Universal #1484

Legacy number: 1484

 Number  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

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
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)
Notes
Sokolovskaja differentiates between 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. The reverse is not true.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
Sokolovskaja differentiates between 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. The reverse is not true.