Polynesian Languages: A Survey of Research 9783110899283, 9789027924230

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introductory remarks
2. A historical survey of research
3. External and internal relationships of Polynesian languages
4. Phonology
5. Morphology and syntax
6. Lexicography and semantics
7. Bibliographies

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA

Series Critica,

11

edenda curai WERNER WINTER

POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES A Survey of Research

by

VIKTOR KRUPA

1973

MOUTON THE H A G U E . PARIS

© Copyright 1973 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.

This study is dedicated to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, without whose aid it could not have been written.

TABLE O F CONTENTS

1. Introductory remarks 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.

Environment Settlement of Polynesia Ethnic situation in present-day Polynesia Survey of languages Oral tradition 1.5.1. New Zealand 1.5.2. The Cook Islands 1.5.3. The rest of East Polynesia 1.5.4. West Polynesia 1.5.5. Outliers

2. A historical survey of research 2.1. Periodization of linguistic research 2.2. The first period 2.2.1. Beginnings 2.2.2. Wilhelm von Humboldt 2.2.3. Early comparative work 2.2.4. Horatio Hale 2.2.5. Early work on Maori 2.2.6. Around the middle of the 19th century . . . 2.2.7. Late 19th and early 20th century 2.2.8. Summary 2.3. The second period 2.3.1. General characteristics 2.3.2. Studies in general problems 2.3.3. Synchronic studies in the twenties

13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 22 23 23 24 24 26 28 28 28 28 29

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.3.4. 2.3.5. 2.3.6. 2.3.7.

Comparative work in the thirties and forties . Descriptive studies in the forties Discussions on grammatical categories . . . Kahler's thesis about the position of Polynesian within Austronesian 2.4. The third period 2.4.1. General characteristics 2.4.2. Comparative studies in the fifties 2.4.3. Structural methods 2.4.4. Methodological advances in the sixties . . . 2.4.4.1. Internal relations of Polynesian languages 2.4.4.2. External relations of Polynesian languages 2.4.4.3. Typological studies 2.4.5. Synthetic studies and surveys in the sixties . . 2.4.6. Description of particular languages 2.4.6.1. Professional contributions 2.4.6.2. Nonprofessional contributions . . . 2.4.6.3. Phrase-structure grammar 2.4.6.4. Semantic and lexicological work. . . 2.4.7. Transformational approach

30 30 32

3. External and internal relationships of Polynesian languages

40

3.1. Early reports and comparative notes 3.2. External relations 3.2.1. The 19th century 3.2.2. Dempwolff's contribution 3.2.3. Contemporary comparative studies 3.3. Internal relations 3.3.1. Traditional subclassification 3.3.2. Tongic versus Nuclear Polynesian 3.3.3. Evidence for the subdivision of Polynesian . . 3.3.4. The position of Samoic and Outlier languages 3.3.5. Reconstruction of the Proto-Polynesian lexicon

40 40 40 41 41 43 43 43 44 45 45

32 33 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 38 38 38 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3.6. Origin of the Outliers 4. Phonology 4.1. The beginnings 4.1.1. Phonology before the 20th century 4.1.2. Impact of structuralism 4.1.3. After World War II 4.1.4. Phonology in works of nonprofessional authors 4.2. Modern approaches 4.2.1. First modern accounts of Polynesian phonology 4.2.2. Detailed phonological studies 4.2.3. Typology of sound systems 4.2.4. Application of statistical methods 4.3. Transformational method 4.4. Polynesian phonological systems 4.4.1. Basic features 4.4.2. General Polynesian type 4.4.3. Deviations from the general type 4.4.4. Distinctive features of Polynesian consonantism 4.4.5. Syllable and stress 4.5. Phonotactics 5. Morphology and syntax 5.1. The beginnings 5.1.1. Evolutionistic views and Polynesian grammar 5.1.2. First advances in methodology 5.2. The pre-structural period 5.2.1. Discussions on the passive voice 5.2.2. First studies of verbal and nominal phrases . 5.2.3. Study of syntactic constructions in the twenties and thirties 5.2.4. Description of particular languages 5.3. The period after the end of World War II 5.3.1. Kahler's study of Polynesian morphology . .

9

46 47 47 47 48 48 49 50 50 50 51 51 51 52 52 53 54 55 55 56 58 58 58 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.3.2. J. Prytz Johansen's contribution 5.3.3. Break with the concepts of traditional grammar 5.3.4. Impact of American descriptivism 5.3.5. Bruce G. Biggs' model 5.3.6. Renewed discussions on the passive voice . . 5.3.7. Quantitative methods 5.4. Modern approaches 5.4.1. Profile generative grammar 5.4.2. Transformational method 5.4.3. The first modern treatment of Tahitian grammar (Tryon) 5.4.4. Typology of Polynesian grammar 5.5. Recent achievements in the field of Polynesian grammar 5.5.1. Morphology 5.5.2. The verbal phrase 5.5.3. The nominal phrase 5.5.4. Sentence structure 5.5.5. Negation 5.5.6. Complex sentences 6. Lexicography and semantics 6.1. The beginnings 6.1.1. First word lists and vocabularies 6.1.2. Hale's reconstruction of the Proto-Polynesian vocabulary 6.1.3. Lexicography in the second half of the 19th century 6.1.4. Dictionaries of less-known Polynesian languages 6.2. First semantic studies 6.3. The hypothesis of the pre-Polynesian substratum . . 6.4. The first half of the 20th century 6.4.1. Lexicography 6.4.2. The study of semantic problems

63 63 64 65 67 68 68 68 68 69 70 70 70 71 72 72 73 74 75 75 75 75 76 76 77 77 77 77 78

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.5. Recent research 6.5.1. Lexicography during the fifties and sixties . . 6.5.2. Semantic research 6.5.3. Language of courtesy 6.5.4. Lexical change 6.5.5. An attempt at comparative semantics . . . . 6.5.6. Special problems 6.5.6.1. Kinship terms 6.5.6.2. Colour terms 6.5.6.3. Orientation in space 7. Bibliographies 7.1. General bibliography 7.2. Selective bibliography 7.2.1. Surveys of research and reference 7.2.2. Polynesian languages in general 7.2.3. Tongic languages 7.2.3.1. Tongan 7.2.3.2. Niue 7.2.4. Samoic and Outlier languages 7.2.4.1. Fila 7.2.4.2. Futunan 7.2.4.3. Kapingamarangi 7.2.4.4. Mae 7.2.4.5. Nanumea 7.2.4.6. Nukuoro 7.2.4.7. Ongtong Java (or Luangiuan) . . . 7.2.4.8. Pukapukan 7.2.4.9. Rennellese 7.2.4.10. Samoan 7.2.4.11. Sikaianan 7.2.4.12. Tikopian 7.2.4.13. Uvean 7.2.4.14. West Futunan - Aniwan 7.2.5. East Polynesian languages

11

79 79 81 82 83 83 84 84 84 85 86 86 101 101 102 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 106 106 106 106 106 106

12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.2.5.1. 7.2.5.2. 7.2.5.3. 7.2.5.4. 7.2.5.5. 7.2.5.6. 7.2.5.7. 7.2.5.8. 7.2.5.9. 7.2.5.10.

Easter Island Hawaiian Mangarevan Maori Marquesan Morion Rapa Rarotongan Tahitian Tuamotuan

106 107 107 107 107 108 108 108 108 108

1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1.1.

ENVIRONMENT

Polynesia takes up the eastern half of the Pacific Ocean, extending from about 180 to 130 degrees western longitude and from about 30 degrees northern to 50 degrees southern latitude. Several hundreds of islands and islets are scattered all through this vast expanse of sea. The islands occur mostly in clusters, the most important of which are the Hawaiian Islands, the Marquesas, Tuamotu, the Society Islands, Tubuai, the Gambier Islands, the solitary Easter Island, the Cook Islands, New Zealand and the Chatham Islands, the Tonga Islands, Niue, Samoa, the Ellice Islands, and Tokelau. All the archipelagoes and islands listed above are situated within Proper or TRIANGLE Polynesia. However, Polynesians also inhabit numerous islands scattered within Melanesia, especially along the northeastern fringe of Melanesia. This so-called OUTLIER Polynesia consists of the New Hebridean region (West Futuna, Aniwa, Mele-Fila, Mae, Tikopia, Anuta, Pileni, Taumako, West Uvea), the islands within reach of the Solomon Islands (Rennell and Bellona, Sikaiana, Nukumanu, Luangiua, Taku, Nukuria) and, finally, the northern region (Nukuoro and Kapingamarangi). The whole of Polynesia, with the exception of New Zealand and Easter Island, lies within the tropical zone and is notable for its warm and mild climate. Substantial ecological differences are observed only between small and fairly poor coral atolls on the one hand (prevailing in the archipelagoes of Tuamotu, Tokelau, Ellice, and in Outlier Polynesia) and the more hospitable islands of volcanic or continental origin on the other hand. The original culture and the ethnic composition of the population of Polynesia are much more homogeneous than those of neighbouring Melanesia.

14

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Only some Polynesian enclaves within Melanesia display patterns remarkably different from what is typically Polynesian, and even this is due to the Melanesian influence.

1.2.

SETTLEMENT OF POLYNESIA

Archaeological evidence seems to indicate that man appeared on the western fringe of Triangle Polynesia (Samoa and Tonga) in the second millennium B.C. During the first millennium B.C. he began to penetrate into central parts of East Polynesia (Marquesas and Tahiti). Somewhat later, at the beginning of our era, Easter Island on the eastern periphery was settled. This means that the Polynesians began to undertake their first voyages fairly early. Somewhat later, if not simultaneously, the Cook Islands were colonized (around the 4th century A.D.), then the Hawaiian Islands (originally from the Marquesas, and then probably also from Tahiti), and, finally, New Zealand was settled (before 1100 A.D.). Polynesians were the first inhabitants of the eastern half of the Pacific ocean. Hypotheses of the presence of a pre-Polynesian race are based upon widespread legends of the manahune and are now regarded as irrelevant for the prehistory of Polynesia.

1.3. ETHNIC SITUATION IN PRESENT-DAY POLYNESIA

European colonization of Polynesia during the 19th and 20th centuries caused deep changes in the social structure and culture. The ethnic composition of the population was likewise changed considerably. As a consequence of immigration from Europe, America, and partly from Asia, two very important regions have lost their Polynesian character - the Hawaiian Islands in the North and New Zealand in the South. In Hawaii, only 110,930 inhabitants out of a total of 714,092 (1964) regard themselves as Hawaiians, and only a fraction of these have some knowledge of the Hawaiian language. In New Zealand, the percentage of Maoris is even lower

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

15

since there are only 198,188 of them in a population of 2,676,919 (1966). Although most Maoris are bilingual, they use their language to some extent, especially in the Far North, on the East Coast, and on the Volcanic Plateau (Rotorua - Taupo). In other parts of Polynesia the Polynesians are in an overwhelming majority and they continue to speak their languages. This is true mainly of Samoa (155,066 inhabitants in 1966), Tonga (77,585 inhabitants in 1966), Niue (5,194 inhabitants in 1966), Tokelau (1,908 in 1966), and of the Cook Islands (19,251 inhabitants in 1966). In French Polynesia (the Society Islands, Marquesas, Tuamotu, Tubuai, the Gambier Islands, Uvea, and Futuna) the Polynesians account for some 85 % of the total population of 84,062 (1962). Within French Polynesia, Tahitian enjoys the position of a prestige language and gradually supplants other Polynesian languages. The remotest part of Polynesia, Easter Island, is inhabited by only a few hundred people. The raids of Peruvian pirates in the 19th century destroyed the cultural continuity, and the local language was heavily influenced by Tahitian and later by Spanish. When taking into account that several thousand Polynesians also inhabit the Outliers scattered along the northeastern fringe of Melanesia, the total number of Polynesians in the Pacific area may be estimated at around 700,000 people.

1.4. SURVEY OF LANGUAGES

Although there are only several hundred thousand speakers of Polynesian languages, the amount of attention devoted to this branch of languages has been considerable. This can be explained by two reasons. First, the Polynesian languages are notable for an extraordinary transparence of their phonemic systems and phonotactic structures and, second, Polynesia is, due to an almost total lack of external influence, a sort of linguistic laboratory where hypotheses on various linguistic changes can be verified. From a geographical point of view Polynesia can be divided into Western and Eastern Polynesia. While Western Polynesia is

16

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

notable for a deeper linguistic than cultural differentiation, the opposite holds for Eastern Polynesia. The following languages are usually distinguished in Western Polynesia: Tongan, Niuean, Samoan, East Uvean, East Futunan, Ellicean. In Eastern Polynesia there are Rapanuian or Easter Island, Mangarevan, Marquesan, Hawaiian, Tahitian, Tuamotuan, Rarotongan, and Maori. However, the linguistic situation in Outlier Polynesia is considerably more obscure. As a rule, the following languages are mentioned as existing in Outlier Polynesia: Sikaianan, Luangiuan, Taku, Tikopian, Nukuoro, Kapingamarangi, Rennellese, Pileni, Mae, West Uvean, West Futunan and Aniwan, and Mele-Fila. This list is sometimes complemented with the languages of Pukapuka, Tubuai, Rapa (in Eastern Polynesia), Tokelauan (in Western Polynesia), Nukuria, Nukumanu, Taumako, and Anuta (in Outlier Polynesia). Marquesan is regarded by R. GREEN as two languages, and a careful investigation of the linguistic situation in Tuamotu might also lead to a revision of the presentday linguistic map of this archipelago.

1.5.

ORAL TRADITION

Throughout Polynesia there existed and still exists an extremely rich traditional oral literature of both prose and poetic character. Many prose genres have been distinguished by the Polynesians myth, legend, traditional history, tale, riddle, speech, etc. As far as poetry is concerned, the favourite genres were lullaby, elegy, ode, love song, etc. The existence of a rich Polynesian oral literature was noticed very early by European and American missionaries and other amateur collectors. 1.5.1. New Zealand The first remarkable collection is the work of Sir George GREY published in London under the title Ko Nga Mahinga a Nga Tupuna

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

17

1854). This book was republished several times, together with its English translation. However, as D. SIMMONS points out, this text cannot be regarded as reflecting an authentic tradition because sources from different tribal areas are often mixed in a single account (SIMMONS 1966: 185). Still, GREY'S work is the most authoritative and representative collection of Maori tradition. Another very important source is The lore of the Whare-wananga compiled by S. P. SMITH and published in two volumes (SMITH 1913-15). D. SIMMONS and B . BIGGS have subjected this collection to an analysis (SIMMONS-BIGGS 1970: 22-42) and according to their view, the first volume Te Kauae Runga can be regarded as authentic tradition, which is not the case of the second volume Te Kauae Raro which is a fairly late compilation. Poetry of the Maori is being published under the title Nga Moteatea. Two volumes have been issued so far by The Polynesian Society (NGATA 1959-61). (GREY

1.5.2.

The Cook Islands

Poetry of the Cook Islands, specifically of Mangaia, is available in the valuable collection GILL ( 1 8 7 6 ) . The most extensive collection of Hawaiian traditional literature is FORNANDER ( 1 9 1 7 - 2 0 ) which was reissued, in an abridged version, by ELBERT ( 1 9 5 9 ) . 1.5.3.

The rest of East Polynesia

A source for our knowledge of ancient Tahitian myths and tradiditions is T. HENRY'S Ancient Tahiti (HENRY 1928). She compiled it from material collected by J. M. ORSMOND. Tuamotuan folk literature was collected mainly by STIMSON (1934, 1937) and by CAILLOT (1914). Traditional literature of the Marquesas is available in E. S. C . HANDY'S Marquesan legends ( H A N D Y 1930) and in LAVONDfes (1966). Unfortunately, our knowledge of the oral tradition of Easter Island is rather fragmentary. The most representative collection is that incorporated in S. ENGLERT'S La tierra de Hotu MatiCa (ENGLERT 1948: 377-407). The written documents from

18

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

the Easter Island known as kohau rongorongo were published and partly interpreted in BARTHEL ( 1 9 5 8 ) . The same author also published a list of deciphered characters (BARTHEL 1963). 1.5.4.

West Polynesia

In the past it was the Germans who were engaged in collecting Samoan oral literature (KRAMER 1 9 0 2 - 0 3 ; STÛBEL 1896). The most extensive collection of Tongan traditions are P . REITER'S "Traditions tonguiennes" (REITER 1 9 0 7 - 2 0 ) and "Trois récits tonguiennes" (REITER 1 9 3 3 - 3 4 ) .

1.5.5.

Outliers

There can be no doubt that it is the folk literature of Outlier Polynesia that is the least known. Perhaps the only marked exception is Rennell and Bellona. There is a comprehensive collection of myths and tales from these islands available (ELBERT - MONBERG 1965).

