Don’t feel obligated, lest it be undesirable: the relationship between prohibitives and apprehensives in Papapana and beyond

IF 1.7 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Ellen Smith-Dennis
{"title":"Don’t feel obligated, lest it be undesirable: the relationship between prohibitives and apprehensives in Papapana and beyond","authors":"Ellen Smith-Dennis","doi":"10.1515/LINGTY-2020-2070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 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.","PeriodicalId":45834,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Typology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/LINGTY-2020-2070","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Typology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY-2020-2070","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract 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.
不要觉得有义务,以免不受欢迎:帕帕帕纳及其他地方的禁止语和担忧语之间的关系
摘要本文分析了在Papapana语的两个禁止性结构之一(papa1265,Austronesian,Oceanic;巴布亚新几内亚)中,在两个理解性“预判”句中都使用的词前词素te。我的目的是确定te的两种功能之间是否存在历时关系,以及语义变化可能发生在哪个方向、如何发生以及为什么发生。这需要考虑Papapana禁止语之间的共时差异,与其他海洋语言中的理解和禁止结构进行比较,并对理解和禁止语素在形式上相似/相同的其他语言进行调查。我认为te的两个功能是历时相关的,但不是多义的,禁止意义是由不服从的理解意义发展而来的。这支持了Pakendorf、Brigitte和Ewa Schalley提出的通过逮捕和警告从可能性到禁止的发展道路。然而,我认为,他们的途径并不像所声称的那样,与所提出的从道义到认识模态的语法化途径背道而驰,因为禁止语可以说不是道义的。这篇论文为越来越多的关于忧虑的研究做出了贡献,证明了从忧虑到禁止的途径可能不像帕肯多夫和沙尔利所认为的那样罕见,并有助于研究语言的变化和情态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Linguistic Typology provides a forum for all work of relevance to the study of language typology and cross-linguistic variation. It welcomes work taking a typological perspective on all domains of the structure of spoken and signed languages, including historical change, language processing, and sociolinguistics. Diverse descriptive and theoretical frameworks are welcomed so long as they have a clear bearing on the study of cross-linguistic variation. We welcome cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of linguistic diversity, as well as work dealing with just one or a few languages, as long as it is typologically informed and typologically and theoretically relevant, and contains new empirical evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信