Cover not available
Article published In:
Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages
Edited by Eva van Lier
[Studies in Language 41:2] 2017
► pp. 521–542

Describing lexical flexibility in Caac (New Caledonia)

| University of Manchester
Like other New Caledonian languages (see Ozanne-Rivierre 1998: 33–34 for Nyelâyu; see Bril 2002: 89–95, 2009, this volume for Nêlêmwa; see also Moyse-Faurie 2004: 15–61), Caac displays little categorial flexibility and, based on formal grounds, one can clearly identify two main syntactic categories: nouns and verbs, in addition to other small classes such as adverbs, adjectives or prepositions. Nouns, however, have the ability to be polyfunctional, and can function as the head of referential expressions as well as the head of predicative expressions in equative constructions, and in a certain type of presentative and spatial constructions, without undergoing any morphological change. By contrast, verbs require deverbal derivation in order to function as the head of referential expressions, a process mainly used for word creation purposes. There is in addition a small number of lexical bases which can function as the head of predicative and referential expressions indifferently. An analysis of the syntactic context in which they occur enables us to interpret them in a particular utterance. Similar lexemes in neighbouring languages have been analysed as flexible lexemes (Bril 2009: 2; in press). In this paper, I would like to explore the extent to which those lexemes can be differentiated from nouns (notably indirectly possessed free nouns) and verbs in Caac, depending on whether one puts the emphasis on formal or semantic criteria.
Keywords: parts of speech, lexical flexibility, Caac, New Caledonian/Kanak languages, Oceanic languages
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Caac language
    • 1.2Issue and overview
    • 1.3Terminology and speakers’ perception of word classes
  • 2.Distinguishing nouns and verbs in Caac
  • 3.Functional flexibility in Caac
    • 3.1Nominalization of verbs
    • 3.2Lack of verbalization of nouns
  • 4.Categorial flexibility and heterosymy in Caac
    • 4.1 Pela
    • 4.2 Formally identical lexemes: huu, ot, kola, pilu and mweju
    • 4.3 Huu, ot, kola, pilu and mweju as flexible lexemes
    • 4.4 Huu, ot, kola, pilu and mweju as indirectly possessed nouns
    • 4.5Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.2.09cau
References (27)
References
Bril, Isabelle. 2002. Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie): analyse syntaxique et sémantique. Paris: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2009. Categories and fluid categoriality in Nêlêmwa (Oceanic, New Caledonia). Conference paper for the ALT-8, Workshop on Polycategoriality, 22nd–26th of July 2009. Berkeley: University of California.
. In press. Lexical and syntactic categories in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia) and some other Austronesian languages: fluid vs. rigid categoriality. In V. Vapnarsky (ed.), Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, cross-theoretical and language acquisition approaches. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logo
Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 11. 123–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cauchard, Aurélie. Accepted. Spatial expression in Caac: An Oceanic language spoken in the north of New Caledonia (Pacific Linguistics Series, volume 6501). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Toshiki Osada. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 91. 251–390.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages (paper presented at the 3rd LFG Conference, Brisbane 30 juin-3 juillet 1998).
François, Alexandre. 2003. La sémantique du prédicat en mwotlap (Vanuatu). Leuven-Paris, Peeters, Coll. Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, n°84.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1994. The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17(2). 179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1971. New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands. Current Trends in Linguistics 81. 359–96.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication. Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Jan Rijkhoff. 2005. Mundari as a flexible language. Linguistic Typology 9(3). 406–431.Google Scholar
Hollyman, Jim. 1962. Première Esquisse Phonologique Du Caaqac. Te Reo 51. 41–51.Google Scholar
. 1999a. Études sur les langues du Nord de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Paris: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1999b. Dictionnaire Caaàc-Français. Unpublished manuscript. Paris: LaCiTO-CNRS Archives.Google Scholar
de La Fontinelle, Jacqueline. 1976. La langue de Houailou (Nouvelle-Calédonie): Description phonologique et description syntaxique. Paris: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A grammar of Manam (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 18). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva & Jan Rijkhoff. 2013. Flexible word classes in linguistic typology and grammatical theory. In Eva van Lier & Jan Rijkhoff (eds.), Flexible word classes: a typological study of underspecified parts-of-speech, 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2004. Recherches En Linguistique Océanienne. Habilitation à diriger des recherches. Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IV.Google Scholar
. 2005. Problèmes de catégorisation syntaxique dans les langues polynésiennes. In Gilbert Lazard & Claire Moyse-Faurie (eds.), Linguistique typologique, 161–92. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires Septentrion.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire & Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre. 1983. Subject case markers and word order in New Caledonia and Loyalty Islands languages. In Arnran Halim, Lois Carrington, & Stephen A. Wurm (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 41: 113–52. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise. 1998. Le Nyelâyu de Balade (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2005. There’s a grain of truth in every ‘myth’, or, why the discussion of lexical classes in Mundari isn’t quite over yet. Linguistic Typology 9(3). 391–441.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

van Lier, Eva
2016. Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages. Linguistic Typology 20:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.