2 A HISTORICAL SURVEY O F RESEARCH 2.1.

PERIODIZATION OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH

It is no easy task to give a satisfactory periodization of the investigation in the field of Polynesian linguistics. However, the subdivision into three main periods attempted below seems to be justified by several reasons. The first period (end of the 18th century - beginning of the 20th century) can be characterized as that of gathering primary data, starting from mere word lists, through grammatical sketces, and ending in more or less exhaustive dictionaries. Most work was done either by explorers or by missionaries, to be more precise, by linguistic amateurs, and often for purely practical purposes. The languages described were looked down upon as primitive and often childish or degenerate. Simultaneously, first attempts were undertaken to establish genetic connections of these languages with other languages of the world and many abortive hypotheses were postulated. The second period can be said to have been characterized by an increase of interest in the study of the Polynesian languages (beginning of the 20th century end of the World War II). The scope of the languages involved in the study widened considerably and considerably more attention was paid to particular problems of Polynesian grammar. The copying of classical models in descriptive works was gradually abandoned and, instead, attempts were undertaken to adjust terminology and methodology to the languages described. The notion of 'primitive languages' was likewise rejected and solid comparative work was done. However, typical of this period is also the fact that most research was done by a few outstanding scholars with a very wide range of interest (e.g. O . DEMPWOLFF, S. RAY, W . L . WILLIAMS, A. CAPELL). The third period (after World War

20

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

II) showed a massive attack on all fronts, both territorially and methodologically. All previous work was critically reevaluated and various language levels were studied, the centre of emphasis being on the structure of the phrase. An increased interest in internal relations of the Polynesian languages led to revisions in their subclassification and simultaneously syntactic problems moved to the foreground. Solid lexicographic work of the late fifties and sixties cannot be overlooked either. However, at least one major area remains in an almost virgin state, i.e. semantics. In the postwar period, first serious attempts were made to decipher the only preEuropean writing within Polynesia, the rongorongo of Easter Island. Its problems obviously cannot be completely solved before more is known of the semantics of the Polynesian languages. In the postwar years several major centres of Polynesian studies developed especially at Auckland, Honolulu, London, Canberra as well as Sydney while individuals engaged in Polynesian linguistic studies are scattered all through the world.

2.2.

THE FIRST PERIOD

2.2.1.

Beginnings

The Europeans learned of the existence of Polynesian languages in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries. It was QUIROS (in the Santa Cruz archipelago) and SCHOUTEN and LE MAIRE (in Futuna) who recorded first specimens and word lists of some Polynesian languages. As early as 1706 Hadrian RELAND recognized that there are some links joining the Pacific languages with Malayan. It occurred very soon to some scholars that the Polynesian languages might be genetically related. The voyages of Captain COOK brought new results and prepared the ground for the subsequent study of the languages of Polynesia. FORSTER who took part in COOK'S voyage, considered - and his guess was later confirmed - that the Polynesian islands were settled from Asia. HERVAS Y PANDURO (1784) was the first to use the term Malayo-Polynesian. W. MARS-

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

21

DEN was of the opinion that the fair-complexioned peoples of the East Pacific and the inhabitants of Indonesia speak one and the same language, i.e. Polynesian. One of the very early records of the New Zealand language can be found in D. COLLINS' Account of the English colony in New South Wales (COLLINS 1798) including a brief vocabulary of Maori. More travel notes and explorers' journals could be listed for this very early period. In the first third of the 19th century several grammars of the Polynesian languages appeared. The first to be mentioned is that compiled by W. MARINER (who spent several years in Tonga) in collaboration with J . MARTIN (MARINER 1817). The language is regarded as primitive both grammatically and lexically. Tongan words are transcribed according to the rules of English writing and the grammatical description is based upon classical models. Nine parts of speech are distinguished and especially the treatment of articles and verbal particles of aspect and tense is unsatisfactory. Many important features of the grammatical structure are ignored (e.g. transitive suffixes, agentive e), and syntax is left almost untouched. The vocabulary added to the grammar includes some 2000 entries. In addition, some 60 words are compared with their cognates in Malay. MARINER'S and MARTIN'S grammar (MARINER 1817) also deserves mention here because many of its shortcomings recur in quite a few grammatical sketches which were produced in the course of the next one hundred years. J . DAVIES in his description of Tahitian (DAVIES 1823) uses modern orthography; however, the glottal stop is not marked but the existence of long vowels is known to the author. DAVIES is one of the first to distinguish the definite and indefinite articles but the emphatic particle o is also regarded as a sort of an article. The noun is declined for case and the verb is conjugated. The categories of voice, causativity, and number are described, but syntax is again dealt with inadequately. In his introduction, Davies comments on the relations of Polynesian languages with Malay but, simultaneously, he is of the opinion that a resemblance to Hebrew could easily be shown. It is also worth mentioning that DAVIES speaks of Polynesian dialects, not languages (a terminology which survives with KAHLER until this day),

22

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

and he is the first to attempt a subclassification of Polynesian "dialects" (Hawaiian, Marquesan, and Maori are said to be the most similar ones, then comes Tahitian, while Tongan differs from them all in many respects). The first grammar and vocabulary of Maori was published in the early 19th century (KENDALL 1815); a revised version is KENDALL - LEE (1820). At the beginning of Polynesian linguistic studies stands also the remarkable figure of A. von CHAMISSO, better known as a poet and botanist. During his stay in Hawaii (with KOTZEBUE'S expedition in 1815) he used to compare Hawaiian to a charming childish babble. Later, however, he changed his mind and there are very few traces of his former prejudice in his grammar (CHAMISSO 1837). His description of Hawaiian is based mainly upon the Bible translation (1828-38). In his discussion of phonology, CHAMISSO inevitably omits the glottal stop and double vowels. In orthography, only I is used instead of r i d , and k instead of former t and k. His understanding of grammar is much deeper, and he does not attempt to describe Hawaiian in terms of traditional linguistics. The status and meaning of grammatical particles is grasped correctly, with the exception of some nominal particles. The syntax of the sentence is not included in CHAMISSO'S grammar. Instead the book is furnished with a Hawaiian text accompanied by a word-to-word translation into German. This is to serve as a substitute for the description of syntactic rules. As far as other Polynesian languages are concerned, N . TURNER published a modest handbook of Tongan (TURNER 1828); six years later, two general works on Polynesian languages appeared, namely DUMONT D'URVILLE (1833-34) and MARSDEN (1834). 2.2.2.

Wilhelm von Humboldt

In 1 8 3 6 - 3 9 W . von HUMBOLDT'S work Vber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java was published for the first time (HUMBOLDT 1 8 3 6 - 3 9 ) ; it served as a basis for subsequent comparative work in the field of Austronesian linguistics. Naturally, HUMBOLDT is not entirely free of all prejudices of his age; he uses terms like "less perfect

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

23

language structure" and considers the Polynesian languages to be more primitive than the Indo-European ones. In HUMBOLDT'S work, Javanese is compared with Tahitian, Hawaiian, Tongan, and Fijian. 2.2.3.

Early comparative work

In the middle third of the 19th century the comparative line of research was pursued by the Indo-Europeanist F. BOPP who published a monograph Über die Verwandtschaft der malayischpolynesischen Sprachen mit den indisch-europäischen (BOPP 1841). According to him, Polynesian is but the degraded remains of a once highly organized language like Sanskrit. However, his ideas have proved to be unfruitful, although attempts to look for genetic relationships between the two linguistic families were undertaken several times (cf. PETROV 1967: 335-46). P . GAUSSIN in his book on the Polynesian languages (GAUSSIN 1853), on the other hand, argues that the Polynesian language is in its childhood; it could not have lost its inflections because it never had any. GAUSSIN maintained that the Polynesian languages have an extremely primitive character and tried to show that most words in these languages express sensations or images while most abstract terms are wanting! 2.2.4.

Horatio Hale

Even before GAUSSIN'S monograph appeared, the results of the American exploring expedition to the Pacific in 1838-42 were published (in 1846). Among the participants was the philologist Horatio HALE to whom we owe the first comparative grammar of the Polynesian languages (or "dialects", to use his terminology). This grammar (HALE 1846) is based upon Samoan, Tongan, Maori, Rarotongan, Mangarevan, Tahitian, and Hawaiian. For Fakaofo and Tuamotuan, HALE had data of his own. As for phonetics, ? is not regarded as a consonant (it is called "hiatus" or "catching of the breath"). Vocalic quality is not taken into account, which makes the prediction of stress impossible. In transcribing

24

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

Hawaiian, t is used instead of later k. HALE is aware of the fact that in Polynesian there are no inflections and that the grammatical relations are expressed by particles or by reduplication. Although HALE uses the terms gender and case, he seems to feel that the situation is radically different from classical languages. The description of the system of nominal particles is not adequate. It was not yet found out that aspect is much more important to the Polynesian verbal phrase than tense. The category of voice is described in terms of active, passive, and neutral (active in form, passive in meaning) forms. On the whole, the treatment of phrase structure is again much more adequate and exhaustive than that of sentence structure. HALE is the first to compile a reconstruction of the original Polynesian lexicon. In those instances where the particular languages differ, the original forms have been deduced from a comparison of the variations. 2.2.5.

Early work on Maori

However, more work was done in the field of the particular Polynesian languages, focusing upon those of New Zealand and Tahiti. In 1842, R . MAUNSELL'S Grammar of the New Zealand language appears (MAUNSELL 1 8 4 2 ; its fourth edition was published as late as 1894) which gives some new insights into the structure of a Polynesian language. The second volume of Travels in New Zealand by E . DIEFFENBACH also includes some one hundred pages devoted to the grammar and dictionary of Maori (DIEFFENBACH 1843). Unfortunately, no descriptive work was done for the southern dialect of Maori, so divergent from the dialects spoken on North Island. One of the few exceptions is E . SHORTLAND who added a vocabulary of the Kaitahu dialect to his book The southern districts of New Zealand (SHORTLAND 1851). 2.2.6.

Around the middle of the 19th century

Two books on Maori published in the forties proved to be of lasting value for the subsequent study of the Polynesian languages,

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

25

namely W . WILLIAMS (1844; published later in three more editions) and W . L. WILLIAMS (1862). The former is the basis of the dictionary of Maori used till this day while the latter continued to be republished until 1950, thus achieving a record of eleven editions. Its title is, however, somewhat misleading because W . L. WILLIAMS (1862) is less of a textbook than a descriptive grammar departing radically from classical models. Two "confrontational" or comparative monographs of Tahitian appeared: J. C. E. BUSCHMANN'S Aperçu de la langue des îles Marquises et de la langue taitienne (BUSCHMANN 1 8 4 3 ; with a vocabulary of Tahitian by W. von HUMBOLDT) and P. L. J. B . GAUSSIN'S DU dialecte de Tahiti, de celui des îles Marquises et, en général, de la langue polynésienne (GAUSSIN 1 8 5 3 ) . Neither of them reached the standards set by HALE. Also, J. DAVIES' Tahitian dictionary and grammar was reedited after more than ten years (DAVIES 1 8 5 1 ) .

One of the first studies discussing partial problems is G. TURNER'S ethnosemantic description of the language of respect in Polynesia (TURNER 1 8 4 7 ) . Here, the so-called chiefs' language in Samoan and Tongan is compared with analogous phenomena in Fijian and Javanese. In 1854, A. BUZACOTT published the first sketch of Rarotongan grammar entitled Te Akataka Reo Rarotonga or Rarotongan and English grammar (BUZACOTT 1854) which was long to remain the only description of a language of the Cook Islands. Unfortunately, I. R. DORDILLON'S Essai de la grammaire de la langue des îles Marquises (DORDILLON 1857) is thoroughly dependent upon classical models. In addition to an unsatisfactory orthography (no consistent marking of ? and vowel quantity), no attention is paid to the dialectal diversification of this important Polynesian language. DORDILLON'S grammar (and dictionary) was later reedited and there is no work to replace it till this day. As far as Hawaiian is concerned, its study was contributed to by ANDREWS' grammar (ANDREWS 1854) and a fairly voluminous although not completely reliable dictionary (ANDREWS 1865). Methodologically, the most remarkable contribution was W. de

26

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

Witt ALEXANDER'S A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar (ALEXANDER 1864) which continued to be reedited until 1924. 2.2.7.

Late 19th and early 20th century

In the last quarter of the century the scope of investigation widened to include East Futunan (GRGZEL 1878), Tuamotuan (TREGEAR 1893-95), Nukuoro (CHRISTIAN 1898), and Mangarevan (TREGEAR 1899). As for other languages, much attention was paid to Samoan, mainly by German philologists. PRATT'S dictionary of Samoan (PRATT 1862) remains till this day the most comprehensive lexicographic work on that language; its second edition appeared in 1876. PRATT, who spent more than forty years as a missionary in Samoa, added to it a syntax of Samoan. At the same time, some four thousand new words or new meanings were added to the dictionary; a later reedition of the dictionary and grammar is NEWELL ( 1 9 0 5 ) . Another contribution to Samoan studies was L. VIOLETTE'S Dictionnaire samoa-frangais-anglais, which includes grammatical notes as well (VIOLETTE 1879). A. KIRCHHOFF published an article on colour and number terms in Samoan (KIRCHHOFF 1890), and, three years later, the first textbook of Samoan appeared (FUNK 1893).

As for other Polynesian languages, W. COLENSO'S Comprehensive dictionary of the New Zealand tongue (COLENSO 1882), A. COLOMB'S Dictionnaire toga-frangais et frangais-toga-anglais (COLOMB 1890), and F. E. JAUSSEN'S Grammaire et dictionnaire de la langue maorie, dialecte tahitien (JAUSSEN 1887) deserve to be mentioned; the latter was subsequently reedited, for the last time in 1969. Less was done in the field of comparative linguistics. J. C . H. KERN discussed the genetic relationship of the various branches of the Austronesian family (KERN 1886). W. SCHMIDT, who was the first to use the term AUSTRONESIAN instead of Malayo-Polynesian, published his paper on the relations between the Melanesian and Polynesian languages (SCHMIDT 1899). The external relations of the Polynesian languages were also discussed in S. H . RAY'S study "The common origin of

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

27

the Oceanic languages" (RAY 1 8 9 6 ) . RAY sets the following criteria as diagnostic for the common origin of Oceanic languages: (1) shared vocabulary, (2) shared grammatical features, (3) similar constructive particles. The Polynesian languages are regarded by him as the latest stage in the development of the Austronesian family. In 1 8 9 1 , E . TREGEAR published his Maori-Polynesian comparative dictionary (TREGEAR 1 8 9 1 ) which represents a climax of his own efforts. Although in some respects outdated, this work has retained its value for anthropologists and linguists ; it was reprinted in 1 9 6 9 . W . CHURCHWARD noted in an article that [...] of all tongues the Polynesian proper has undergone the least modification from outside influences [...] (CHURHWARD 1 9 0 6 ; 95). He spoke of Polynesian languages, not of dialects (CHURCHWARD 1906: 98). This study included also one of the first attempts at a phonotactic description of Samoan. CHURCHWARD'S attempt, however, succeeded only in part because he proposed to break up disyllabic morphemes into smaller meaningful units, which is by no means justified. H . NEFFGEN published a textbook of Samoan (NEFFGEN 1 9 0 3 ) including a vocabulary; it operated with classical grammatical categories. F . N. FINCK discussed some grammatical problems of Samoan in two articles (FINCK 1 9 0 4 , 1 9 0 7 ) . W . CHURCHILL contributed to Samoan studies two more papers devoted to word composition (CHURCHILL 1 9 0 5 ) and phonetics (CHURCHILL 1 9 0 8 ) ; the latter study, however, stressed the comparative aspect of the problem. The first semantic field to be described quite naturally was that of the numerals (LARGE 1 9 0 2 ) . G . FRIEDERICI proposed his theory of foreign lexical elements in Tuamotuan (FRIEDERICI 1 9 1 1 ) . In the beginning of the 20th century thefirst,even if not exhaustive descriptions of the Easter Island language (ROUSSEL 1908, CHURCHILL 1912), of Niuean (SMITH 1901, TREGEAR - SMITH 1907), of Mangarevan (JANEAU 1908), and of Tikopian (DURRAD 1913) appeared.

28

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

2.2.8.

Summary

To sum up, the first phase of the investigation of Polynesian languages proceeded from brief travel notes and word lists using inadequate transcriptions at the beginning of the 19th century to grammars and vocabularies designed for practical purposes and based largely on classical models. At the same time, first generalizations were arrived at concerned at first with genetic relations among the languages and somewhat later with their typological characteristics. In the same period, first papers on particular problems appeared. Romantic attitude and evaluative approach towards the so-called "primitive" languages gradually disappeared. The first period of Polynesian studies was subsumed by S. RAY in his "Polynesian linguistics: past and future" (RAY 1912-21). He was able to state that, after about a century, nearly all the principal languages of Polynesia were illustrated by grammars and dictionaries. He was right in turning the attention of the scholars to the investigation of those languages which lie on the borderland of Polynesia. RAY concluded his series of papers (RAY 1912-21) by a summary of the state of knowledge then attained in the field of Polynesian languages, especially those of the Micronesian and Melanesian Borderland. 2.3.

2.3.1.

THE S E C O N D PERIOD

General characteristics

World War I brought a gap in Polynesian studies which was bridged only by the aforementioned series of RAY'S articles. Then, lean years followed which, however, were dominated by a few outstanding scholars such as A . CAPELL, C . M . CHURCHWARD, S. CHURCHWARD, H . W . WILLIAMS, J . P . JOHANSEN, J . F . STIMSON, H . KAHLER, e t c .

