Cover not available
Part of
Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, cross-theoretical and language acquisition approaches
Edited by Valentina Vapnarsky and Edy Veneziano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 182] 2017
► pp. 207–242

Lexical and syntactic categories in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia) and some other Austronesian languages

Fluid vs. rigid categoriality

 | LACITO-CNRS, & EPHE
In contrast with various Austronesian languages (especially Formosan, Philippine, Polynesian) for which lexical roots are claimed to be functionally unspecified or precategorial, lexical bases in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia) evidence a clear noun/verb opposition, identifiable by distinctive morphosyntactic features, except for some 5% fluid bases which can be nouns or verbs without any derivation. Beyond their prototypical functions, nouns, verbs and their subcategories display some functional flexibility in Nêlêmwa; it thus stands midway between flexible and rigid languages. Yet categorial flexibility is asymmetrical, nouns are the most flexible and may be recategorised in relation to their propositional operation and syntactic function, giving rise to hybrid lexico-syntactic words. Nêlêmwa data will be compared and put into perspective with data from other Austronesian languages.
Keywords: conversion, derivation, fluid bases, omnipredicativity, polycategoriality, categorial fluidity, lexico-syntactic categories
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An overview of lexical categories and their features in Nêlêmwa
    • 2.1Defining Nêlêmwa nouns and verbs
    • 2.2Lexical bases with distinctive morphological categorial features
    • 2.3Lexical bases without distinctive morphological features: Distributional criteria
    • 2.4Fluid bases
    • 2.5Summary of distributional and syntactic criteria
  • 3.Derivational processes: Asymmetric derivation in Nêlêmwa
    • 3.1Deverbal derivational prefixes
    • 3.2Deverbal nouns with – wo
    • 3.3Compounds with the causative light verb thu ‘do’
  • 4.Omnipredicativity in equative or ascriptive clauses
  • 5.Asymmetrical polyfunctionality of lexical bases and lexico-syntactic categories
    • 5.1Categorial fluidity of verbs in Nêlêmwa
    • 5.2Predicative relational nouns in Nêlêmwa
      • 5.2.1Semantics
      • 5.2.2Syntax
      • 5.2.3Predicative relational nouns expressing quantification, modality and degree
  • 6.Further ‘mismatches’ between lexical categories and lexico-syntactic categories
    • 6.1‘Adjectival’ property nouns
    • 6.2Adpositional nouns
  • 7.Other Austronesian languages: Some comparative insights
    • 7.1Formosan- and Philippine-type languages
      • 7.1.1The case of Seediq
      • 7.1.2Philippine languages: The case of Tagalog
    • 7.2Polynesian languages: The case of Tuvaluan
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.182.08bri
References (36)
References
Besnier, N. 2000. Tuvaluan. A Polynesian Language of the Central Pacific. London: Rouledge.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. 2008. Precategoriality and syntax-based parts of speech. Studies in Language 32(3): 568–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bril, I. 1995. Analyse linguistique de la structure de l'énoncé dans la langue nêlêmwa, Nouvelle-Calédonie. PhD dissertation, University Paris 7, Denis Diderot.Google Scholar
. 1997. Split ergativity in Nêlêmwa. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, C. Odé & W. Stokhof (eds), 377–393. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2000. Dictionnaire nêlêmwa-nixumwak-français-anglais [Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique n 14]. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2001. Postmodification and the structure of relative clauses in Nêlêmwa and other New Caledonian languages. In SICOL. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 2: Historical and Descriptive Studies [Pacific Linguistics 505], B. Palmer & P. Geraghty (eds), 261–284. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2002. Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie): Analyse syntaxique et sémantique [Collection Langues et Cultures du Pacifique n 16]. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2004a. Complex nuclei in Oceanic languages: Contribution to an areal typology. In Complex Predicates in Oceanic Languages: Studies in the Dynamics of Binding and Boundness, I. Bril & F. Ozanne-Rivierre (eds), 1–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. Deixis in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia). In Deixis and Demonstratives in Oceanic Languages [Pacific Linguistics 562], Gunter Senft (ed.), 99–127. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2007. Nexus and juncture types of complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Functions and semantics. Language and linguistics 8(1): 267–310.Google Scholar
. 2012. Ownership, part-whole and other possessive-associative relations in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia). In Possession and Ownership, R. M. W. Dixon & A.Y. Aikhenvald (eds). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broschart, J. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1: 123–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, P.M. Vogel & B. Comrie (eds.), 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Word classes, parts of speech and syntactic argumentation. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 431–441.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Osada, T. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 353–390.Google Scholar
Foley, W.A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the workshop Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian of the LFG-98 Conference , Brisbane.
Gil, D. 1993. Tagalog semantics. Berkeley Linguistic Society 19: 390–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. 2005. Tagalog. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, A. Adelaar & N. Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2007. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, P. Austin & S. Musgrave (eds), 247–293. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kroeger, P. 1998. Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: A reply to Foley. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG-98 Conference , Brisbane.
Launey, M. 1994. Une grammaire omniprédicative. Essai sur la syntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. 1999. La question de la distinction entre nom et verbe en perspective typologique. Folia linguistica 33(3–4): 389–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Y a-t-il des catégories interlangagières? In Etudes de Liguistique Générale. Typologie grammaticale [Collection Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, LXXXII], 57–64. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 2008. Roots, stems and word classes. Studies in Language 32(3): 546–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemaréchal, A. 1989. Les parties du discours. Sémantique et syntaxe. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Mosel, U. & Hovdhaugen, E. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, C. 2005. Problèmes de catégorisation syntaxique dans les langues polynésiennes. In Linguistique typologique, G. Lazard & C. Moyse-Faurie (eds), 161–192. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Naylor, P.B. 1995. Subject, topic, and Tagalog syntax. In Subject, Voice and Ergativity, D. Benett, T. Bynon & G.B. Hewitt (eds), 161–201. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Ozanne-Rivierre, F. 1976. Le iaai. Langue mélanésienne d’Ouvéa (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Phonologie, morphologie, esquisse syntaxique [SELAF 20]. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Rivierre, J.-C. 1980. La langue de Touho. Phonologie et grammaire du cèmuhî (Nouvelle-Calédonie) [SELAF 38]. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. 2002. Verbs and nouns from a cross-linguistic perspective. Rivista di Linguistic 1(1): 115–147.Google Scholar
Ross, M. 1998. Proto-Oceanic adjectival categories and their morphosyntax. Oceanic Linguistics 37(1): 85–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. 2001. Scales between nouniness and verbiness. Language Typology and Language Universals¸ Vol. 1, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 495–509. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. & Shopen, T. 2007. Parts-of-speech systems. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description 1: 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsukida, N. 2005. Seediq. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, A. Adelaar & N. Himmelmann (eds), 291–325. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Cauchard, Aurelie
2017. Describing lexical flexibility in Caac (New Caledonia). Studies in Language 41:2 ► pp. 521 ff. DOI logo
van Lier, Eva
2017. Introduction. Studies in Language 41:2 ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.