Universal 1460:

Original: In all languages, if some form denotes the metaperson ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, it must also denote the metaperson ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’.
Standardized: IF a form denotes the metaperson ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, THEN it must also denote the metaperson ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’.
Keywords: personal pronoun, person, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, speaker, hearer, non-participant, inclusive
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: Boas 1911: 39-40, Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 22

Counterexamples: 1. Gooniyandi (Bunaban, Australian), where there is a distinction between: (i) ‘speaker + hearer’ or ‘speaker + non-participant + (non-participant) …, and (ii) ‘speaker + hearer + non-participant’ …, instead of the distinctions more common in Australian languages like dual vs. plural or inclusive vs. exclusive (mentioned in Testelec 1995: 582, for details see McGregor 1990). 2. The same system is documented in: Yaouré (Mande, Niger-Congo) (Hopkins 1986: 192, Kunimaipa (Trans-New Guinea) (Pence 1968, Geary 1977: 17-18) (p.c. M. Cysouw).3. Palaung (Mon-Khmer)(as described in Milne 1921: 17): it contains two pronouns glossed as ‘we’, ye and e. The first of these is to be used when the persons addressed are all present and the second when at least one of them is absent. The first is then ‘speaker+addressee(s)’ and the second, if we interpret absent as equivalent to 3rd person, can be represented as ‘speaker + addressee(s) + non-participant(s)’. (Greenberg 1989b: 455).4. Languages having separate 1DU.INCL and 1PL.INCL forms?

One Comment

FP

1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons:’speaker’, ‘hearer(s)’, ‘non-participant(s)’, ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’. 2. This universal was first suggested by Franz Boas (1911: 39-40): “A true first person plural is impossible, because there can never be more than one self. This logical laxity is avoided by many languages, in which a sharp distinction is made between the two combinations self and person or persons spoken to, or self and person or persons spoken of. I do not know of any language expressing in a separate form the combination of the three persons, probably because this idea readily coalesces with the idea of self and persons spoken to. These two forms are generally designated by the rather inaccurate term of ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive first person plural’, by which is meant the first person plural, including or excluding the person addressed”.3. The reverse is not true (cf. ##1476, 1477).4. This universal claims that an inclusive form is always a super-inclusive one, cf. #1463.

1. May 2020

Comments are closed.