2.3.2.

Studies in general problems

The second decade of this century brought just a few works dis-

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

29

cussing general problems, i.e. : H. JENSEN'S "Fragesätze und Fragepartikeln in einigen polynesischen Sprachen" (1927); J. F. STIMSON'S " A system of diacritical marks designed to facilitate the comparative study of the Polynesian languages" (STIMSON 1928); his "A discussion of the hamzah and some allied aspects of Polynesian phonetics" (STIMSON 1930); A . LAFEBER'S "The grammatical value of constructions with e in the Polynesian dialects compared with similar cases in Indonesia" (LAFEBER 1928); H. AUDRAN'S "Numération polynésienne" (AUDRAN 1930). However, from the descriptive point of view three papers are especially important, i.e. S. CHURCHWARD'S "On the origin of the Polynesian passive" (S. CHURCHWARD 1928) and H. W . WILLIAMS' "Some observations on Polynesian verbs" (WILLIAMS 1928) and "Some elements of Polynesian grammar" (WILLIAMS 1929). CHURCHWARD started a discussion on the nature of the Polynesian passive, pointing out some differences between West and East Polynesian languages in this respect. H. W. WILLIAMS (1928) shared CHURCHWARD'S views. In H. W. WILLIAMS (1929) the applicability of classical models to Polynesian language structure was questioned. WILLIAMS was influenced by the theories of HARRIS (1751), especially as far as the so-called "definitives" are concerned.

2.3.3.

Synchronic studies in the twenties

In the field of descriptive linguistics, Samoan continued to be studied more than any other language. In addition to E. HEIDER'S semantic studies (HEIDER 1918-19, 1926-27, 1930) and H . HENSEN'S morphological works (JENSEN 1923, 1925-26), an important event was the publication of S. CHURCHWARD'S Samoan grammar (S. CHURCHWARD 1926); its revised edition appeared in 1951. At least brief mention should be made of COLLOCOTT (1922) and GIFFORD (1923). H . W . WILLIAMS published a sketch of Moriori (WILLIAMS 1919) which is one of the very few sources of knowledge of this extinguished dialect. In the same year J. F. STIMSON'S grammar of Tahitian (STIMSON 1919) appeared as well as AUDRAN (1919a, 1919b), articles devoted to some Tuamotuan dialects.

30

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

F. W. CHRISTIAN'S vocabulary of Mangaian (CHRISTIAN 1 9 2 4 ) is far from exhaustive although it contains a variety of specifically Mangaian words. AHNNE ( 1 9 2 6 ) tried to explain the phenomenon of word tabuization in Tahitian. The silence on the Outlier languages was interrupted only by RAY ( 1 9 2 2 ) and LEVERD ( 1 9 2 2 ) . 2.3.4.

Comparative work in the thirties and forties

The most important contribution to the comparative study of the Austronesian linguistic family in the thirties is no doubt O. DEMPWOLFF'S reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian in which three Polynesian languages, i.e. Samoan, Tongan, and Futunan are used, in addition to a variety of Indonesian and Melanesian languages (DEMPWOLFF 1 9 3 4 - 3 8 ) . Despite some later modifications, this work has retained its essential validity up to this day. In the thirties, first typological studies by A. CAPELL appeared ( 1 9 3 1 , 1 9 3 3 ) ; simultaneously, he was engaged in the pioneering work of describing some of the Outlier Polynesian languages (CAPELL 1 9 3 5 - 3 7 , 1 9 4 2 ) . S . CHURCHWARD ( 1 9 3 2 ) tried to solve the problem of possessive suffixes in the Polynesian languages. However, the most important study concerned with synchronic description of the grammatical structure of Polynesian languages in general is no doubt H. W. WILLIAMS' "Some problems of Polynesian grammar" (WILLIAMS 1938); the author concentrates in his study upon the structure of nominal sentences, especially in Maori. Finally, D. CARR'S article on orthography (CARR 1 9 4 0 ) and H. KAHLER'S etymological analysis of word structure (KAHLER 1 9 4 9 - 5 0 ) ought to be mentioned. 2.3.5.

Descriptive studies in the forties

As far as particular languages are concerned, A. BURGMANN'S syntactic paper (BURGMANN 1 9 4 1 - 4 2 ) ranks among the best of this period. In a way, it is a continuation of the discussion on the nature of passive voice in Polynesian languages. The only other syntactic study dating from this period is C . M. CHURCHWARD'S "Relative pronouns in Samoan" (CHURCHWARD 1 9 3 4 ) . In the early thirties,

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

31

there appeared BATAILLON ( 1 9 3 2 ) , a complete manual of Uvean including a grammatical description and a dictionary. After eleven years, it was followed by A. C . SOPER'S mimeographed handbook (SOPER 1943). Both P. BATAILLON'S Language d'Uvea (BATAILLON 1932) and C . VERNIER and A. DROLLET'S Grammaire de la langue tahitienne (VERNIER - DROLLET 1 9 3 4 ) are largely traditional in approach. A serious contribution to the study of the little known Easter Island language is ENGLERT ( 1 9 3 8 ; Diccionario rapanui-espahol). The end of World War II brought a revival of interest in the Hawaiian language (cf. JUDD 1945). In 1944, E. and I . G . D . ANDREWS published A comparative dictionary of the Tahitian language (ANDREWS - ANDREWS 1 9 4 4 ) which, however, is no equal to the Maori-Polynesian comparative dictionary (TREGEAR 1891). The Pacific war gave a certain impetus to the study of Polynesian languages. Many languages of Oceania were described as a part of the need for a better knowledge of the peoples of the Pacific: there appeared KENNEDY ( 1 9 4 6 ) , a textbook of the language of the Ellice Islands, and ELBERT ( 1 9 4 8 ) , a Grammar and comparative study of the language of Kapingamarangi. In the beginning of the fifties, ELBERT published his textbook of Hawaiian that continues to be reedited and enlarged till this day (ELBERT 1951). Our knowledge of the Easter Island language has been considerably expanded due to the appearance of ENGLERT'S monograph La tierra de Hotu MatWa (ENGLERT 1948). Simultaneously, first serious attempts were undertaken, after many years, to decipher the writing of Easter Island (KUDRJAVCEV 1 9 4 9 ; OL'DEROGGE 1949). In the postwar period appeared a study of lexical changes in Tahitian (VERNIER 1 9 4 8 ) ; this was followed by R . D . LOVY and L . J . BOUGE'S Grammaire de la langue tahitienne (LOVY - BOUGE 1953) which, however, sticks to classical models. The only contribution to the knowledge of Tuamotuan came from DANIELSSON ( 1 9 5 3 ) . C. M. CHURCHWARD'S Tongan grammar (CHURCHWARD 1 9 5 3 ) ranks no doubt among the most lasting achievements in the field of Polynesian studies; unfortunately, this reference grammar contains only scanty information on the syntax of Tongan. A detailed semantic analysis of verbal categories is contained in the mono-

32

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

graph Character and structure of the action in Maori (JOHANSON 1948). Two years later, K. T. HARAWIRA compiled a textbook of Maori (HARAWIRA 1950), and there came out Lessons in the Maori language; a new approach to learning Maori (WILLS 1950). 2.3.6.

Discussions on grammatical categories

Fox (1948a) renewed the discussion on the character of the passive in Oceanic languages. He postulated a hypothesis that the passive in Oceania is of nominal origin. Another study by the same author is devoted to the etymological analysis of word structure (Fox 1948b). CAPELL (1949) analyzed the category of possession in Polynesian within the wider frame of Oceanic languages. Ownership in Polynesian is characterized by him as considered from the point of view of the owner. Another category that was analyzed in this period is the category of definiteness (MATTHEWS 1949). 2.3.7. Kahler's thesis about the position of Polynesian within Austronesian One cannot ignore two extensive papers (KAHLER 1950, 1951-55) that deal with the position of the Polynesian languages ("dialects", in KAHLER'S terminology) within the Austronesian family. Leaning on morphological evidence, KAHLER tried to prove his old hypothesis in terms of which the Polynesian languages are indistinguishable from the Indonesian languages; although KAHLER tried to quote Indonesian parallels for every Polynesian grammatical feature, his hypothesis cannot be considered as proved.

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

33

2.4. THE THIRD PERIOD 2.4.1.

General

characteristics

Periodization inevitably involves simplification and is, to a certain extent at least, based upon arbitrary decisions. It is hard to tell precisely when the contemporary period in the study of Polynesian languages starts but there seems to be some justification for dating it from the early fifties. This period is notable for an abrupt increase of interest in Polynesia and for a gradual introduction of modern methodology. As far as the latter is concerned, one may observe a drift towards objectivization, formalization, and quantification. This holds for glottochronology and lexicostatistics in the field of comparative linguistics and for descriptivist and later transformational methods in synchronic studies. Simultaneously, the area of interest for Polynesian scholars widens to include Outlier languages as well. 2.4.2.

Comparative

studies in the fifties

As for comparative linguistics, it is S. H. ELBERT'S paper "Internal relationships of Polynesian languages and dialects" (ELBERT 1953) that opened new roads. It applied the lexicostatistical approach to the Polynesian branch of languages and arrived at a new subclassification, grouping Samoan with the East Polynesian languages rather than with Tongan. ELBERT'S views were later accepted and elaborated by A. PAWLEY and R. GREEN. ELBERT was engaged in descriptive linguistics as well. His first paper concerned with Polynesian grammar in general is "Possessives in Polynesia" (ELBERT 1957b). GRACE (1959) offers a discussion of the external relations of the Polynesian languages and maintains that Rotuman, Fijian, and the Polynesian languages passed through a period of common history apart from all other languages of the Austronesian family (GRACE 1959: 65). I. DYEN in his review ( D Y E N 1959) believed that this hypothesis had not been proved by GRACE. K. J. HOLLYMAN likewise dealt with the external relations of the Polynesian languages, although he concentrated on the lexical

34

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

impact of Polynesian upon the Melanesian languages of New Caledonia (HOLLYMAN 1959). The first detailed linguistic atlas of the Austronesian area was SALZNER (1960); in it several maps were devoted also to the Polynesian branch of languages. Unfortunately, the author did not take into account the classification of ELBERT (1953) and grouped Samoan with Tongan, in accordance with the traditional division. 2.4.3.

Structural methods

In his grammatical notes added to the Hawaiian-English dictionary ELBERT 1 9 5 7 : xv-xxviii) S . H . ELBERT was the first to introduce the methods of American structuralism into Polynesian descriptive studies. He was soon joined by B . BIGGS who published a short but basic article on Polynesian grammar (BIGGS 1 9 6 0 ) . Modern methods were introduced into the study of Rarotongan with BUSE ( 1 9 6 0 ) . The first modern phonological descriptions are BIGGS ( 1 9 5 8 ) and PAWLEY ( 1 9 6 0 ) . Several important lexicographical works appeared in the fifties. This holds first of all for Maori (WILLIAMS 1 9 5 7 ) , Hawaiian (PUKUI - ELBERT 1 9 5 7 ) , Tongan ( C . M. CHURCHWARD 1 9 5 9 ) , and Samoan (MILNER 1 9 5 7 ) . J. FUENTES' handbook of the Easter Island language (FUENTES 1 9 6 0 ) includes both grammar and dictionary, neither of a very high quality. The only textbook published in the fifties is S. M . MEAD'S We speak Maori ( M E A D 1 9 5 9 ) . R. G . H . WHITE'S Linguistic check-sketch of Tahitian is available only as a heliograph (WHITE 1 9 5 8 ) . Two white spots on the linguistic map of Polynesia were removed, namely Rapa (STOKES 1 9 5 5 ) and West Futuna - Aniwa (CAPELL 1 9 5 8 ) ; the latter study is much more comprehensive than the former. Research into the script of Easter Island was continued both in the Soviet Union (BUTINOV - KNOROZOV 1 9 5 7 ) and in Germany (BARTHEL 1 9 5 8 ) . BARTHEL'S work is of fundamental importance, and no serious student of the Easter Island writing can dispense with it. The same author also published an ethnosemantic analysis of some kinship terms in Polynesia, centering around Easter Island (BAR(PUKUI -

THEL 1 9 6 0 ) .

35

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

2.4.4.

Methodological

advances in the sixties

The sixties of this century can be labelled as a period of great advances in the investigation of Polynesian languages. This is obvious both in the studies of a general character and in works devoted to particular languages. 2.4.4.1.

Internal relations of Polynesian

languages

The investigation of internal relations of Polynesian languages and of their subgrouping had long been neglected. This gap was closed by several remarkable papers. The first was K. P. EMORY'S "East Polynesian relationships: settlement pattern and time involved as indicated by vocabulary agreements" (EMORY 1963). He based his argument upon the comparison of the one-hundred word SWADESH list adapted to Polynesia. He also took account of archaeological data and, having combined the two sorts of evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the dispersal centre of East Polynesian languages lies in the Tahitian or Marquesan area. The Marquesas seem to be even more important than Tahiti. Of extraordinary importance for the subclassification of the Polynesian languages are two papers by R. GREEN and A. K. PAWLEY, published in 1966. While PAWLEY (1966b) furnished a frame for the subgrouping of the whole branch of Polynesian languages, dividing them into TONGIC and NUCLEAR POLYNESIAN, GREEN (1966) concentrated upon the East Polynesian languages distinguishing, in addition to Easter Island, TAHITIC and MARQUESIC subgroups. The question of the position of the Outlier Polynesian languages was discussed in a later paper (PAWLEY 1967). As a climax of the activities of the Auckland school of Polynesian scholars in the field of comparative linguistics can be regarded the Proto-Polynesian

word list com-

piled by D. S. WALSH and B . BIGGS (WALSH - BIGGS 1966); this was the first tentative draft that was replaced in 1970 by the second one. 23 Polynesian languages and 9 Melanesian languages have been used extensively in the reconstructions.

36

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

External relations of Polynesian languages However, external genetic relations of the Polynesian languages are still studied more intensively than the internal ones. This is

2.4.4.2.

d u e t o t h e efforts of CAPELL (1961-62), GRACE (1961, 1964), DYEN (1965), BIGGS (1965), MILKE (1961, 1965), (455), MILNER (1965),

and KRUPA (1971). Methodologically, these papers range from a classical application of the comparative method through lexicostatistics to the sophisticated use of statistical techniques. 2.4.4.3. Typological studies Typological investigation was limited to the domain of phonemics and phonotactics (KRUPA 1966a, 1967a, 1970) where exact methods were applied, and to semantics. As far as the latter is concerned, the first attempts at characterizing general features of Polynesian semantics were undertaken by BARTHEL (1961, 1964), HOLMER (1966), and KOSKINEN (1963-67). On the other hand, virtually no

generalizations were attempted in the typology of Polynesian grammar. 2.4.5.

Synthetic studies and surveys in the sixties

A variety of review articles were published in the sixties. The first was A. CAPELL'S "Oceanic linguistics today" (CAPELL 1962a). The author gives his evaluation of the present state of research in Oceanic linguistics, stressing the comparative and historical lines. On the other hand, G. B. MILNER'S survey covers both synchrony and diachrony (MILNER 1963). C. F. and F. M. VOEGELIN devoted two volumes of their series Languages of the World (VOEGELIN - VOEGELIN 1964) to the languages of Polynesia. The aim of these volumes is to draw a picture of the present linguistic situation in Polynesia and to characterize briefly the most important Polynesian languages, phonologically and grammatically. However, the whole work gives the impression of being inexhaustive and sketchy. 1.1. REVZIN in his article (REVZIN 1964) discussed the relevance of Austronesian languages for the general theory of modelling in linguistics.

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

37

The most recent survey is BIGGS (1967). In addition to summarizing what had been done during the last twenty years, BIGGS pointed out white spots and suggested problems in urgent need of future investigation. 2.4.6. 2.4.6.1.

Description of particular

Professional

languages

contributions

A good deal of work has been done in the field of description of particular languages. Most articles and monographs were written by professional linguists. In the study of grammar, strictly formal descriptive techniques took a firm foothold in the early sixties. Of special importance is B . BIGGS' dissertation entitled The structure of New Zealand Maori (BIGGS 1961a) that came to be a prototype for many descriptions of other Polynesian languages. BIGGS' influence is felt in A. K . PAWLEY'S study of Samoan (PAWLEY 1961, 1966a), in A. CAPELL'S monograph on the language of Mae (CAPELL 1962b), and elsewhere. A similar methodological background undoubtedly lies behind E. J. MORTON'S unpublished but very informative dissertation entitled A descriptive grammar of Tongan (MORTON 1962). One ought to mention also J. E. BUSE'S articles describing the grammatical structure of Rarotongan (BUSE 1963a, 1963b, 1963c). Most work concerned morphology, and B . G. BIGGS' paper read at the Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu (BIGGS 1961b) is perhaps the only one to discuss syntactic problems. Semantic problems in Samoan were studied in MILNER (1961), BUSE (1961), and PAWLEY (1962). As far as special points of grammar are concerned, it was the question of the passive voice that attracted some attention (MILNER 1962, PEARCE 1964). Phonology seems to have been largely avoided; only two papers on the subject were written (ELBERT 1962, FIRTH 1963). Polynesian lexicography was enriched by an English-Hawaiian dictionary (PUKUI - ELBERT 1964) and a Dictionary of some Tuamotuan dialects of the Polynesian language (STIMSON - MARSHALL 1964).

One might also add T. S. BARTHEL'S list of Easter Island place names (BARTHEL 1962a) and S. SAVAGE'S unfinished dictionary of

38

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

Rarotongan (SAVAGE 1962). The study of the Easter Island language has been pursued by FEDOROVA ( 1 9 6 3 ) and BERGMANN ( 1 9 6 3 ) . An important contribution to our knowledge of the Easter Island writings is T. S. BARTHEL'S study titled Rongorongo-Studien in which a list of deciphered characters is given (BARTHEL 1963). Nonprofessional contributions Amateurs contributed to the study of Polynesian languages with textbooks of some Polynesian languages. M. IORSS published his Grammaire tahitienne (IORSS 1961) based on classical models and F . van LIER his texts of Rarotongan (LIER 1962). However, the handbook of Samoan by MARSACK ( 1 9 6 2 ) is the most suitable for learning among the three of them. 2.4.6.2.

Phrase-structure grammar In the second half of the sixties the descriptive method (later called phrase-structure grammar) still prevailed. It is even being applied to more languages than before, the prototype being the description of Maori in BIGGS (1961a). The latter study was a model for A. K . PAWLEY'S "Samoan phrase structure" (PAWLEY 1966a), for Y . CARROLL'S "An outline of the structure of the language of Nukuoro" (CARROLL 1965), for R . MOEKA'A'S The structure of the Pukapukan verbal piece (MOEKA'A 1966), for A. THORPE'S Notes on the phrase structure of Ongtong Java (THORPE s.a.), for R . RANBY'S Notes on the language of Nanumea Island (RANBY 1966), and for A. YASUDA'S The structure of the Penrhyn phrase (YASUDA 1968). Phonological and related problems were analyzed in an historical perspective in ELBERT (1965, 1967) and also on the synchronous level in ABE (1965a, 1965b) and HASLEV (1967). The only article devoted to the question of Polynesian orthography is D. B . WALCH'S study of the history of the Hawaiian alphabet (WALCH 1967). 2.4.6.3.

Semantic and lexicological work Considerable advances have been made in the study of semantic problems and lexicology. O. BLIXEN described the language of courtesy in West Polynesia (BLIXEN 1966a, 1966b). ELBERT (1965b) 2.4.6.4.

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH

39

analyzed a most complicated set of possessive pronouns in Rennellese. R. C. WHITE shed new light upon word tabuization in Central Polynesia and proved the so-called non-Polynesian element in Tuamotuan to be a sort of a myth (WHITE 1967, 1968). G. B. MILNER published his Samoan dictionary (MILNER 1966) and B. BIGGS his medium-size English-Maori dictionary (BIGGS 1966). Statistical methods were applied to the structure of the Maori morpheme and word by KRUPA (1966b, 1967b). Besides, problems of linguistic interference were studied in KRUPA (1967c). As far as textbooks are concerned, S. H. ELBERT enlarged and republished his Spoken Hawaiian of 1 9 5 1 (ELBERT 1 9 7 0 ) and a handbook of Hawaiian was also compiled (KAHANANUI - ANTHONY 1 9 7 0 ) . However, by far the most important is D. T. TRYON'S Conversational Tahitian (TRYON 1 9 7 0 ) ; the author is the first to have applied modern methodology and produced a really usable textbook of Tahitian. 2.4.7.

Transformational

approach

Towards the end of the sixties, transformational generative grammar - or at least its principles - was for the first time applied to Polynesian material, thus opening a new phase in the investigation of Polynesian languages. P. W. HOHEPA wrote his Profile-generative grammar of Maori (HOHEPA 1967) and his article "Negatives as transformations: the case for Maori" (HOHEPA 1966). HOHEPA'S grammar was brilliantly reviewed by HALE (1968) who focused his attention mainly upon the question of the passive voice. At last, P. R. SHARPLES' Sikaiana syntax (SHARPLES 1968) ought to be mentioned. This dissertation is a transformational-generative syntax of the language of a Polynesian Outlier. Besides, it gives a critical evaluation of Polynesian grammar descriptions up to date.

3 EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS O F POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

3.1.

EARLY REPORTS A N D COMPARATIVE NOTES

The first specimens and word lists of Polynesian languages were collected, in the era of great discoveries in the 17th and 18th centuries, by QUIROS (in the Santa Cruz archipelago) and by SCHOUTEN and LE MAIRE (Futuna). The similarity between the Pacific languages and Malayan were recognized by H . RELAND as early as 1706. The external genetic relations of the Polynesian group were the first to be taken into account by scholars. The voyages of J. COOK contributed greatly to the knowledge of Polynesian languages (cf. COOK 1771). FORSTER thought that the Polynesian islands were settled from Asia. According to HERVAS Y PANDURO (1784) there were only two languages in the Pacific area: first, Malayan including both the languages of Indonesia and the Philippines and those of the East Pacific and, second, the language of what is now called Melanesia. W. MARSDEN likewise believed that the fair-complexioned peoples of the East Pacific and the inhabitants of Indonesia speak Polynesian (MARSDEN 1834). 3.2.

EXTERNAL RELATIONS O F POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

3.2.1.

The 19th century

It is manifest that the early scholars were more interested in the external relations of the Polynesian languages. HUMBOLDT (1836) applied the term Malayo-Polynesian to the family of genetically related languages of Indonesia, the Philippines and the Pacific. In this way he laid the foundations for future comparative study of

RELATIONSHIPS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

41

the Austronesian languages. J. DAVIES, on the other hand, seems to have been the first scholar interested in the internal relations of Polynesian languages. In his book on Tahitian (DAVIES 1823) he suggested that Hawaiian, Marquesan, and Maori are the most similar to one another; Tahitian comes next while Tongan differs from them all in many respects. In the 19th century the individual Polynesian languages were invariably regarded as dialects. This attitude is characteristic of CHURCHILL (1908) as well. 3.2.2.

Dempwolff's

contribution

Before the appearance of O. DEMPWOLFF'S works, the Polynesian languages were considered to be one of the three main branches of the Malayo-Polynesian family (alongside with the Indonesian and Melanesian branches; the latter was said to include the languages of Micronesia as well). However, DEMPWOLFF ( 1 9 3 4 - 3 8 ) proved that the Melanesian and Polynesian languages have simplified the primitive Proto-Austronesian phonological system in very much the same way. The existing phonological reflexes display no essential differences in the development of the Melanesian and Polynesian languages; the Polynesian languages have only gone somewhat further in the simplification of the overall pattern. It was objected that DEMPWOLFF had not paid sufficient attention to Melanesian and Polynesian languages; CHRÉTIEN ( 1 9 6 2 ) , however, proved in a convincing manner that this criticism is not justified. Detailed investigations of Melanesian and Polynesian languages led to the conclusion that both groups of languages represent one branch of the Austronesian family. This branch is sometimes called OCEANIC. This standpoint was defended by GRACE ( 1 9 5 9 ) , BIGGS ( 1 9 6 5 ) , GOODENOUGH ( 1 9 6 1 ) , DYEN ( 1 9 6 5 ) ,

quite early, by

MILKE ( 1 9 6 1 ) ,

and,

CODRINGTON ( 1 8 8 5 ) .

3.2.3.

Contemporary

comparative

studies

Even nowadays there is no unanimity as to the position of Polynesian within the Austronesian family. While Fox (1947) tried to

42

RELATIONSHIPS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

revive the traditional subclassification into Indonesian, Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian, KAHLER ( 1 9 6 2 ) maintained that the Polynesian languages are only a geographically discontinuous member of the Indonesian branch of the Austronesian family. However, in spite of Fox and KAHLER, much more plausible is the hypothesis according to which Polynesian is hierarchically not on a par with Indonesian. The dichotomous division of Austronesian into a western and an eastern subgroup dates as far back as DEMPWOLFF. G . GRACE in the aforementioned monograph (GRACE 1 9 5 9 ) accepted DEMPWOLFF'S view and proposed to include all Oceanic languages, with the exception of Palauan and Chamorro, in EASTERN AUSTRONESIAN. In terms of GRACE'S theory, Polynesian is a member of a subgroup of languages within Eastern Austronesian. This subgroup includes, in addition to Polynesian, languages of the northern New Hebrides, Rotuman, and Fijian dialects. I . D Y E N criticized GRACE in his review ( D Y E N 1 9 5 9 ) and considered his hypothesis questionable. Subsequently, BIGGS ( 1 9 6 5 ) discovered that the close resemblances of Rotuman with Polynesian and Fijian are the result of massive borrowing. The most ambitious attempt at a subclassification of Austronesian was undertaken by DYEN ( 1 9 6 5 ) . According to him, Polynesian is a member of the so-called Heonesian linkage including, in addition to Polynesian, also the Lauic subfamily, and six other languages (Efate, Fijian, Rotuman, Kerebuto, Mota, and Motu). I . DYEN'S subclassification is based solely upon lexicostatistics. His word lists are based upon dictionaries and vocabularies of unequal reliability and therefore the results should be taken with some reserve although the value of the work is beyond dispute. As far as the external relations of Polynesian are concerned, it may be summarized that it is not coordinate with Indonesian and Melanesian. It is a lower-order subgroup of Eastern Austronesian, most intimately connected with such Melanesian languages as Fijian, Central New Hebridean, Southeast Solomonian, and Rotuman,

RELATIONSHIPS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

43

3.3. INTERNAL RELATIONS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

Although the immediate external relations of Polynesian have remained somewhat obscure till this day, there can be no doubt that it is a clearly delimited group. Especially in recent years, the internal relationships of the individual Polynesian languages were increasingly studied by various scholars. 3.3.1.

Traditional subclassification

Traditionally, Polynesian has been subdivided into Eastern and Western, in accordance with E. G. BURROWS' cultural subdivision (BURROWS 1 9 3 8 ) , plus Outliers. Samoan was classed as West Polynesian, together with Tongan, Niuean, Uvean and Futunan. The position of the Outlier Polynesian languages was never clear; A. CAPELL even held that they were remnants of the ancient Westto-East migration of Polynesians from Southeast Asia. The traditional subdivision into Western and Eastern Polynesia was defended as late as EMORY ( 1 9 6 3 ) . Proceeding from lexicostatistic data, EMORY subdivides the Eastern Polynesian group into, let us say, a central subgroup (consisting of Tahitian and Hawaiian, on the one hand, and of Rarotongan and Maori, on the other hand) and a peripheral one (Easter Island, Mangarevan, Marquesan). However, the inclusion of archaeological evidence requires a modification of the latter scheme so as to include only Tahitian, Rarotongan, and Maori in the central subgroup while assigning (a) Easter Island, (b) Marquesan, Mangarevan, and Hawaiian to the peripheral subgroup. Similarities of Hawaiian and Tahitian are explained through a secondary influence of Tahitian upon Hawaiian. 3.3.2.

Tongic versus Nuclear

Polynesian

A new direction in the subclassification of Polynesian was opened by S. H. ELBERT'S important paper entitled "The internal relationships of Polynesian languages and dialects" (ELBERT 1 9 5 3 ) . He based his classification mainly upon the lexicostatistical comparison

44

RELATIONSHIPS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

of basic vocabulary but he also took into account some phonological and grammatical features. He was the first to suggest that Samoan is genetically closer to the East Polynesian languages than to Tongan and Niuean. Within the East Polynesian group, Easter Island was taken as a separate subgroup opposed to the CENTRAL (Tahitian, Hawaiian, Maori, Tuamotuan, Rarotongan) and PERIPHERAL (Mangarevan and Marquesan) subgroups. The next step towards a more detailed classification was undertaken by PAWLEY (1966b), who employed morphological innovations as classificatory criteria. The main split was postulated between TONGIC and NUCLEAR POLYNESIAN. The Tongic group included obviously only Tongan and Niuean, and perhaps East Uvean as well. All other languages belonged to the Nuclear Polynesian group. The latter in its turn was subdivided into SAMOIC and EAST POLYNESIAN. Samoic includes Samoan, Futunan, Tokelauan, Ellicean, and Tikopian. No Outliers, with the exception of Tikopian, were covered by this classification. A further subclassification of the East Polynesian group was worked out by GREEN (1966). According to him, Easter Island was the first language to split away from the so-called CENTRAL group consisting of a TAHITIC (Tahitian, Tuamotuan, Rarotongan, Maori) and MARQUESIC (Northwest Marquesan, Southeast Marquesan, Mangarevan, Hawaiian) subgroup. 3.3.3. Evidence for the subdivision of Polynesian Phonological evidence alone is not sufficient for the subclassification of the Polynesian languages: The Nuclear Polynesian group differs from the Tongic group in these points: (a) retention of the distinction between Proto-Polynesian *s and *R 0 (b) transition *h (c) fusion of *l and *r In addition to this, and to vocabulary differences, six grammatical Proto-Polynesian innovations are shared by the languages of the Nuclear Polynesian group and, besides, seven uniquely shared features which, however, cannot be established as reflecting

RELATIONSHIPS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

45

innovations of Proto-Polynesian. The Tongic languages, as opposed to Nuclear Polynesian languages, also share certain morphological features. As for the East Polynesian languages, PAWLEY detected some 16 morphological features not shared by the Samoic (as well as Tongic) languages. The morphological evidence for the Samoic group is, however, less impressive, consisting of some twelve morphological features. 3.3.4.

The position of Samoic and Outlier languages

The situation within the Samoic group is still somewhat obscure. A. K . PAWLEY was the first to study the relationships among the

Samoic languages in some detail (PAWLEY 1967). This group comprises, according to him, all the so-called Outliers. These in their turn are subdivided into three groups: (1) Northwestern, including Kapingamarangi and Nukuoro (2) Central, including Sikaianan, Taku, and Luangiuan (3) New Hebridean, including West Futunan-Aniwan, and Fila This subclassification is not exhaustive because some languages (e.g. Rennellese and Mae) are not covered by it. However, white spots can be found even inside Triangle Polynesia. Comparative study of Polynesian would be aided by reliable descriptions of Tuamotuan dialects, some of which seem to be closer to Marquesan than to Tahitian (e.g. Napuka). The same is true of the language of Rapa in the Tubuai group. 3.3.5.

Reconstruction of the Proto-Polynesian lexicon

The most ambitious comparative project in progress is the comparison of the total lexicons of Polynesian languages. The project is being carried out at the Universities of Auckland and Hawaii. Its aim is to reconstruct as great a part of Proto-Polynesian vocabulary as possible. The first report (WALSH - BIGGS 1966) contains some 1000 reconstructions based on ten Polynesian languages; an enlarged and revised edition followed four years later (BIGGS -

46

RELATIONSHIPS OF POLYNESIAN LANGUAGES

1970). This work might help solving the question whether Samoan (and other languages related to it) is really closer to East Polynesian than to Tongan and Niue. WALSH - WAQA

3.3.6.

Origin

of the

Outliers

included all Outliers in Nuclear Polynesian. According to him, East Futuna and the Ellice Islands can be regarded as a focus of the settlement. Noteworthy is his claim that most Outlier cultures have multiple origins. A. CAPELL, on the other hand, argued that the grammatical core of certain Outliers (especially Pilheni, Mae, West Futunan-Aniwan, and Fila) derives BAYARD

(1966)

from an earlier Polynesian language left on the western islands as the ancestors moved eastwards (CAPELL 1962B: 46). However, PAWLEY ( 1 9 6 7 ) denied that there might be evidence confirming this hypothesis of CAPELL.

4

PHONOLOGY

4.1.

4.1.1.

THE BEGINNINGS

Phonology before the 20th century

The first word lists and language notes from Polynesia (J. COOK'S expeditions, W. MARINER, etc.; cf. 2.2.1.) are notable for their inaccurate rendition of the sounds of languages which were distorted through the English phonetic and graphic filter. The distortions are especially heavy as far as the vocalism is concerned. The glottal stop was not recognized as a separate sound, the position of liquids remained unclear and vocalic quantity unnoticed for some time. Even later it would often be confused with stress. The orthography was initially based upon the English model. Thus MARINER (1817) used oo for /u/, i for /ai/, and other graphemes that were later to be discarded (J, ch, g, etc.). However, early in the 19th century the missionaries introduced the so-called continental values for vowels (DAVIES 1823, CHAMISSO 1837, etc.). Vocalic quantity was known to exist; on the other hand, the glottal stop was still ignored. Very little was known of stress and, in general, the understanding of Polynesian phonology was rather poor. Thus, even H. HALE (1846) had not detected vocalic quantity, which made the prediction of stress impossible. The glottal stop was characterized by him as a hiatus or catching of the breath, and, on the whole, sounds were not distinguished from letters. On the other hand, his phonotactic remarks were correct; he was aware of the fact that every syllable must terminate in a vowel and no consonant clusters are admissible. Throughout the 19th century and in the beginning of this century, the phonology of Polynesian languages was studied

48

PHONOLOGY

rather for the sake of comparison, not for descriptive purposes. The phonological simplicity was often interpreted as a sign of primitivism. This is true even of CHURCHILL (1906) who regarded Samoan as many degrees more primitive than the analytic type of language. At the same time, CHURCHILL made an attempt to describe the phonological structure of the morpheme insisting, unfortunately, upon a further analysis of disyllabic morphemes into smaller meaningful units (CHURCHILL 1908). 4.1.2.

Impact of structuralism

Phonology continued to be a no-man's land well into the twentieth century, and the sound level of Polynesian languages is usually treated only as a preliminary to monographs on grammar or dictionaries. The rise of structuralism found only a belated echo in Polynesian studies. One of the first examples of its impact was D. CARR'S demand according to which an orthography should reflect all sounds that are capable of distinguishing meaning (CARR 1 9 4 0 ) . Analogous requirements had been formulated earlier by STIMSON ( 1 9 2 8 , 1 9 3 0 ) . However, STIMSON was inclined to overestimate the importance of subphonemic variation. His attempts at introducing purely phonetic and even etymological principles into orthography failed to find a favourable echo and were criticized by H. W . WILLIAMS, S. H. RAY, and others in subsequent volumes of the Journal of the Polynesian Society. 4.1.3.

After World War II

The interest in questions of phonology grew more vivid after World War II. A. M. JONES published an article on Maori phonetics (JONES 1953). He was one of the first to note some specific phonetic features of the Polynesian languages, maintaining that there are no diphthongs in Maori and that there is only one syllable type, i.e. (C)V.

As an example of a reliable if brief description of the sounds of a Polynesian language we can cite ELBERT (1957a: xv-xvii). In

49

PHONOLOGY

addition to characterizing the Hawaiian system of phonemes, ELBERT also described sandhi phenomena, changes in fast speech, intonation, stress, and vocalic quantity. Furthermore he discussed the adoption of loanwords and the relative frequency of particular phonemes. The first phonological description of an Outlier Polynesian language can be found in A. CAPELL'S monograph devoted to anthropology and language of West Futuna and Aniwa in the New Hebrides (CAPELL 1958). However, some obscurities occur in the section that is devoted to phonology. Thus the vocalic quantity was maintained to be rarely phonemic (CAPELL 1958: 73). The qualification "rarely" is superfluous because, first, vowel quantity either is or is not phonemic and, second, in all Polynesian languages the contrast between short and long vowels is known to distinguish meaning. Further, CAPELL maintained that /r/ and /l/ are separate phonemes in West Futunan-Aniwan but he did not prove it. His treatment of the so-called preaspirated consonants in West Futunan was likewise ambiguous; on p. 64 they were taken as indivisible phonemes while later on (CAPELL 1958: 165), they were treated as sequences of /h/ + consonant. These - and a few more - features he regarded as evidence that West Futunan-Aniwan, along with Pilheni and Fila-Mele, is a member of a special group of Outlier languages which are indicative of the original west-to-east migration of Proto-Polynesians on their way to Polynesia. 4.1.4.

Phonology in works of non-professional

authors

Misleading information on phonology occurs even in some works published in the sixties. This holds not only for S. SAVAGE'S dictionary of Rarotongan (SAVAGE 1962; many mistakes in marking the glottal stop and vocalic quantity) and for C . C . MARSACK'S handbook of Samoan (MARSACK 1962 ; long vowels were sometimes mistaken for stressed while the glottal stop and vocalic quantity were inconsistently marked) but also for the Tuamotuan dictionary (STIMSON - MARSHALL 1964) where some stressed vowels were incorrectly marked long and therefore information on vocalic

50

PHONOLOGY

quantity should be taken with caution. Besides, no information on stress in Tuamotuan is given.

4.2.

4.2.1.

M O D E R N APPROACHES

First modern accounts of Polynesian phonology

One of the first modern descriptions of Polynesian phonology, along with the above-mentioned ELBERT'S notes is A. PAWLEY'S brief article (PAWLEY 1960). He based his account on American models, using the division into segmental and suprasegmental phonemes and stressing the importance of distribution. Again, long vowels were treated as sequences of two identical sounds, which simplified the description of stress and by now seems to be the preferable solution for all Polynesian languages. As a consequence of this decision, there is only one syllable type admissible in Samoan (and elsewhere in Polynesia), i.e. (C)V although Pawley admitted that syllable division may be made in more than one way, accepting thus the position of "hocuspocus" linguistics.

4.2.2. Detailed phonological studies B. BIGGS in his description of Maori phonology (BIGGS 1961a: 8-15) proceeded from analogous theoretical assumptions, giving a more detailed account of the matter than PAWLEY. He distinguished segmental and non-segmental phonemes; however, his treatment of syllables was different - in addition to (C)V, there are long syllables of the following types: (C)VVY, (C)VV. BIGGS described the phonemic inventory of Maori, including allophonic variation. Stress was again analyzed as phonemic, i.e. basically unpredictable. Basic phonotactic information was also given, including information on relative frequency of phonemes and changes in fast speech. The monograph of BIGGS set a standard to be followed more or less closely by other linguists engaged in the study of Polynesian phonology.

PHONOLOGY

51

E . J . MORTON is the author of the most recent phonological description of Tôngan (MORTON 1962). Especially good is his treatment of phonotactics. His analysis of stress seems to indicate that it is unpredictable in Tongan.

4.2.3.

Typology of sound systems

The first attempt at a contrastive typology of Polynesian phonological systems is that given by C . F . and F . M . VOEGELIN in their Languages of the world (VOEGELIN - VOEGELIN 1 9 6 4 ) . In this study, confined to the comparison of consonants, a so-called average Polynesian consonant type is established (3 stops, 2 or 3 fricatives, 3 nasals, and 1 liquid), which is a useful device. A non-average type differs from the average one only through the absence of a nasal. This idea will later be discussed in a more detailed way. 4.2.4. Application of statistical methods Statistical methods have been applied to the phonology of Polynesian languages by KRUPA (1966a, 1967a, 1970). Quantitative techniques are especially suitable for mass phenomena where it would be virtually impossible to detect and prove the existence of any regularities. The results obtained in this way were utilized for a typological subclassification of the Polynesian languages.

4.3.

TRANSFORMATIONAL METHOD

In the second half of the sixties, transformational generative grammar came to be applied to the Polynesian languages. Its first example is P. W. HOHEPA'S monograph on Maori (HOHEPA 1967). The individual phonemes are analyzed into six distinctive features. A syllable is defined as either a sequence ( C ) V or ( C ) V V . HOHEPA was the first to construct rules for the prediction of stress, disproving thus the recent theories on the phonemic nature of stress in Polynesian.

52

PHONOLOGY

The phonological component of a transformational generative grammar is interpretative and the phonological rules are applied to surface structures obtained at the output of the transformational component. P. R. SHARPLES illustrated these principles with the data of the Sikaiana language (SHARPLES 1968, especially pp. 32758). First he discussed the phonology of Sikaiana in structural terms and then restated the phonological analysis in generative terms. SHARPLES' discussion is valuable not only because of its methodological novelty but also due to the fact that Sikaiana is, as far as phonology is concerned, a representative of a non-average Polynesian phonological type. Phonemes were considered by SHARPLES as derivative of a set of distinctive features. However, he was in error when maintaining that this is typical only of transformational generative grammar and not of structural linguistics.

4.4.

POLYNESIAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

4.4.1.

Basic features

Giving an overall survey of Polynesian phonology is fairly easy, due to a considerable degree of similarity in both the structure and the inventory of most Polynesian languages. Virtually all languages in Polynesia proper as well as in Outlier Polynesia share the same vocalic type, the most common type consisting of five vowels /u o a e i/ that can be distinguished by means of three distinctive features (diffuse ~ non-diffuse; low ~ non-low; compact ~ noncompact). This does not mean, however, that the functional load of the vowels is identical everywhere. All languages, both in Polynesia proper and in Outlier Polynesia, distinguish short and long vowels. However, the latter are preferably treated as sequences of two identical sounds. This solution makes the prediction of stress simpler. Although originally it was maintained that Polynesian stress is phonemic, a more detailed study of the phenomenon tends to indicate that the opposite is true. This would be in accordance with the presumed universal according to which phonemic stress and phonemic quantity of vowels are mutually exclusive.

PHONOLOGY

53

As for consonantal subsystems, there are some differences among the particular Polynesian languages although remarkable deviations are confined to some of the Outliers only. The latter can be regarded as displaying peripheral consonantal types. The so-called general Polynesian type is in its fullest variety represented by Tongan (ymfplnstykPh). It consists of four labials, four postdentals, two dorsals, and two laryngeals. Elsewhere, simpler consonantal subsystems occur. If there are only three labials, instead of four, in a language, it is almost always / that is lacking (in Easter Island, Hawaiian, Kapingamarangi, Luangiuan, Mangarevan, Rarotongan, Sikaianan); v is lacking in Pilheni. Out of the postdental consonants, s is the least stable, missing, e.g. in Easter Island, East Uvean, Hawaiian, Kapingamarangi, Mangarevan, Maori, Niuean, Rarotongan, Tahitian, and Tuamotuan. Sometimes, t is also absent, e.g. in Hawaiian. Marquesan lacks, alongside with s, also the liquid, while conversational Samoan has neither n nor t. Both sounds are present in Ceremonial Samoan. Dorsals are completely absent only from Tahitian while Hawaiian and Sikaianan lack only ij. As for laryngeals, P is missing e.g. from Kapingamarangi, Maori, Pilheni, Sikaianan, Tuamotuan; h is absent from East Futunan, Samoan, Mangarevan, Niuean, and Rarotongan. Only exceptionally both laryngeals are missing, e.g. in Ellicean, Fila, Mae, and Tikopian. 4.4.2.

General Polynesian type

A description of the general Polynesian type on the basis of manner of articulation reveals that there can be four stops /p t k ?/. If only three occur, p is always present, t is absent from Luangiuan, contemporary Hawaiian, spoken Samoan; k is absent from Tahitian and P from Sikaianan, Mae, Fila, Tikopian, Ellicean, Pilheni, Kapingamarangi, Maori, Tuamotuan. There are four fricatives in Tongan /f v s h/; however, in most languages there are only three of them: (a) v h s (in Sikaianan, Luangiuan) (b) v f s (in Mae, East Futunan, Samoan, Fila, Tikopian, Ellicean)

54

PHONOLOGY

(c) f h s (in Pilheni) (d) v/w f h (in Maori, Tuamotuan, East Uvean, Marquesan, Tahitian) Two fricatives are present in Kapingamarangi, Easter Island, Hawaiian (v/w h), and in Niuean (v/), and only one in Mangarevan and Rarotongan (v). Usually there are three nasals (m n rj). Only two are attested for Sikaianan, Tahitian, Hawaiian (m n), and for Luangian and spoken Samoan (m //). Two liquids have been reconstructed for Proto-Polynesian (rl); however, a single one is typical for the general Polynesian type, the only exception being Marquesan where there is none. 4.4.3.

Deviations from the general type

As has been mentioned above, some Outlier languages deviate more or less markedly from the general Polynesian pattern. A greater variety in consonantism in parts of Outlier Polynesia is usually explained through the influence of neighbouring Melanesian languages. Additional consonants occurring in some Outlier languages are as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

pw and I (alongside r) in Fila mb nd I (alongside r) in Mae I (in addition to r) in West Futunan mb nd g in Pilheni p i in Rennellese

The clusters hm hn (West Uvean, Pilheni, Kapingamarangi) and ph th kh hy (Pilheni, Kapingamarangi) are sometimes treated as phonemes, sometimes as sequences of two consonants. Two liquids (r and /) seem to be present also in Tikopian and Taku; however, they carry a distinctive function only in very few instances. Pilheni, Rennellese, Taku, and Nukuoro are notable for the occurrence of double consonants. This is a secondary phenomenon caused by the dropping of vowels in fast speech, e.g. Rennellese ppiki 'to accompany' (along with pipiki), hattirji 'thunder' (along with hatutirji), and bbarje 'to play' (along with babaye). This survey of phonological

PHONOLOGY

55

peculiarities of the Polynesian Outlier languages is given in ELBERT (1965a). An extraordinary complexity of consonantism characterizes West Futunan-Aniwan in the New Hebrides. Quite a few phonetic and phonological peculiarities are found in these two dialects of one and the same language (CAPELL 1960). There are five labials {pmf vw), six postdental ( t n s s l r ) , two dorsals (k rj), and one laryngeal (h). In Aniwan there is £ instead of s. This dialect is notable also for a strong palatalization of t in front of e and i, and likewise of n in front of i; e.g.: West Futunan teraa - Aniwan (eraa 'that'; West Futunan ni mai - Aniwan ni mai 'to come'. In Aniwan k is replaced by P in front of a, e.g. taParo 'to play' (West Futunan takaro), and by Y in front of o, e.g. novo Pai 'he is eating' (West Futunan noko kai). In both dialects, / is pronounced as a voiceless bilabial fricative sound. 4.4.4. Distinctive features of Polynesian consonantism The description of the Polynesian consonantism would remain incomplete without an analysis into distinctive features. Four of them are sufficient for distinguishing the consonants from one another in the languages of the so-called general Polynesian type. They are as follows: low ~ non-low; diffuse ~ non-diffuse; voiced ~ non-voiced; durative ~ non-durative. 4.4.5.

Syllable and stress

The smallness of the phonological inventory in all Polynesian languages is accompanied by an extraordinary simplicity of syllabic structures. Open syllables are the only ones to be admitted in these languages; closed syllables occur in some of the Outliers but even there they are comparatively rare. Some linguists admit only syllables of the (C)V type because this solution simplifies the prediction of the position of stress within the word. As mentioned earlier, the problems of stress have not been studied satisfactorily. Although some authors (MORTON 1962, BIGGS 1961a) had failed

56

PHONOLOGY

to find exhaustive prediction rules and duly concluded that stress is phonological, a more detailed examination of the question has revealed that stress is positional, i.e. predictable. P. HOHEPA has elaborated fairly simple rules for determining the position of stress in Maori (HOHEPA 1967: 10-1). The same was done by S. H. ELBERT for Hawaiian (ELBERT 1957a: xv-xvi, xxix), A. K . PAWLEY for Samoan (PAWLEY 1966a: 5), and CARROLL (1965) for Nukuoro. According to A. CAPELL, stress in Mae is likewise positional (CAPELL 1962b: 6).

4.5.

PHONOTACTICS

An exhaustive account of Polynesian phonology cannot dispense with phonotactics. Until recently, this language level has been largely ignored, the most notable exception being the structure of the morph. Two studies by V. KRUPA cover some of the most important Polynesian languages, i.e. Easter Island, Hawaiian, Tahitian, Tuamotuan, Rarotongan, Maori, Samoan, and Tongan (KRUPA 1966a, 1967a). The cardinal phonotactic rule requires that each consonant be followed by at least one vowel. This means that, first, no final consonants occur and, second, consonant clusters are not admitted. In other words, any utterance can be represented as a sequence ( C ) V ( C ) V ( C ) V . . . ( C ) V , where C stands for a consonant, and V for a vowel. The speech flow is segmented into morphs in such a way that each morph ends in a V. It turns out that only three morph patterns occur in the so-called general Polynesian type, i.e. (C)V, (C)V(C)V, and (C)V(C)V(C)V. The peripheral Polynesian type (especially Pilheni, Rennellese, Nukuoro, Fila, West Futunan-Aniwan, and Taku) exhibits also some deviant patterns, e.g. (C)VC and CCV, which are truncated variants of the pattern (C)V(C)V. The bulk of the morph stock in any Polynesian language consists of bivocalic morphs (pattern (C)V(C)V). However, the greatest functional load is carried by monovocalic morphs (pattern (C)V) which function as markers of grammatical meaning. Testing the relations between consonants and vowels within the

PHONOLOGY

57

bivocalic morph has shown that in all Polynesian languages there is a slight tendency towards combinations of identical vowels within the limits of the morph. On the other hand, the combinations e - i, i - e, i - u, and especially u - o, tend to be avoided. As far as consonantal relations are concerned, the opposite is true: classes of like consonants tend to combine less frequently than expected, this being especially remarkable with consonants articulated in the labial area and with those articulated in the postdental area. These and some other tendencies seem to be still productive, for loanwords from European languages tend to conform to them in most cases. In conclusion it ought to be mentioned that some of the phonotactic features have been inherited from ProtoPolynesian and Proto-Austronesian (e.g. the so-called intramorphemic vowel harmony) while others might be of a universal nature (e.g. statistically significant avoidance of consonants of the same articulatory class). These problems require further study and comparison with languages belonging to other genetic groupings might help to distinguish inherited phonotactic features from universal ones.

5

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

5.1.

5.1.1.

