Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.690–716

In search of the origin of na in Mavea

| James Cook University
Reflexes of the Proto-Oceanic common noun marker *na are found throughout the Oceanic language family. In Mavea, there is a morpheme na but it no longer partakes in the determiner system and is best analyzed synchronically as a preposition. This paper argues that today’s preposition is a reflex of the Proto-Oceanic common noun marker *na. Locative constructions are shown to provide a critical context conducive to the reanalysis of *na. Reanalysis has long been established as a mechanism of syntactic change, yet the factors motivating it remain a matter for debate. The dominant view is that reanalysis is driven by pragmatic factors. A rarely voiced view is that it is driven by structural requirements. The data adduced in this paper lend support to a model of syntactic change which can be structure-preserving in nature.
Keywords: Mavea, article, reanalysis, repair strategy, Oceanic, semantic roles, locative, structure-preserving syntactic change
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.02gue
References (54)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2005. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2006. A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal. In Stephen Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space, 230–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 231. 113–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Ross. 2009. *Leo tuai: A comparative lexical study of North and Central Vanuatu languages (Pacific Linguistics 603). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1985. Common noun phrase marking in Proto-Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics 34(1/2). 135–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2011. Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 130–141. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2007. Noun articles in Torres and Banks languages: Conservation and innovation. In Jeff Siegel, John Lynch & Diana Eades (eds.), Language description, history and development: Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley, 313–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gensler, Orin. 2002. Why should a demonstrative turn into a preposition? The evolution of Welsh predicative yn . Language 78(4). 710–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1978/1990. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Keith Denning & Susan Kemmer (eds.), On language. Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, 241–270. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Guérin, Valérie. 2007. Definiteness and specificity in Mavea. Oceanic Linguistics 46(2). 538–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. A grammar of Mavea, an Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Honolulu: Hawai’i University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22(2). 315–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1997. Lost wax: Abrupt replacement of key morphemes in Australian agreement complexes. Diachronica 14(2). 197–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Hermit crabs: Formal renewal of morphology by phonologically mediated affix substitution. Language 74(4). 728–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2009. Grammaticalization of case. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 458–469. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2011. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Catriona. 2001. The Lolovoli dialect of the North-East Ambae language, Vanuatu (Pacific Linguistics 515). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Jauncey, Dorothy. 2002. Tamabo. In John Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley (eds.), The Oceanic languages, 608–625. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
. 2011. A grammar of Tamambo, the language of Western Malo, Vanuatu (Pacific Linguistics 622). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
König, Christa. 2011. The grammaticalization of adpositions and case marking. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 511–521. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 2002. ‘Preposition’ as functor: The case of long in Bislama. In Susanne Feigenbaum & Dennis Kurzon (eds.), Prepositions in their syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic context, 231–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32(2). 152–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67(3). 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2001. Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(1). 35–51.Google Scholar
Lynch, John, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley (eds.). 2002. The Oceanic languages. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Heiko Narrog. 2009. Case polysemy. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 518–534. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Naito, Maho. 2004a. Tutuba texts: ‘A bush sprite and a good man’, and ‘Two bush sprites and two little boys’. Dynamis: ことばと文化 81. 127–148.Google Scholar
. 2004b. ツツバ語の名詞句・名詞句表現に関する考察. Dynamis: ことばと文化 81. 195–200.Google Scholar
. 2006. ツツバ語の指示代名詞. Dynamis: ことばと文化 101. 1–26.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2010. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 233–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pederson, Eric. 2006. Spatial language in Tamil. In Stephen Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space, 400–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2011. Grammaticalization and language variation. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 209–224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 1996. Prepositions and minimalist case-marking. In Höskulður Thráinsson, Samuel D. Epstein & Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, Vol. 21, 226–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia (Pacific Linguistics C-98). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2003. Talking about space: Terms of location and direction. In Malcolm Ross, Andrew Pawley & Meredith Osmond (eds.), The lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The culture and environment of ancestral Oceanic society. The physical environment, Vol. 21, 229–294. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2004a. Demonstratives, local nouns and directionals in Oceanic languages: A diachronic perspective. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic languages, 175–204 (Pacific Linguistics 562). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2004b. The grammaticization of directional verbs in Oceanic languages. In Isabelle Bril & Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (eds.), Complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Studies in the dynamics of binding and boundness, 297–330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004c. The morphosyntactic typology of Oceanic languages. Language and Linguistics 5(2). 491–541.Google Scholar
. 2007. Two kinds of locative construction in Oceanic languages: A robust distinction. In Jeff Siegel, John Lynch & Diana Eades (eds.), Language description, history and development: Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley, 281–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiter, William. 1980. Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 2006. Prolegomena to a Kilivila grammar of space. In Stephen Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space, 206–229. Cambridge: Cambridge Press University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1994. A grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2011. Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 19–30. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In Merja Kytö (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, 221–255. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tryon, Darrell. 1976. New Hebrides languages: An internal classification (Pacific Linguistics C–50). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Wang, William. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45(1). 9–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar