If in a language there are no special forms distinguishing the metapersons ‘speaker’ and ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ or ‘speaker’ and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, then there are no forms that differentiate between the metaperson ‘hearer’ in the singular and in the non-singular and between the metaperson ‘non-participant’ in the singular and in the non-singular.
Standardized
IF there are no special forms distinguishing the metapersons ‘speaker’ and ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ or ‘speaker’ and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, THEN there are no forms that differentiate between the metaperson ‘hearer’ in the singular and in the non-singular and between the metaperson ‘non-participant’ in the singular and in the non-singular.
Keywords
personal pronun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain
inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type
implication
Status
achronic
Quality
absolute
Basis
400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Marind (Trans-New Guinea)(Drabbe 1955 [Boelaars 1950: 2]) does not have different forms for the metapersons ‘speaker’ and ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ or ‘speaker’ and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, however, it differentiates between the metaperson ‘hearer’ in singular and in non-singular and between the metaperson ‘non-participant’ in singular and in non-singular. (EF)
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons:’speaker’, ‘hearer’, ‘non-participant’, ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s). 2. According to Sokolovskaja, this universal is equivalent to: IF there are forms distinguishing metapersons (a)’speaker’ and ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ and/or ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’ or (b)’speaker’ and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, then there are forms distinguishing metapersons ‘hearer’ and ‘hearers’ or ‘hearer(s)+ non-participant(s)’ on the one hand and metapersons ‘non-participant’ and ‘non-partcipants’ on the other. 3. The reverse is not true, at least for Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic) (Sokolovskaja 1980: 95).Another example would be Kwakiutl (Wakashan), distinguishing forms for metapersons ‘speaker’, ‘speaker + hearer(s) ‘ and/or ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, but no for ‘hearer’ and/or ‘hearers’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’ and ‘non-participant’ and/or ‘non-participants’ (EF). 4. This universal accounts for the fact that languages violating universal #1445 would also violate ##1449, 1459, 1461.
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons:’speaker’, ‘hearer’, ‘non-participant’, ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s). 2. According to Sokolovskaja, this universal is equivalent to: IF there are forms distinguishing metapersons (a)’speaker’ and ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ and/or ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’ or (b)’speaker’ and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, then there are forms distinguishing metapersons ‘hearer’ and ‘hearers’ or ‘hearer(s)+ non-participant(s)’ on the one hand and metapersons ‘non-participant’ and ‘non-partcipants’ on the other. 3. The reverse is not true, at least for Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic) (Sokolovskaja 1980: 95).Another example would be Kwakiutl (Wakashan), distinguishing forms for metapersons ‘speaker’, ‘speaker + hearer(s) ‘ and/or ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, but no for ‘hearer’ and/or ‘hearers’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’ and ‘non-participant’ and/or ‘non-participants’ (EF). 4. This universal accounts for the fact that languages violating universal #1445 would also violate ##1449, 1459, 1461.