THE BEGINNINGS

Evolutionistic views and Polynesian grammar

Early reports on the Polynesian languages had the character of more or less accidental and brief notes. Their authors had a superficial knowledge of these languages and, naturally enough, were unable to penetrate into their grammatical structure. It took some time to pass from this stage of investigation to the first generalizations concerning the grammatical structure of the Polynesian languages. Grammatical descriptions dating from this period reflect the naive evolutionistic view according to which the type of grammatical structure of a language depends upon the mental and cultural development of its speakers. This attitude appears even in works of W. von HUMBOLDT; the languages of Polynesia are mentioned (HUMBOLDT 1836: 348) among those displaying a less perfect language structure. However, the idea of a primitive language is much more manifest in the first grammar of Tongan published in 1817 (MARINER 1817 2: 345-86). Tongan is said to be spoken by a nation ignorant of every principle of grammatical construction. Classical grammar was used as a model for the description of Tongan. The authors MARINER and MARTIN believe to have found nine parts of speech but, on the other hand, have not detected the opposition between the definite and the indefinite article; the focusing particle ko is erroneously treated as a copula. Possessive pronouns are likewise described in a somewhat simplified manner. The description of verbal particles is unsatisfactory and some affixes have been omitted. Finally, syntax is presented only

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

59

as a set of examples and the reader is expected to infer all necessary rules himself. 5.1.2.

First advances in methodology

treatment of Tahitian grammar (DAVIES 1823) represents a step forward in methodology. Thus the definite article is distinguished from the indefinite one and 'o is regarded as an article, which is closer to the truth than interpreting it as a copula. DAVIES detected that there is the category of voice in Tahitian and gave a fairly reliable description of the pronouns. However, the noun is declined for case and the verb is conjugated. Syntax is again dealt with in an entirely inadequate way. CHAMISSO ( 1 8 3 7 ) showed a deep understanding of Hawaiian grammar, much deeper than that of phonology. He did not try to describe Hawaiian in terms of classical grammar. The status and meaning of particles was grasped correctly by him, except for several nominal particles. CHAMISSO has managed to free himself from the anti-primitive bias, and his grammar of Hawaiian is a genuine achievement. H. HALE (1846) was also well ahead of his time as far as methodology is concerned. He was aware of the fact that there are no grammatical inflections in Polynesian and that most grammatical meanings are expressed by particles. The verbal phrase is described in an adequate way, including the postpositive particles. HALE was among the first scholars to have noticed that the nominal particle ko (or 'o in some languages) has an emphasizing force. He discussed quite a few grammatical categories, e.g. voice, possessivity, mood, and tense; however, the category of aspect is omitted. Some of his remarks are refreshingly bright. Thus he recognized that the selection of the passive suffix variants is conditioned euphonically. Analogous attempts to get away from classical models were undertaken also by linguists engaged in the study of Maori, i.e. in MAUNSELL ( 1 8 4 2 ) and W . L . WILLIAMS ( 1 8 6 2 ) , while French and German scholars continued to work along more traditional lines,

J. D A VIES'

60 e.g.

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

(1843), DORDILLON (1857), GR£ZEL (1878), (1887), and F U N K (1893). The first period in the study of the grammatical structure of Polynesian languages is notable for a predominance of complete grammars; articles dealing with particular grammatical problems began to appear towards the end of the 19th century (e.g. TREGEAR 1892, FINCK 1904, and CHURCHILL 1905). BUSCHMANN

JAUSSEN

5.2.

THE PRE-STRUCTURAL PERIOD

In the first half of the 20th century, the most sophisticated linguists became increasingly aware of the need to describe the Polynesian languages in terms different from those current in grammatical treatises of European languages. However, language was not yet treated as a system and this period can be regarded as pre-structural. 5.2.1. Discussions on the passive voice As far as particular grammatical problems are concerned, considerable attention was paid to the category of voice. H. W. WILLIAMS (1928), comparing Melanesian with Polynesian, maintained that there was no passive in the former. As for Polynesian, there is a genuine passive in the East Polynesian languages and even a sort of concord in voice. He also pointed out differences in the frequency of use; while passive constructions occur almost as frequently as active ones in Maori, Tahitian, and Rarotongan, they are much less frequent in Hawaiian. WILLIAMS noticed that the situation is more complicated in Tongan and Samoan. However, he gave no satisfactory explanation of the fact that active forms are sometimes used in passive constructions and vice-versa. S. CHURCHWARD (1928) stressed even more the gap between Western and Eastern Polynesian. According to him, the passive in Samoan is only half evolved while in Maori and other East Polynesian languages the evolution of the passive is much closer to completion. The passive endings were traced to pronominal forms that gradually

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

61

lost their pronominal character. CHURCHWARD suggested that the Samoan passive should better be regarded as a transitive. H. W. WILLIAMS was of the same opinion but underlined that the Eastern Polynesian languages do have a genuine passive. The discussion of the Polynesian passive was later continued by A. BURGMANN in his remarkable but little-known and seldom quoted study (BURGMANN 1941-42). Having analyzed the Tongan sentence both formally and psychologically, BURGMANN arrived at the conclusion that the suffix -a still has a certain syntactic meaning since it occurs especially frequently in sentences notable for their passive construction but that it nevertheless cannot be treated as a passive marker. BURGMANN just stopped short of discovering the ergative nature of the sentence in Tongan. C. E. Fox oriented his article historically and spoke of the nominal origin of the passive in Oceania (Fox 1948a). The discussion was renewed in the early sixties (MILNER 1962) and continues till this day (HOHEPA 1969). 5.2.2. First studies of verbal and nominal phrases The study of the Polynesian verbal phrase was pursued in H. W. WILLIAMS (1928). Particles were carefully distinguished from prefixes and suffixes but the status of prepositive pronominal particles in some West Polynesian languages was not solved in an adequate way. H . W. WILLIAMS (1929) also opened new vistas in the study of the nominal phrase. As regards theory, WILLIAMS had been influenced by HARRIS (1751) and accepted his category of definitives. 5.2.3.

Study of syntactic constructions in the twenties and thirties

First serious attempts at describing syntactical constructions appeared in the twenties of this century. H. W . WILLIAMS (1938) discussed the structure of nominal sentences in Maori. He distinguished several subtypes, according to the particles used in the nominal predicate. He gave a correct definition of the particle ko which, according to him, is used in order to call attention to the

62

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

subsequent full word. Nominal sentences he defined as those in which the predicate is expressed by a noun or an adjective. However, once a verbal particle is used with a word, this word functions as a verbal predicate in Polynesian; cf. his example Kua tapu teenei koroheke 'This old man has become tapu\ Probably the first to have discussed the complex sentence in a Polynesian language was JENSEN (1925-26). He confined his attention to those complex sentences in which the dependent clause determines one member of the independent clause (i.e. relative clause). The question of relative pronouns in Samoan was treated by C . M. CHURCHWARD (1934); A . BURGANN'S penetrating study was referred to earlier (5.1.2.) since, in addition to syntactic problems, it deals mainly with the problem of passive in Tongan. 5.2.4.

Description of particular languages

Relatively little has been achieved in the field of description of particular Polynesian languages during the period between the two wars. Possible exceptions are H. JENSEN'S monograph on Samoan morphology (JENSEN 1923) and S. CHURCHWARD'S grammar of Samoan (CHURCHWARD 1 9 2 6 ) ; the latter was based upon the Samoan translation of the Bible and revised in 1951. The French school produced two grammars based on traditional models, that of Uvean (BATAILLON 1 9 3 2 ) and Tahitian (VERNIER - DROLLET 1934). Besides, some of the less-known languages were described, at least partly, namely Moriori ( H. W . WILLIAMS 1919) and several Outliers (RAY 1 9 1 9 - 2 0 ; CAPELL 1 9 3 5 - 3 7 , 1 9 4 2 ) . 5.3.

THE PERIOD AFTER THE E N D O F WORLD WAR II

The end of the World War II marked a revival in Polynesian studies, motivated partly by practical reasons. Since that time most work in Polynesian linguistics has been done in Circumpacific countries, i.e. in the U.S.A., New Zealand, and Australia. However, linguists from other countries (England, France, Germany, etc.) continue to participate as well.

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

63

5.3.1. Kahler's study of Polynesian morphology H. KAHLER published an extensive study devoted to the morphology of the Polynesian languages (KAHLER 1951-55). His approach is largely historical and comparative and he intends to prove his old hypothesis according to which there is virtually no essential difference between the Indonesian and Polynesian branches. In terms of this hypothesis, both groups of languages differ from each other solely in their geographical location. KAHLER'S method consists in discussing nominal as well as verbal particles and other grammatical markers, and comparing them with their cognates in Indonesia. KAHLER is perhaps the last scholar to speak of Polynesian dialects instead of languages. The results of recent research seem not to confirm his position on this issue and the same is true of his hypothesis that the Polynesian languages ought to be regarded as essentially not different from the Indonesian languages. 5.3.2. J. Prytz Johansen's contribution Undoubtedly the most remarkable grammatical study of the early postwar period is J. Prytz JOHANSEN'S monograph devoted to Maori (JOHANSEN 1948). In his book, he carried out a structural analysis of a Maori sentence type termed by him concretive, in which a deverbative noun functions as the predicate. Besides, he touched upon the question of word classes in Maori, treating the traditional terms as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc. as syntactical (JOHANSEN 1948: 5). On the other hand, he admitted that [...] the meaning of a word rarely permits it to appear in all these functions [...] (JOHANSEN 1 9 4 8 : 4). functional analysis of both nominal and verbal particles has retained its value till this day. JOHANSEN'S

5.3.3. Break with the concepts of traditional grammar The first modern treatment of Hawaiian morphology and syntax

64

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

can be found in S. H. ELBERT'S textbook of this language (ELBERT 1951). This textbook was subsequently revised and enlarged, and continues to be published until now. As far as Tongan is concerned, C. M. CHURCHWARD (1953) is still the most detailed treatment of morphology. He called for a more complete break with the concepts and categories of classical linguistics. However, he continued to prefer semantic criteria to formal ones in some respects. Descriptive adequacy is also manifested by S. H. ELBERT in his description of Kapingamarangi (ELBERT 1948) while a traditional outlook is characteristic for S. ENGLERT'S grammar of the Easter Island language (ENGLERT 1948: 325-76) and for the handbook of Tahitian by LOVY - BOUGE (1953). 5.3.4. Impact of American descriptivism Towards the end of the fifties important methodological innovations took place in Polynesian linguistic studies. These are due mainly to the impact of American descriptive linguistics. It is FORM that is taken as the basis of description and the authors aim at a detailed description of the DISTRIBUTION of morphemes within greater units, usually phrases. At the same time, the relevance of the word as a grammatical unit is frequently questioned. The distributional method was first applied to the study of Polynesian grammar by S. H. ELBERT (cf. PUKUI - ELBERT 1 9 5 7 : xvii-xxviii). ELBERT parted entirely with classical grammatical categories. Hawaiian words were classed as major words, minor words, interjections, and numerals. The first class comprises two small subclasses termed loa'a-type words (denoted as neuter verbs or participles in other Polynesian languages) and k-less words (known also as locatives). The major words can be used, according to ELBERT, as verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. However, these are only notional categories and no true parts of speech. Likewise, the compounds are distinguished from two major words in sequence largely on semantic grounds.

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

5.3.5.

65

Bruce G. Biggs' model

A somewhat different line of research was pursued by B. G. BIGGS whose work on Maori (BIGGS 1960, 1961a) has exerted a major influence upon the subsequent study of Polynesian grammar. Since few distributional statements are possible under the heading of morphology, BIGGS (1960) suggested that the distribution of morphemes should be described in a division of grammar called MORPHOLOGY-SYNTAX. This discipline is intended to deal with the identification of morphemes, their classification, and with the combinatorial possibilities of morphemes within a unit of distribution termed CONTOUR WORD ( = phrase). All morphemes are classified either as BASES (comparable to ELBERT'S major words) or as MINOR MORPHEMES. The latter class includes affixes and particles. Bases are subdivided into six classes according to their occurrence with minor morphemes that are classified into position classes. In defining the limits of a sentence, BIGGS made use of phonological criteria. Thus a sentence is a stretch between silence or final juncture and final juncture. Contour words may be classified in terms of the initial morphemes. The classification of contour words and their possible combinations within the sentence represent the domain of syntax proper. BIGGS elaborated his idea of the Polynesian grammar in his dissertation (BIGGS 1961a). The latter is the first comprehensive grammar of a Polynesian language meeting the demands of American descriptive linguistics. The term contour word is used in the above-mentioned sense; it consists of a NUCLEUS (base plus nuclear minor morphemes, i.e. affixes) and of a PERIPHERY (peripheral minor morphemes, i.e. particles). Minor morphemes are given by listing and subdivided into position classes. Bases are subdivided on distributional grounds into six classes. An alphabetic notation is used for these classes. Elsewhere (BIGGS 1969) they are termed nouns, adjectives, verbs, locatives, proper nouns, and universal. BIGGS' dissertation was taken as a sort of model, and quite a few descriptions of other Polynesian languages subsequently appeared that followed more or less faithfully the standards set by BIGGS. This is true of A. K . PAWLEY'S studies on Samoan (PAWLEY

66

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

1961,1966a), of V. CARROLL'S outline of Nukuoro (CARROLL 1965), of R. MOEKA'A'S description of the Pukapukan verbal phrase (MOEKA'A 1966), of A. THORPE'S article on Luangiuan (THORPE s.a.), of R . RANBY'S sketch of Nanumean (RANBY 1966), of A. CAPELL'S description of Mae (CAPELL 1962b), etc. All these authors prefer to confine their attention to phrase structure while neglecting the study of more complex units, namely sentences. Analogous methodological assumptions are characteristic also of E. J. MORTON'S approach to Tongan grammar (MORTON 1962) on the one hand, and of the series of articles on Rarotongan by J . E. BUSE (BUSE 1963a, 1963b) on the other hand. A careful semantic analysis of grammatical markers is given by MORTON in the above-mentioned work that, unfortunately, does not include syntax. However, BUSE (1963c) also suggested a scheme for the description of the Polynesian sentence; he deviated from BIGGS and PAWLEY more in terminology than in the spirit of his description. Thus he used the term piece instead of phrase but distinguished words and particles and subclassified the former in terms of their cooccurrence with the latter. Unlike BIGGS and PAWLEY, BUSE paid more attention to the semantic aspect and explained the meaning of grammatical markers with numerous examples. Sentences are subdivided into statements, marked questions, and unmarked questions. Rarotongan is characterized as a language of the analytic type, with little inflection or morphological complexity, and using order within sentence for signalling syntactic relations. The two basic types of sentences in Rarotongan are verbal and nominal sentences. Both are in their turn subclassified and their structures are briefly analyzed. Four types of phrase are distinguished within the sentence: nominal, verbal, negative (the latter might be treated more adequately as a special instance of the verbal phrase), and conjunctival. Having divided verbal sentences from nominal ones, BUSE utilized elements of generative procedure to describe more complex sentences and pointed out instances of structural ambiguity. According to him, passive constructions focus attention on the ACTION-GOAL relationship while their active counterparts stress the ACTOR-ACTION relationship. When discussing nominal senten-

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

67

ces, he applied the term COMMENT to the first nominal phrase and the term TOPIC to the second nominal phrase. 5.3.6.

Renewed discussions on the passive voice

The problem of the existence of a passive in the Polynesian languages was again raised in MILNER (1962). MILNER, unlike previous scholars, stressed the synchronic aspects of the problem. He maintained that the distinction between passive and active is irrelevant in Samoan, and the so-called passive (or, to be more precise, transitive) should be regarded as PERFECTIVE. It should be noted here that the passive forms tend to have perfective aspectual meaning in some other languages as well (e.g. in Slavic languages). This can probably be explained through the less dynamic character of a sentence in which the agent is suppressed. On the other hand, there are few, if any, doubts of the existence of a passive in Eastern Polynesian languages. Here more attention was paid to the selection principles of the numerous allomorphs of the passive suffix. While it was generally held that the selection is conditioned morphologically, PEARCE (1964) and KRUPA (1966c) proved that the choice is conditioned euphonically; this conditioning can be expressed in probabilistic terms. Valuable remarks on the nature of the Polynesian passive may be found in K. HALE (1968), a review of P. HOHEPA'S grammar of Maori (HOHEPA 1967). Comparing Maori with Tongan, HALE arrived at the conclusion that Tongan transitive sentences exhibit an ERGATIVE construction and the present-day ergative involves the gradual elimination of active transitive sentences in favour of passive sentences. HALE suggests that, in view of a high frequency of passive constructions, Maori is likewise changing toward the ergative type. The discussion was concluded by HOHEPA (1969); this revealing study gives the most convincing analysis of the Polynesian passive. HOHEPA distinguished ACCUSATIVE-TYPE languages from ERGATIVE-TYPE languages; the former, unlike the latter, have active-passive distinctions marked overtly. He argued that Polynesian languages with ergative constructions derived such constructions from an earlier accusative

68

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

basis, and that this process is continuing. It has been completed in Niuean which is the only Polynesian language of a pure ergative type. Tongan, Samoan, Pukapukan, Rennellese, Tikopian, Ellice Islands, Sikaianan, and Luangiuan are intermediary, accusativeergative languages, while Maori, Rarotongan, Tahitian, Hawaiian, Marquesan, Easter Island, Mangarevan, and Nukuoro are accusative-type languages. HOHEPA concluded by predicting that all Polynesian languages may gradually become ergative languages. 5.3.7.

