Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:37:43.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The origin of yes–no question particles in the Niuean language1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2014

DONNA STARKS  and
DIANE MASSAM
DONNA STARKS*
Affiliation:
La Trobe University
DIANE MASSAM*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Authors address: (Starks) Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne Campus, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia[email protected]
Authors address: (Massam) Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3G3[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers data from Niuean, a Polynesian language with VSO word order and an extensive range of grammatical particles. We focus on three question particles, nakai, ka and kia, examining their possible historical origins. In related languages the preferred means of forming a yes–no question is by intonation alone, while in the Polynesian languages that have yes–no question particles, the forms are lexically distinct from those found in Niuean. We argue that the Niuean unmarked question particle nakai is derived from the negative, the pragmatically marked kia construction from the polite form of the imperative, and the ka construction from a lexical item which signals confirmation. In all three cases, the question particles do not replace their original grammatical or lexical source words but rather co-exist with them in new contexts. The three question particles have all undergone a process of semantic bleaching, increased syntactic bonding, and in some cases, phonetic reduction. While two of the processes have occurred early in Niuean, one is a very recent development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 185 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

We would like to thank Tonya Stebbins, Yves Roberge, seminar audiences at the University of Queensland and the University of Toronto, and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their feedback on various versions of this paper. We would also like to thank Ofania Ikiua for her help with transcribing the data, and the Pasifika Languages of Manukau Project for access to their database. Data taken from this database are coded as coming from one of two interviews: NOFIP and NMMIP, and these codes indicate interviews with a Niuean Older Female and a Niuean Middle-aged Male.

The following abbreviations are used in this paper: 1, 2, 3 = first, second, third person; abs = absolutive; art = article; c = common; com = comitative; dem = demonstrative; dir = direction; dir1, dir2, dir3 = direction towards first, second or third person; du = dual; emph = emphatic; erg = ergative; excl = exclusive; exhrt = exhortative; gen = genitive; gl = goal; hab = habitual; lig = ligature; loc = locative; neg = negative; nfut = nonfuture; p = proper; perf = perfect; pers = personal article; pl = plural; pred = predicative marker; prt = particle; pst = past; q = question particle (q1 = nakai, q2 = ka, q3 = kia); resprn = resumptive pronoun; sbjv = subjunctive; sg = singular.

References

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Typological parameters for the study of clitics with special reference to Tariana. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 42–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Winifred. 1997. The Reed reference grammar of Māori. Auckland: Reed.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvaluan: A Polynesian language of the Central Pacific. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2009. Structural persistence: A case based on the grammaticalization of English adjectives of difference. English Language and Linguistics 13.1, 77–96.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, Vanderbiesen, Jeroen, Davidse, Kristin, Brems, Lieselotte & Mostelmans, Tanja. 2012. Introduction: New reflections on the sources, outcomes, defining features and motivations of grammaticalization. In Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte & Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 1–36. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa. 1997. On the typology of wh-questions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1970. Negative verbs in Polynesian. Senior Honors thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1991. Functional heads and proper government in Chamorro. Lingua 85, 85–134.Google Scholar
Clark, Ross. 1976. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. Auckland: Linguistics Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17.1/2, 79–106.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Universals of negative position. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A. & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 93–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Polar questions. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Mathew, Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 470–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feuillet, Jack 1994. Typologie de l'interrogation globale. In Boucher, Paul & Fournier, Jean-Michel (eds.), Interrogation: Des marques aux actes, 7–33. Paris: CERLICO (Cercle Linguistique du Centre et de l'Ouest).Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Jason Robert, 2008. Interrogative features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.). 2001. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Robin Elizabeth. 1993. Studies in Tokelauan syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.), 17–36.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. & Kato, Yasuhito. 2000a. Introduction: Negation and polarity at the millenium. In Horn, & Kato, (eds.), 1–19.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.). 2000b. Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages (Historisk-Filogiske Meddelelser, I, 5). Copenhagen. [Reprinted in Selected writings of Otto Jespersen; Allen & Unwin, London, 1962.].Google Scholar
Kaulima, Aiao & Beaumont, Clive H.. 2002. Learning Niuean: Tohi ako Vagahau Niue, combined edition. Ranui, Auckland: Clive H. & Daisy J. M. Beaumont.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1994. On the syntax of negation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 2nd rev. edn. Erfurt: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven C. 2010. Questions and responses in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2741–2755.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.), 37–80.Google Scholar
Lynch John, Malcolm Ross & Crowley, Terry. 2002. The Oceanic languages. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In Carnie, Andrew & Guilfoyle, Eithne (eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2003. Questions and the left periphery in Niuean. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 94–106.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2010. Deriving inverse order: The issue of arguments. In Mercado, Raphael, Potsdam, Eric & deMena Travis, Lisa (eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics, 271–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane, Starks, Donna & Ikiua, Ofania. 2011. Questions and answers in Niuean. In Moyse-Faurie, Claire & Sabel, Joachim (eds.), Topics in Oceanic morphosyntax, 65–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McEwen, J. M. 1970. Niue dictionary. Wellington: Department of Maori and Island Affairs.Google Scholar
Morin, Annick. 2006. On the syntax of clause type particles: Evidence from Gascon, Innu and Quebec French. MA thesis, Concordia University, Canada.Google Scholar
Morin, Annick. 2009. On the Quebec French interrogative particle tu. In Aboh, Enoch Oladé, van der Linden, Elisabeth, Quer, Josep & Sleeman, Petra (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory: Selected papers from Going Romance, 201–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan reference grammar (The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture). Oslo: Scandanavian University Press.Google Scholar
Otsuka, Yuko. 2006. Niuean and Eastern Polynesian: A view from syntax. Oceanic Linguistics 45.2, 429–456.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana. 2001. Ve as a second-position clitic. Oceanic Linguistics 40, 135–142.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1966. Polynesian languages: A subgrouping based on shared innovations in morphology. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75, 39–64.Google Scholar
Payne, John. 1985. Negation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol 1: Clause structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2000. The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives. In Horn, & Kato, (eds.), 193–231.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2002. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste & Harris, Thomas. 2013. Evolution with an attitude: The grammaticalisation of epistemic/evidential verbs in Australian English. English Language and Linguistics 17.3, 415–443.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Mary. 2002. A grammar of Pukapukan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Seiter, William J. 1980. Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sperlich, Wolfgang (ed.). 1997. Tohi vagahau Niue: Niue language dictionary with English Niue finder list. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press and the Government of Niue.Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya. 2003. On the status of intermediate form classes: Sm'algyax. Linguistic Typology 7.3, 383–415.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalisation. The Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 14), 406–416. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd, Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1978. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, 211–248. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2008. Where did late merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy. Studia Linguistica 62.3, 287–300.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Whittaker, Graeme. 1982. The Niuean language: An elementary grammar and basic vocabulary. Alofi Niue: University of the South Pacific, Niue Centre.Google Scholar
Willson, Heather. 2009. Remnant movement and the position of the Marshallese question particle. In Nguyen Chi Duy Khuong, Richa & Sinha, Samar (eds.), The Fifth Asian GLOW: Conference Proceedings, 566–587. Mysore & New Delhi: CIIL & FOSSSIL.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella. 1997. Negation and clause structure: A comparative study of Romance languages (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61.2, 283–305.Google Scholar