Khmer Studies 36 : 21 - 38 . Jenny , Mathias . 2009 . Modality in Burmese: ‘may’ or ‘must’ - grammatical uses of yá ‘get’ . JSEALS 1 : 111 - 126 . Jenny, M. (forthc.) Burmese in Mon syntax – external influence and internal development. In P. Sidwell (ed.) Austroasiatic Studies: papers from the 4th ICAAL meeting, vol. 2. MKS special edition. Kirch , Patrick Vinton . 2002 . On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact . Berkeley/Los Angeles : University of California Press . LaPolla , Randy . 2001 . The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family . In A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance , 225 - 254 . Oxford : Oxford University Press Matras , Yaron . 2009 . Language Contact . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Mosel , Ulrike . 2004 . Complex predicates and juxtapositional constructions in Samoan . In Isabelle Bril and Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (eds.), Complex Predicates in Oceanic Languages: Studies in the Dynamics of Binding and Boundness , 263 - 296 . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter . Mosel , Ulrike and Even Hovdhaugen . 1992 . Samoan Reference Grammar . Oslo : Scandinavian University Press .

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access Å. Næss and M. Jenny / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 217–249 249

Moyse-Faurie , Claire . 1997 . Grammaire du futunien . Nouméa : CDP Nouvelle-Calédonie . Myers-Scotton , Carol . 2002 . Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Næss , Åshild and Even Hovdhaugen . 2007 . The history of Polynesian settlement in the Reef and Duff Islands: The linguistic evidence .Journal of the Polynesian Society 116 : 433 - 449 . Næss , Åshild and Even Hovdhaugen . 2010 . Language contact in the Reef Islands: keeping one’s distance at close quarters . In Paul Wallin and Helene Martinsson-Wallin (eds.): The Gotland Papers. Selected presentations from the VII International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific : Migration, Identity, and Cultural Heritage . Visby : Gotland University Press/The Easter Island Foundation . Næss , Åshild and Even Hovdhaugen . 2011 . A Grammar of Vaeakau-Taumako . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter . Okell , John and Anna Allott . 2005 . Burmese/Myanmar Dictionary of Grammatical Forms . London : Curzon . Paia , Mirose and Jacques Vernaudon . 2004 . Complex predicates in Tahitian: A particular case of qualitative modification . In Isabelle Bril and Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (eds.), Complex Predicates in Oceanic Languages: Studies in the Dynamics of Binding and Boundness , 251 - 262 . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter . Ross , Malcolm . 1996 . Contact induced change and the comparative method: Cases from Papua New Guinea . In Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change , 180 - 217 . New York : Oxford University Press . Ross , Malcolm . 2003 . Diagnosing contact-induced change . In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change , 174 - 198 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Ross , Malcolm and Åshild Næss . 2007 . An Oceanic origin for Äiwoo, the language of the Reef Islands? Oceanic Linguistics 46 , 456 - 498 . Slater , Keith W . 2003 . A Grammar of Mangghuer . London/New York : Routledge Curzon . Spriggs , Matthew . 1997 . The Island Melanesians . Oxford : Blackwell . Thomason , Sarah Grey. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction . Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press . Thomason , Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman . 1988Language . Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics . Berkeley : University of California Press . Treffers-Daller , Jeanine . 1999 . Borrowing and shift-induced interference: Contrasting patterns in French-Germanic contact in Brussels and Strasbourg . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2 (1) : 1 - 22 . Van Coetsem Frans . 1988 . Loan Phonology and the Two Types of Transfer in Language Contact . Dordrecht : Foris . Defen , Yu . 2007 . Aspects of Lisu phonology and grammar . Canberra : Pacific Linguistics .

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:05:41PM via free access