Static Spatial Expression in Ske: an Oceanic Language Ofvanuatu
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Johnson, Kay (2014) Static spatial expression in Ske: an Oceanic language ofVanuatu. PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/18443 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. Static spatial expression in Ske: An Oceanic language of Vanuatu Kay Johnson Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Field Linguistics 2014 Department of Linguistics School of Oriental and African Studies University of London ii Abstract The focus of the thesis is the expression of static spatial events in Ske, a previously undescribed Oceanic language spoken by a few hundred people on Pentecost Island, Vanuatu. Static spatial events can be split in to two types: non-angular reference, used to express topological relations such as ‘in’, ‘on’ or ‘near’; and angular reference, which see the speakers using a viewpoint with which to locate an entity. The second type involves the use of one of a range of FoRs or Frames of Reference (Levinson 1996, 2003; Levinson & Wilkins 2006). This study investigates how Ske speakers express both types of static spatial event. Locative predicates are obligatory components of non-angular reference in Ske. In this study, we analyse the seven Ske locative predicates within the frameworks proposed by Ameka & Levinson (2007) and Newman (2002). Cross-linguistic studies show that the semantics of locative predicates are typically analysed as coding the axial properties or actual geometric orientation of the Figure whose location they are describing; in Ske, however, locative predicates code support relations between Figure and Ground. Traditionally deixis has been omitted from FoR typology and was categorised as being a type of non-angular reference (Levinson & Wilkins 2006). This study finds that deictic reference has projective functions and this warrants its inclusion into the typology as a fourth FoR, the direct FoR, in support of Danziger (2010). Furthermore, the direct and other FoRs are able to combine in Ske in what we term ‘composite FoRs’. When two FoRs combine, the function of the already well-formed expression may alter from one which locates an entity to one which orients an entity. Also, the rotation sensitivity of a composite FoR is in line with the sensitivities of its components. The study concludes that is it the composite FoRs, rather than the absolute FoR, which carries out the functions of the unavailable relative FoR in Ske. We also investigate the geocentric referencing system in Ske and analyse how Ske speakers describe directions and locations around their villages, their island and beyond. We find that the finer-grained FoR typology (Bohnemeyer & Levinson 2011) is relevant here and applied to Ske iii data was able to tease apart two types of reference which are typically classed as absolute FoRs. Within this revised typology Ske speakers are found to use an absolute FoR and a geomorphic FoR in locational and directional expressions, the geomorphic FoR having pragmatic functions and necessitating a shared knowledge of space. Different scales of space are also shown to impact the way Ske speakers express geocentric spatial references. Other issues raised in the study include the need for naturally observed data to be collected in order to capture the range and subtleties of how speakers talk about space and how cultural change is affecting the way Ske speakers express and conceptualise the space around them and the entities that occupy it. iv Acknowledgements Embarking on a Field Linguistics PhD was relatively easy, but it was in the process of carrying it out and its completion that I gradually came to realise what an enormous task it was. There are many people without whose help this work would have been left to mould on a shelf and linger in files on my computer. First of all many thanks to ELDP for approving the project and for supplying the grant to carry out the main part of the research. I also greatly appreciate the Leatherseller’s Guild who provided invaluable funds in the final year of writing-up. My two supervisors, Peter Austin and Irina Nikoleva, guided and assisted me with advice and ideas, made crucial comments on the thesis and encouraged me as the viva approached. There are many friends and colleagues at SOAS to thank too, for comments, corrections, encouragement, the loan of solar-power and other equipment, and of, course, for coffee: in particular Oliver Bond, Louise Ashmore, Sophie Rendina, Rados Voica and Mike Franjieh. Thanks to Tom and Bernard for their invaluable advice about recording equipment. Outside of SOAS, I would mainly like to thank my mum, whose support went beyond the call of duty; from childcare, to accommodation as well as financial. The completion of the thesis in the last year is mainly thanks to her. Thanks too to Lee-Anne for looking after young Gil at a crucial time and Jen, Phoebe, Emily and my Sellack neighbours at the farm for hot-seating as babysitters too. Thanks to all my friends and family who went through it with me: Ben, Rob, Tat, Rich, Chad, Sian, Amy and many others in Brighton for distraction and keeping up of spirits. ‘Life is what happens when you’re making other plans’ and indeed Oli, Gil and Nathaniel came along whilst my other plans were being made. Thanks to Oli for help in the final stages and Gil in particular for hindering me so much! Of course without my Ske-speaking family and friends the thesis would have stalled from the outset. I was welcomed into the village and taken care of. I was lucky to have such a range of v skilled and enthusiastic people to help out. Thanks to Elder Cain, Pastor Timoti, Chief Willy, Jack, Martha, Minnie and Samuel, David and Ron, Naomi, Ernie and many, many others. Andrew Gray was incredibly helpful too both in making introductions between myself and the chief and with his insightful work on Ske and the surrounding languages. Finally I would like to remember Lessian Tabi, my mum on Pentecost Island, who taught me how to prepare tiny crabs as bait and took me canoeing to fish for our dinner, showed me where to wash in the river, how to break and grate coconuts, how to cook using an earth oven, was my chief teacher of Bislama and an excellent instructor and commentator on Ske too, having learned it herself and being deemed the best non-native speaker of Ske by the chief. Without her and my adoptive family there: Jonas, Sanita, Tedi, JC and Rodrik, my stay in Pentecost would have been much harder and much less fun too. Lessian passed away in March 2013. vi CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction: the Language, the Speakers, the Study and Space PART I 1.1 Language Profile ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Genetic Affiliation .......................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Sub-grouping of Northern, Central and Southern Vanuatu Languages ........ 5 1.2.2 Pentecost Languages in the Nuclear Southern Oceanic Group .................... 8 1.3 Sociolinguistic Profile ..................................................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Local Context ................................................................................................ 9 1.3.2 National Context ........................................................................................... 11 1.3.3 Socio-historical Context ................................................................................13 1.3.4 Language and Education in Policy and Practice ........................................... 14 1.4 Previous Descriptions and Areal Research .................................................................... 16 PART II 1.5 Fieldwork ...................................................................................................................... 17 PART III 1.6 Research Focus: The Study of Space ............................................................................. 27 1.6.1 Approaches to Studying Space: Variations, Universals and Rethinking Relativity ........................................ 28 1.6.2 Frameworks for Analysis .............................................................................. 32 1.6.2.1 Topology and Frames of Reference .................................................. 32 1.6.2.2 Deixis ............................................................................................... 37 1.6.3 Tools for Analysis ......................................................................................... 38 1.7 Research Aims ............................................................................................................... 40 1.7.1 Key Findings ................................................................................................. 41 1.8 Methodology .................................................................................................................