Quantitative methods

Quantitative methods were applied to the structure of the Maori morpheme and word by KRUPA (1966b, 1968b) who tried to give an operational definition of the word in Maori. He also offered a typological characteristics of the Maori word and a content analysis of some grammatical categories (KRUPA 1968a: 56-60). 5.4.

M O D E R N APPROACHES

5.4.1. Profile generative grammar The period of flourishment of what came to be termed phrase structure grammar was terminated toward the end of the sixties by the rising tide of TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR. The first attempt at a generative syntax of a Polynesian language was undertaken by P. W. HOHEPA in the 4th chapter of his dissertation (HOHEPA 1967: 97-112). In addition to this, HOHEPA'S grammar included chapters on morphology, on sentence profiles, and a brief comparison of profiles in several Polynesian languages. He also applied the transformational method to the problem of negatives in Maori (HOHEPA 1966). 5.4.2.

Transformational method

The first work dealing in detail with the syntax of a Polynesian language is P. R. SHARPLES' monograph on Sikaianan (SHARPLES

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

69

1968). The author followed basically CHOMSKY'S model of transformational generative grammar as known from his Aspects (CHOMSKY 1965) but he deviated in a couple of points from it. SHARPLES seems to favour that version of the transformational generative grammar in which elementary (kernel) sentences are recognized and in which unary and binary transformations are incorporated. This is connected with the fact that the problem of using # S # in the base component of grammar has not been satisfactorily solved. Most critical remarks on CHOMSKY'S model are to be found in Chapter 6 (SHARPLES 1 9 6 8 : 2 6 0 - 3 2 6 ) where SHARPLES argues that the generalized transformations cannot be entirely eliminated. He also suggested a procedure of his own for handling the so-called transformative affixes (SHARPLES 1 9 6 8 : 3 2 5 - 6 ) that are not discussed by CHOMSKY at all. Problems of grammatical interference were raised in KRUPA (1967C). This study dealing with the impact of English upon the grammar of Maori indicates that some specific grammatical categories of Maori that are absent from English tend to become obsolete under the impact of English (e.g. the distinction of the possession types).

5.4.3.

The first modern treatment of Tahitian grammar

(TRYON)

The study of the languages of French Polynesia has long been neglected and all grammatical descriptions of these languages are based on traditional models. The first modern treatment of Tahitian grammar can be found in D. S. TRYON'S handbook of Tahitian (TRYON 1970). As the author puts it himself (TRYON 1 9 7 0 : xiii), his study does not follow the same lines as existing grammars of Tahitian but looks at it within the framework of Oceanic languages. Some of the traditional descriptive features have, however, been retained in the interests of clarity. Thus 'o is treated as an article although its role consists in focusing attention upon the subsequent word. The nominalizer ra*a should better be regarded as a particle, not as a suffix (TRYON 1 9 7 0 : 3 7 ) ; this solution would be parallel to that chosen for the passive marker hia. In spite of

70

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

some minor objections of this kind, TRYON'S work has filled a most serious gap in our knowledge of Polynesian grammar. 5.4.4.

Typology of Polynesian grammar

The typology of the Polynesian languages received relatively little attention. One of the few exceptions is A. K. PAWLEY'S study of grammatical reconstruction and change in Polynesia and Fiji (PAWLEY 1970). The author presented a typological comparison of the Polynesian verbal phrase and utilized the results obtained for a revealing reconstruction of the verbal phrase in ProtoPolynesian. 5.5.

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS I N THE FIELD O F POLYNESIAN GRAMMAR

5.5.1.

Morphology

The minimal unit to be discussed in grammar is the morpheme; regularities characteristic of its shape have been given earlier. Distributional and semantic criteria lead to a classification of morphemes into AFFIXES, PARTICLES, and ROOTS. Productive inflectional affixes are very scarce in Polynesian and largely restricted to a causative prefix, reduplicative prefix denoting either frequentative or intensive, passive suffix, and nominalizing suffix. A few additional affixes occur in the languages of West Polynesia, e.g. reciprocal, potential, intensive prefixes, etc. Derivational affixes are also rare and only seldom productive. An inevitable consequence of this is that most grammatical meanings are marked outside the word itself, namely by means of particles. The particles are usually classed as GRAMMATICAL (largely prepositive), and ADVERBIAL or MODIFYING (largely postpositive). The former in their turn can be classified into VERBAL and NOMINAL. The particles, together with the word determined by them, form what is generally termed PHRASE in the Polynesian languages. Thus we arrive at the question of the parts of speech or word classes. Although some linguists

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

71

(e.g. ELBERT 1957a, HOHEPA 1967) treat the word classes in Polynesian as syntactic classes, most of them agree on the existence of the following word classes: (1) NOUNS, i.e. words compatible only with the nominal particles (2) PARTICIPLES or NEUTER VERBS, i.e. words compatible with the verbal particles and with the nominalizing suffix only (3) ADJECTIVES, i.e. words compatible both with verbal and nominal particles as well as with the nominalizing suffix (4) UNIVERSALS, i.e. words compatible not only with the verbal and nominal particles, and with the nominalizing suffix but also with the passive suffix. (sometimes termed LOCATIVES) may be treated as a subclass of nouns with restricted compatibility (incompatible with the determinative nominal particles, i.e. articles); in an analogous way the PROPER NOUNS may be treated (cf. KRUPA 1968b). ADVERBS

5.5.2.

The verbal phrase

The minimal verbal phrase consists of (1) a particle denoting the category of aspect (and tense) and the category of mood (2) a word determined by the preceding particle In all Polynesian languages there is a set of such particles forming a paradigm. In addition to an aspect-tense-mood marker, the verbal phrase may contain one or several of the following postpositive particles denoting (1) (2) (3) (4)

direction manner resultativeness (the so-called anaphoric particles) qualification

The order in which they are listed prevails in most languages. The verbal phrase may also contain a particle marking position in

72

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

space and time, and sometimes there is even a prepositive manner particle. PAWLEY ( 1 9 7 0 : 3 1 8 ) divides the verbal phrase into an obligatory minor verbal phrase (including only an aspect-tensemood marker plus the full word) and an optional qualifier (all the other particles). Numerous languages of Western Polynesia are known to incorporate the so-called short person-markers between the aspecttense-mood marker and the full word denoting an action. These EMBEDDED PERSON-MARKERS functioning as subjects occur in Tongan, Samoan, Uvean, Futunan, Tokelauan, Mae, Rennellese, etc. 5.5.3.

The nominal phrase

The nominal phrase can be divided into several types, according to the noun functioning as its head. However, all types admit orientational or prepositional nominal particles that function as markers of relations between parts of sentences and as orientation in space and time. These particles are sometimes termed phrase-initiators since their place is at the beginning of the nominal phrase. They are followed by determinative nominal particles, i.e. articles. These are substitutable for possessive pronouns as well as demonstrative pronouns. The subclass of adverbs is incompatible with the determinative particles while proper nouns and pronouns are compatible with the personal article only. The full word that follows the determinative particle, if any, may in its turn be followed by an adverbial particle. Any adjective functioning as an attribute is embedded into the nominal phrase and its place is immediately after the full word to which it pertains. 5.5.4.

Sentence

structure

While the verbal phrase usually functions as a predicate, the nominal phrase may function in several ways: (1) as a subject (2) as an agentive (3) as an object

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

73

(4) as an adverbial, both locative and temporal (5) as a modifier (6) as a nominal predicate It ought to be added that in ergative constructions (known from many West Polynesian languages), the occurrence of the subject is restricted to intransitive sentences. The terms listed above plus the verbal predicate are generally used in descriptions of the syntax of the Polynesian languages. When comparing the ordering of elements within the phrase with that within the sentence, one is immediately aware of the fact that the sentence is notable for a less rigid arrangement of its components than is the phrase. Nevertheless some regularities may be observed; thus, the verbal predicate normally precedes both object and subject (or agentive). The latter two parts of sentence can permute more or less freely, i.e.: VP - S O = VP - O - S; VP - S - A = V P - A - S ; etc. The adverbial occurs frequently either at the beginning or at the end of the sentence. The modifier is a nominal phrase that usually follows the nominal phrase determined by it. The order SUBJECT - VERBAL PREDICATE is neutral only in some Outliers; elsewhere it occurs only if the subject is stressed. The same rules hold for the nominal sentences; however, the terms comment and topic are sometimes used instead of nominal predicate and subject. 5.5.5.

Negation

While questions do not basically differ from statements, except for intonation and interrogative words, negation is a complicated matter, especially in some East Polynesian languages. The negative word functions as a formally independent verbal predicate to which the meaningful predicate is linked as a dependent clause. HOHEPA (1966) suggested that the negative sentences, especially in Maori and Rarotongan, be handled as derived from their positive counterparts by means of transformations.

74

MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX 5.5.6.

Complex sentences

The structure of the phrase belongs to the most intensively studied issues in Polynesian grammar; on the other hand, very little is known of the syntax of simple sentences and even less of complex sentences. One of the few pre-transformationalist works dealing with the complex sentence is H . JENSEN'S article on relative sentences in Samoan (JENSEN 1 9 2 5 - 2 6 ) ; cf. his notes on the role of the particle ona in Samoan (JENSEN 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 ) . JOHANSEN ( 1 9 4 8 ) analyzed in detail the use of the deverbative which often expresses the predicate in dependent clauses. P. R. SHARPLES' dissertation on Sikaianan (SHARPLES 1 9 6 8 ) is the only work discussing comprehensively the syntax of a Polynesian language. Complex sentences are suggested to be derived by means of unary and binary transformations from simple sentences. It remains to be hoped that similar studies will follow because syntax is one of those subjects in Polynesian studies that are in need of urgent research.

6

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

6.1.

BEGINNINGS OF LEXICOGRAPHY

6.1.1.

First word lists and vocabularies

First word lists and vocabularies of the Polynesian languages appeared towards the end of the 18th century and in the beginning of the 19th century. Naturally, they were far from exhaustive or reliable but they supplied sufficient amounts of data for preliminary comparative studies that led to the establishment of the MalayoPolynesian linguistic family. As far as the very early vocabularies are concerned, one ought to mention the Tahitian vocabulary by J. COOK, added to his journal (COOK 1771), two vocabularies of Maori (COLLINS 1798, KENDALL - LEE 1820), a vocabulary of Tongan by W . MARINER and J . MARTIN (MARINER 1817), a fairly extensive Tahitian dictionary (DAVIES 1851); around the middle of the 19th century, some solid lexicographic works appeared. Thus W . WILLIAMS, the first of the "dynasty", published a remarkable dictionary of Maori ( W . WILLIAMS 1844) that was subsequently revised and reedited several times. L . ANDREWS' dictionary ( A N DREWS 1865) likewise became the basis of most subsequent dictionaries of Hawaiian. G. PRATT'S Samoan dictionary (PRATT 1862) was until recently the most comprehensive work on this important Western Polynesian language.

6.1.2.

Hale's reconstruction of the Proto-Polynesian vocabulary

In the middle of the 19th century, H . HALE made the first attempt to reconstruct parts of the Proto-Polynesian vocabulary ( H . HALE

76

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

1846). HALE listed the "primitive or radical form of the word" and then gave its cognates in several Polynesian languages. In many instances the "primitive form" ( H . HALE 1846: 292) does not occur in any living Polynesian language but was reconstructed on the basis of a comparison of existing cognates. 6.1.3.

Lexicography

in the second half of the 19th century

In the second half of the 19th century, dictionaries represent a great majority of all works dealing with the Polynesian languages. Another dictionary of Samoan appeared (VIOLETTE 1879) and the first dictionary of Tongan was published (COLOMB 1890). The French school has also produced dictionaries of East Futunan (GR£ZEL 1878) and of Tahitian (JAUSSEN 1887). One of the most remarkable lexicographic works of the 19th century is no doubt E. TREGEAR'S comparative dictionary (TREGEAR 1891) that takes Maori as a basis of the comparison. Despite certain inconsistencies and lacunae, it contains a wealth of information and is still of considerable use; it was republished in 1969. TREGEAR was a prolific lexicographer and published small-sized dictionaries of Tuamotuan (TREGEAR 1893-95), of Mangarevan (TREGEAR 1899), and, together with S. P. SMITH, of Niuean (TREGEAR - SMITH 1907). 6.1.4.

Dictionaries of less known Polynesian

languages

By the beginning of the 20th century there were still numerous white spots on the lexicographic map of Polynesia. They continued to be removed and towards the end of the first period in the study of Polynesian languages, vocabularies of several less-known languages appeared. Two of them were of a very modest size, namely those of Nukuoro (CHRISTIAN 1898) and of Tikopian (DURRAD 1913). R. I. DORDILLON'S dictionary of Marquesan (DORDILLON 1904) is the only dictionary of this language published after MOSBLECH (1843). However, it is unreliable since neither the glottal stop nor vocalic quantity are marked consistently and, in addition to this, the dialectal variation of Marquesan is ignored.

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

77

Unfortunately, these shortcomings are inherent to most if not all dictionaries published during this period. Before World War I, first dictionaries of the Easter Island language were published, the first one is ROUSSEL (1908), the second o n e CHURCHILL (1912). 6.2.

FIRST SEMANTIC STUDIES

The study of typical semantic problems lagged considerably behind lexicography, not only during the 19th century but also during the first two decades of the 20th century. Although G . TURNER published his article on the language of courtesy as early as 1847 (TURNER 1847), very little was achieved in the subsequent decades. The first problems to attract the attention of scholars were such welldelimited semantic fields as colour terms (KIRCHHOFF 1890) and numerals (KIRCHHOFF 1890, LARGE 1902). Quite a few ethnosemantic problems were discussed also by E. BEST in his works devoted to the description of Maori culture, e.g. kinship terms, tribal, topographical, botanical, and ornithological nomenclature (cf. BEST 1902). 6.3. THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE PRE-POLYNESIAN SUBSTRATE

The historiographical value of Polynesian oral traditions was usually exaggerated and the legends of manahune or menehune gave rise to hypotheses of a pre-Polynesian substratum in parts of the eastern Pacific. FRIEDERICI (1911) was the first to talk of a nonPolynesian element in the Tuamotuan dialects, specifically in the basic vocabulary. This hypothesis was very attractive but it turned out to be completely unjustified. 6.4.

THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY

6.4.1.

Lexicography

The second period of the study of Polynesian languages can be

78

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

characterized as a lull in lexicographic activities. Dictionaries published between 1918 and 1952 are as a rule small-sized and inconsistent in marking some phonologically relevant features, especially the glottal stop and the vocalic quantity. Most of them have been compiled either by missionaries or by amateur lexicographers. F. W. CHRISTIAN published a dictionary of Mangaian (CHRISTIAN 1924) that is still the only dictionary of the Mangaian dialect. So is the much more comprehensive dictionary of East Uvean (BATAILLON 1932). S. ENGLERT, the best authority on Easter Island, published a dictionary of Rapanuian (ENGLERT 1938) that has retained its value till this day; subsequently it was incorporated in his book on Easter Island (ENGLERT 1948). A . CAPELL, notable for his versatility and extensive knowledge of Oceanic languages, compiled a small vocabulary of Sikaianan (CAPELL 1935-37). E. and I. G. D. ANDREWS tried to fill a gap in lexicography of Tahitian and published a comparative dictionary of this language (ANDREWS - ANDREWS 1944). However, their dictionary has not surpassed E. TREGEAR'S work from the end of the past century (TREGEAR 1899) either in size or in reliability. 6.4.2.

Study of semantic problems

In contrast to lexicographic activities, the study of special lexicological and semantic problems has received more attention than in the past. While, on the one hand, many questions raised in the previous period continue to be discussed, e.g. numerals (AUDRAN 1 9 3 0 , HEIDER ( 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 ) , toponyms (GIFFORD 1 9 2 3 ) , and the language of courtesy (HEIDER 1 9 3 0 ) , some new problems appear. Thus E. HEIDER, in addition to his studies on numerical expressions and language of courtesy in Samoan, published a description of Samoan words and expressions denoting death (HEIDER 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 ) . AHNNE ( 1 9 2 6 ) evaluated the impact of the pVi, i.e. word tabu, upon the changes in Tahitian vocabulary. The modifications of the Tahitian vocabulary caused by contacts with European culture were described in VERNIER ( 1 9 4 8 ) . Hawaiian astronomical terminology was discussed in MAKEMSON ( 1 9 3 8 , 1 9 3 9 ) . CAPELL ( 1 9 3 1 ,

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

79

1949) presented a penetrating analysis of the semantic content of the grammatical category of possessivity in Polynesian languages. His approach can be characterized as a synthesis of the historical, descriptive, and typological method. He found that three different concepts of ownership prevail in the Pacific region. According to him, the Polynesian languages exhibit the concept of ownership considered from the viewpoint of the owner whose relation to the object possessed may be either active or passive. 6.5. RECENT RESEARCH 6.5.1.

