Band 25, Heft 3

This paper analyses the preverbal morpheme te, used in both apprehensive ‘precautioning’ sentences and in one of two prohibitive constructions in Papapana (papa1265, Austronesian, Oceanic; Papua New Guinea). I aim to establish whether there is a diachronic relationship between the two functions of te , and in which direction, how and why semantic change may have occurred. This requires consideration of the synchronic differences between Papapana prohibitives, comparisons with apprehensive and prohibitive constructions in other Oceanic languages, and an investigation of other languages where apprehensive and prohibitive morphemes are formally similar/identical. I argue that the two functions of te are diachronically related, but not polysemous, and that the prohibitive meaning developed from the apprehensive meaning via insubordination. This supports Pakendorf, Brigitte & Ewa Schalley’s proposed pathway of development from possibility to prohibition, via apprehension and warning. However, I argue that their pathway does not, as claimed, run counter to the proposed grammaticalisation path of deontic to epistemic modality, because prohibitives are arguably not deontic. This paper contributes to the growing body of research on apprehensives, demonstrates that the pathway from apprehension to prohibition is perhaps not as rare as Pakendorf and Schalley thought, and contributes to research on language change and modality.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the little-known “bare classifier phrase” construction in Modern Standard Thai. It describes the syntax, semantics and discourse functions of Thai bare classifier phrases, and further proposes a diachronic account of their origin in reduction of post-posed numeral ‘one’. Following this synchronic and diachronic description, this article attempts to locate Thai within a working typology of bare classifier constructions in mainland Asian languages, and further argues for the importance of bare classifier constructions to the theory of classifiers more generally. Following Bisang (1999) and others, it argues that bare classifier constructions reveal the core function of classifiers in Asian languages to be individuation – a referential function. It therefore cautions against some recent proposals to merge classifiers and gender markers within a single categorical space defined on the semantic basis of nominal classification, and in favour of continuing to treat classifiers as a discrete linguistic category – in mainland Asian languages, at least.

An elicitation task was conducted with speakers of Japonic varieties to investigate whether stimuli of varying sensory modalities (e.g. audio, visual, tactile etc.) were more or less likely to elicit ideophones or iconic words. Stimuli representing sounds, movements, shapes and textures were most likely to elicit ideophones, and this is posited to reflect the relative ease or naturalness with which these domains can be mapped iconically to speech. The results mirror macro-level patterns of linguistic diversity, as these are also domains in which ideophones are most widely attested cross-linguistically. The findings call for the revision of a previously constructed implicational hierarchy for the semantic development of ideophone systems, adding to it the categories of FORM and TEXTURE as domains in which ideophones are most likely to develop, after SOUND and MOVEMENT. Independent evidence for the revised hierarchy comes from a semantic analysis of the elicited ideophones, where it was found that domains early in the hierarchy were more likely to be sources for semantic extension, while later domains were more likely to be targets. These findings are expected to be replicable for other languages, and offer exciting new directions for research into the semantic typology of ideophones.

Decades of works dedicated to the description of (previously) lesser-known Sinitic languages have effectively dispelled the common myth that these languages share a single “universal Chinese grammar”. Yet, the underlying cause of their grammatical variation is still a matter for debate. This paper focuses on typological variation across Sinitic varieties. Through comparing the typological profiles of various Sinitic languages with those of their Altaic and Mainland Southeast Asian (MSEA) neighbors, we discuss to what extent the variation within the Sinitic branch can be attributed to areal diffusion. Taking into account over 360 language varieties of seven different genetic affiliations (Sinitic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic) and 30 linguistic features, we conduct a typological survey with the aid of the phylogenetic program NeighborNet. Our results suggest that convergence towards their non-Sinitic neighbors has likely played a pivotal role in the typological diversity of Sinitic languages. Based primarily on their degree of Altaic/MSEA influence, the Sinitic varieties in our database are classified into four areal groups, namely 1) Northern, 2) Transitional, 3) Central Southeastern, 4) Far Southern. This classification scheme reflects the intricate interplay between areal convergence, regional innovations, and retention of archaic features.