Universal #1482

Legacy number: 1482

 Number  1478
 Original  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.
 Source  Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 41

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
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)
Notes
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.
Comment
EF · 24 Jul 2007
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'.

4. This universal accounts for the fact that languages violating universal <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1445"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0"> would also violate <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1449"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1459"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1461"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">.