Oceanic languages are well known for their system of possessive classifiers, also known as relational classifiers. Typically, an indirectly possessed noun is not restricted to just one classifier but can occur with different classifiers dependent on how the possessed item is used by the possessor (Lichtenberk 1983, 2009). For example, wi ‘water’ in Lewo occurs with either the general or drinkable classifier depending on how the water is used (Early 1994:216):
1a. | ma-na | wi |
---|---|---|
CL.DRINK-3SG | water | |
‘her (drinking) water’ |
1b. | sa-na | wi |
---|---|---|
CL.GEN-3SG | water | |
‘her (washing) water’ |
This is not the only possible type of system, however. North Ambrym’s cognate for water – we – can only occur with the drinkable classifier in 2a, but not the general classifier in 2b (Franjieh 2016:95):
2a. | ma-n | we |
---|---|---|
CL.DRINK-3SG | water | |
‘his/her water (for any purpose)’ |
2b. | mwena-n | we |
---|---|---|
CL.GEN-3SG | water | |
intended:‘her water’ |
A series of experiments were conducted with North Ambrym speakers to investigate relationality (Franjieh 2016, 2018). A video stimuli experiment explored different interactions between possessor and possessed. This revealed speakers preferred one classifier regardless of contextual use.
A noun categorisation experiment revealed that prototypical possessions were assigned just one classifier, whereas non-prototypical possessions could be assigned different classifiers dependent on perceived use or a semantic property of the possessed noun.
These experiments were recently conducted with a few Lewo and Fanbyak speakers. These smaller studies reconfirm the relational nature of the classifiers in Lewo. However, the results for Fanbyak aligns with North Ambrym and show stricter assignment of noun to classifier. Similar strict assignment has also been reported for Daakaka (Von Prince 2012)
We compare the experimental results across the three languages of Central Vanuatu and argue that the languages of Ambrym have shifted from a relation-based system to function more similarly to a gender system; we believe this is due to the frequency of certain classifier noun combinations. We discuss future directions of this research to investigate these transitional systems further, in order to establish what they can tell us about how gender systems arise.
References
Franjieh, Michael. 2016. Indirect Possessive Hosts in North Ambrym: Evidence for Gender. Oceanic Linguistics 55:87-115.
Franjieh, Michael. 2018. Possessive Classifiers as Non Canonical Gender in North Ambrym. In S. Fedden, J. Audring and Author2 (eds.) Non-canonical gender systems. Oxford University Press.
Early, Robert. 1994. A Grammar of Lewo, Vanuatu. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983b. Relational Classifiers. Lingua, 60(2-3):147–176.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2009. Attributive possessive constructions in Oceanic. In McGregor, William B. (ed), The expression of possession: 249–252. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Von Prince, Kilu. 2012. A Grammar of Daakaka. PhD Thesis. Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.