{"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.
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.