Universal 1480:

Universal 1480:

Original

If a language has a special form with the meaning ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’ (i.e. “we exclusive”) then it has a special form with the meaning ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ and/or ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’ (i.e. “we inclusive”).

Standardized

IF there is a special form with the meaning ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’ (i.e. “we exclusive”), THEN there is a special form with the meaning ‘speaker + hearer(s)’ and/or ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’ (i.e. “we inclusive”).

Keywords

personal pronoun, speaker, hearer, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive

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.

Source

Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 43

Counterexamples

In American Sign Language, inclusive may or may not be marked, but exclusive seems always to be marked. Specifically, indexic forms can mark both inclusive and exclusive while non-indexic forms can only mark exclusive (Cormier 2000). In Urubu-Kaapor (Tupi), thera are no special forms of pronouns distinguishing exclusive and inclusive. The exclusive form, and therefore the distinction, has been lost, but there is a periphrastic way of expressing the idea of exclusive 1st person, namely, when the numeral follows a 1PL pronoun, it gives an exclusive meaning to that pronoun (Kakumasu 1986). However, Urubu-Kaapor should not be considered as a clear counterexample to this statement, since exclusive meaning is expressed not by a special form but periphrastically. (EF)