Lexicography

during the fifties and sixties

A tremendous upsurge in lexicographical work took place during late fifties and sixties. In 1957, the sixth revised edition of H. W. WILLIAMS' Maori dictionary appeared. The first edition of this work was published as early as 1844, and it is still one of the most comprehensive Polynesian dictionaries. It contains some 1 9 , 0 0 0 entries. Nesting is the chief principle of the arrangement of an entry; derivations are listed under their roots that are sometimes hypothetical. Unfortunately, English loanwords are not incorporated in the dictionary, which no doubt restricts its use. Many entries are exemplified with full sentences. Vocalic quantity is marked consistently. In the same year as WILLIAMS ( 1 9 5 7 ) another exhaustive work, a dictionary of Hawaiian, appeared (PUKUI ELBERT 1957). It incorporates material from a number of earlier dictionaries plus numerous new items from various texts. Loanwords are included in full range. Entries are listed strictly according to the alphabetic principle. The latter has been carried out so consistently that even passive forms are listed separately. The glottal stop and long vowels are carefully indicated. This dictionary with its 2 5 , 0 0 0 entries is a major addition to Polynesian lexicography. The same authors later also published an English-Hawaiian dictionary (PUKUI - ELBERT 1964). Using some earlier works as well as texts and Tongan informants, C . M. CHURCHWARD compiled a comprehensive dictionary of Tongan ( C . M. CHURCHWARD 1959).

80

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

The number of entries exceeds 2 0 , 0 0 0 in both parts of the work. All loanwords have been included and marked with a special sign. The entries are arranged according to the alphabetic principle so that all derivations and even complex idioms are treated as separate lexical units. FUENTES' ( 1 9 6 0 ) is the first dictionary of the language of Easter Island that reflects profound changes which have occurred in the language since the contacts with the outer world began. Unfortunately, it is much less comprehensive than the dictionaries discussed and the loanwords are seldom marked as such, especially those from Tahitian. The first dictionary of Rarotongan (SAVAGE 1962) is likewise fairly modest in size. It was compiled some time ago and its author had died before the dictionary was prepared for the press. As a consequence of this, the dictionary abounds in mistakes, especially in marking the glottal stop and vocalic quantity; many frequent lexemes have been omitted (e.g. inu 'drink' and mata'iti 'year'). One of its few positive achievements is the fact that it gives the user reliable and fairly detailed information on facts of Rarotongan culture, mythology, and history. Another major contribution to Polynesian lexicography is the Tuamotuan dictionary by STIMSON - MARSHALL ( 1 9 6 4 ) . It is based upon data gathered by J . F . STIMSON in 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 3 8 . However, it seems obvious that the compilers relied also on WILLIAMS' dictionary of Maori (H. W . WILLIAMS 1 9 5 7 ) . Unfortunately, no adequate information on dialectal variation is given and the vocalic quantity as marked by the authors must be taken with great caution. The nesting principle is used rather consistently. Another gap in the literature on Polynesian languages was filled by G. B. MILNER who published a dictionary of Samoan (MILNER 1 9 6 6 ) . This is the first dictionary of Samoan to have an accurate and consistent orthography, with the glottal stop and long vowels indicated everywhere. There are some 6,000 entries included in the dictionary but the total of the lexemes is considerably larger because the author's aim was to group as many derivatives as possible under one entry. Vulgarisms and proper names have been deliberately omitted. The latest in the series of dictionaries is B . BIGGS' English-Maori dictionary (BIGGS 1966) that was compiled for practical purposes. In the same year

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

SI

a tentative edition of a vocabulary of Proto-Polynesian reconstructions appeared (WALSH - BIGGS 1966). The work on the reconstruction is going on and cannot be expected to be completed until after several more years. 6.5.2.

Semantic research

Semantic questions no doubt do not rank high among the subjects studied by the adherents of descriptive linguistics. That is why it is by no means surprising that a good deal of works dealing with typically semantic problems were written by ethnologists during the sixties and almost all of them by Europeans whose aversion toward the semantic aspect of language was not so deep as that of their American colleagues. T. BARTHEL devoted many years to the study of the Easter Island script. As a result of his efforts, a considerable number of characters have been deciphered. Both his main works dealing with the Easter Island script (BARTHEL 1958, 1963) inevitably discuss many ethnosemantic questions, both in descriptive and in comparative perspective. This writing system is a condensed, rebus-like script that cannot be fully deciphered and understood without touching upon homonymy, synonymy, and other semantic questions. In addition to the aforementioned works, BARTHEL published a variety of articles dealing with such sets of semantically related words as kinship and social terms (BARTHEL 1960, 1961), astronomical terms (BARTHEL 1962b), toponyms (BARTHEL 1962a), etc. However, it is his paper on the ethnolinguistic study of symbolism (BARTHEL 1964) that is imminently relevant for the semantics of the Polynesian languages. According to BARTHEL, the Polynesian symbolism is based upon several culturally conditioned principles. The dominant models are anthropomorphous, phytomorphous, and to a lesser degree theriomorphous. An important role is played also by technomorphous and cosmic models. However, the main source of Polynesian symbolism seems to be the triangle HUMAN BODY - PLANT - CANOE, which is by no means surprising. A. A. KOSKINEN contributed to Polynesian semantics with his

82

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

studies on religious terminology (KOSKINEN 1963, 1967). He used the same method as in his previous monograph concerning the term ariki (KOSKINEN 1960), which consists in studying the term concerned in all possible associations with other words and in comparing it with its cognates in other Polynesian languages. He also published a paper on Polynesian toponyms (KOSKINEN 1963). His conclusions are that there are two distinctive areas (Western and Eastern) in Polynesia as far as the number of shared terms is concerned and that the connection between New Zealand and Central Polynesia is not so marked as could be supposed. Strangely enough, the domain of kinship terms has not received an adequate attention although its peculiarities (e.g. the principle of sex relativity combined with that of seniority) offer an excellent opportunity for semantic typology. All the more interesting are papers on kinship (DANIELSSON 1953, AOYAGI 1966), and a general paper restricted to the study of Polynesian sibling terms (FIRTH 1970). Colour terms of several Polynesian languages (Maori, Tongan, Pukapukan, Vaitupuan) were analyzed in BERLIN - KAY ( 1 9 6 9 ) . However, due to their inadequate data, this analysis is more interesting from the methodological viewpoint. As far as particular grammatical categories are concerned, the category of possession received more attention than any other. Its semantic content and possible extralinguistic background was discussed in BUSE ( 1 9 6 0 : 130-2) and KRUPA ( 1 9 6 4 ) .

6.5.3. Language of courtesy The so-called language of courtesy known from some Western Polynesian languages was again studied: in Samoan by BUSE (1961), and in Uvean, Samoan, and Tongan by BLIXEN (1966a, 1966b). However, it was G. B . MILNER'S article devoted to Samoan (MILNER 1961) that dealt with the category of courtesy in the most exhaustive way. MILNER defined persons who are addressed and spoken about in "polite style" and traced its origin to wordtabuization. He was the first to define the lexical distribution of terms of respect showing that they mostly refer to body functions

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

83

and movements, or to objects coming into close contact with the human body. He also was the first to suggest that there is probably a connection between ritual avoidance and the origin of the language of courtesy. The article is concluded by a list of "polite" words accompanied by their neutral equivalents. 6.5.4.

Lexical change

The contacts with Europeans exerted a far-reaching influence upon the linguistic situation in Polynesia. As a consequence of acculturation, the Polynesian languages tended to lose prestige in many areas, especially in the cities. The impact of European culture upon the Polynesian languages was discussed by HOLLYMAN (1962), who sketched a quantitative analysis of European borrowings and pointed out that another aspect of acculturation is the gradual loss of terms referring to the old culture. He also mentioned the question of phonological adaptation during the process of borrowing. Remarkable lexical changes - at least in Tahitian and probably also inTuamotuan-are due also to the custom of pi'i or word-tabu. This unusual custom was dealt with by R. G. WHITE in two recent papers (WHITE 1967, 1968). He stressed that the basic vocabulary was most affected by pi'i. Although it is not clear whether wordtabuization is of Tuamotuan or Tahitian origin, WHITE proved that the mysterious non-Polynesian element in Tuamotuan does not exist in reality. 6.5.5.

An attempt at comparative

semantics

Semantics was never a favourite subject of research in Polynesian linguistics. When studying the semantics of a language, we deal with an extremely complicated projection or mapping of reality into meaningful linguistic forms. This mapping is never identical for any two languages although there are languages in which the mapping is more alike than in other languages. This fact makes comparative semantics and semantic typology possible. N. A. HOLMER undertook an attempt to

84

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

delineate some few typical concepts and semantic patterns recurring in various forms and aspects [...] in his monograph devoted to Oceanic semantics (HOLMER 1966: 8). His aim was to illustrate some remarkable and typical differences in conceptual structure between European languages and those of Australia and the Pacific. He restricted his attention, however, to the functioning of several key words in concept construction (e.g. eye, white, love, negation). The chief merit of HOLMER'S work lies in his effort to turn the attention of linguists to a long-neglected area of research. 6.5.6. 6.5.6.1.

Special

problems

Kinship terms

Taking into account the present state of research in Polynesian semantics, any attempt to characterize this language level in a reliable way would be premature. To be sure, the Polynesian vocabulary reflects the social structure, material, and nonmaterial culture of the Polynesians in the past. Naturally enough, the vocabulary is no such system as, e.g., phonology or grammar; yet there are some areas with a higher degree of structuration. This is true of kinship and colour terms, verbs denoting movement, pronouns, etc. Polynesian kinship terms are very much alike, although there are differences among particular languages. The most typical features of the Polynesian kinship terminology are the irrelevance of the degree of relationship (the same term may be used for father and uncle, brother and cousin, son and nephew, etc.), the relativity of sex (one and the same term may denote either brother or sister, according to the person using the term), seniority (elder siblings are distinguished from younger ones), etc. 6.5.6.2.

Colour terms

The Polynesian colour terms are notable for a marked predominance of secondary, derived words. Unmotivated terms are used chiefly for the distinction of light and darkness while, on the other hand, many specialized terms can be applied only to a fairly small

LEXICOGRAPHY AND SEMANTICS

85

group of objects. Numerous terms are motivated by the colour of vegetation or earth as well as by the colour of parts of human or animal body. 6.5.6.3.

Orientation

in space

A very important dimension of Polynesian semantics is the detailed orientation of utterances in space. This category is expressed by indicative pronouns, local and directional particles. Spatial particles may also be used in temporal meaning, which seems to indicate that the orientation in space is primary and the temporal orientation secondary. The spatial orientation as a deictic category is closely connected with individualization. The latter is manifested by the existence of individual or proper articles in most Polynesian languages that form a paradigm with the definite and indefinite articles. The system of personal pronouns can be analyzed into a set of distinctive features that include person, inclusivity and exclusivity as well as number (singular, dual, plural, and exceptionally trial). The paradigm of possessive pronouns is even more complex. The type of possession (alienable versus inalienable) is obligatorily expressed and, besides, definite versus indefinite, emphatic versus neutral, benefactive versus nonbenefactive possessives are distinguished. The spatial orientation is supported by the existence of a closed class of locatives that sometimes formalize rather unusual, typically Polynesian spatial relations (i.e. proximity to sea, location relative to a river or a lake, etc.). Polynesian languages abound in proper names which were frequently given not only to persons but also to important things. The fact that proper names played a different role in Polynesia from that in Europe is highly compatible with ritual avoidance or word-tabu. This custom used to operate in several parts of Polynesia and it gave, according to MILNER ( 1 9 6 1 ) , an impetus to the formation of the category of courtesy in several languages of West Polynesia.

7

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

7.1 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abe, I. 1965a "Hawaiian pronunciation", Bulletin of the Tokyo Institute of Technology 63: 25-30. 1965b "On Hawaiian intonation", Le Maître phonétique 80: 5-6. Ahnne, E. 1926 "De la coutume du 'pii' et des modifications qu'elle apporta au vocabulaire tahitien", Bulletin de la Société des Études Océanistes 11: 6-10. Alexander, W. de Witt 1864 A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar 2 part. (Honolulu: H. M. Whitney), [last réédition (1924)] Andrews, E. - I. G. D. Andrews 1944 A comparative dictionary of the Tahitian language: Tahitian-English with an English-Tahitian finding list (Chicago: The Chicago Academy of Sciences). Andrews, L. 1854 Grammar of the Hawaiian language (Honolulu: Mission Press). 1865 A dictionary of the Hawaiian language to which is appended an English-Hawaiian vocabulary, and a chronological table of remarkable events (Honolulu: H. M. Whitney). Aoyagi, M. 1966 "Kinship organization and behaviour in a contemporary Tongan village", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 141-75. Audran, H. 1919a "Notes sur le dialecte paumotu", Bulletin de la Société des Études Océanistes 5: 30-6. 1919b "Étude linguistique du dialecte particulier de Napuka", Bulletin de la Société des Études Océanistes 5: 36-41. 1930 "Numération polynésienne", Bulletin de la Société des Études Océanistes 35: 25-6. Barthel, T. S. 1958 Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift (Hamburg: de Gruyter).

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

87

1960 "Zu einigen polynesischen Verwandtschaftsnamen", ZEthn 85:177-86. 1961 "Zu einigen gesellschaftlichen Termini der Polynesier", ZEthn 86: 256-75. 1962a "Easter Island place-names", JSOc 18: 100-7. 1962b "Zur Sternkunde der Osterinsulaner", ZEthn 87: 1-3. 1963 "Rongorongo-Studien (Forschungen und Fortschritte bei der weiteren Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift)", Anthropos 58: 372-436. 1964 "Ethnologische Polynesienforschung", Anthropos 59: 920-6. [ = review of KOSKINEN (1963-67 1)]

Bataillon, P. 1932 Langue d'Uvea (Wallis); grammaire-dictionnaire uvea-français; dictionnaire français-uvea-anglais (Paris : Geuthner). Bayard, D. T. 1966 The cultural relationships of the Polynesian outliers (University of Hawaii, Honolulu) . [unpublished M.A. thesis] Bergmann, H. G. 1963 Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Sprache der Osterinsel (Universität Hamburg), [dissertation] Berlin, B. - P. Kay 1969 Basic colour terms; their universality and evolution (Berkeley - Los Angeles: University of California Press). Best, E. 1902 "Maori nomenclature", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 32: 182-201. Biggs, B. G. 1958 The sound system of Maori, Paper read at the Refresher Course for Teachers of the Maori Language, [mimeographed] 1960 "Morphology-syntax in a Polynesian language", The journal of the Polynesian society 69: 376-9. 1961a "The structure of New Zealand Maaori",y4n£ 3.3: 1-54. [dissertation] 1961b Towards a syntax of Maori, Paper read at the Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu 1961. [mimeographed] 1965 "Direct and indirect inheritance in Rotuman", Lingua 14: 383-415. 1966 English-Maori dictionary (Wellington: Reed). 1967 "The past twenty years in Polynesian linguistics", in HIGHLAND et alii (1967: 303-22).

1969 Let's learn Maori (Wellington: Reed). Biggs, B. G. - D. S. Walsh - J. Waqa 1970 Proto-Polynesian reconstructions with English to Proto-Polynesian finder list; interim listing January 1970 ( = Working papers in linguistics) (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [enlarged and revised edition of WALSH - BIGGS (1966)]

Blixen, O. 1966a "El lenguaje honorífico en Uvea (Wallis) y sus conexiones en Polinesia occidental", Moana Estudios de antropología oceánica 1.2: 1-13. 1966b "Lenguaje honorífico y comportamiento reverente en Samoa y Tonga", Comunicaciones antropológicas del Museo de Historia natural de Montevideo 1.6: 1-39.

88

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Bopp, F. 1841 Über die Verwandtschaft der malayisch-polynesischen Sprachen mit den indisch-europäischen (Berlin: Dümmler). Burgmann, A. 1942 "Syntaktische Probleme im Polynesischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Tonganischen", ZES 32: 1-30, 89-113, 183-201. Burrows, E. G. 1938 "Western Polynesia; a story in cultural differentiation", Etnologiska studier 7: 1-192. Buschmann, J. 1843 Aperçu de la langue des Iles Marquises et de la langue taitienne précédé d'une introduction sur l'histoire et la geographie de l'Archipel des Marquises, accompagné d'un vocabulaire inédit de la langue taitienne par le baron Guillaume de Humboldt (Berlin: Lüderitz). Buse, J. E. 1960 "Rarotongan personal pronouns: form and distribution", SSO AS 23: 123-37. 1961 "Two Samoan ceremonial speeches", BSOAS 24: 104-15. 1963a "Structure of the Rarotongan verbal piece", BSOAS 26: 152-69. 1963b "Structure of Rarotongan nominal, negative, and conjunctival pieces", BSOAS 26: 393-419. 1963c "Rarotongan sentence structure", BSOAS 26: 632-45. Butinov, N. A. - J. V. Knorozov 1957 "Preliminary report on the study of the written language of the Easter Island", The journal of the Polynesian society 66: 5-17. Buzacott, A. 1854 Te Akataka Reo Rarotonga or Rarotongan and English grammar (Rarotonga: Mission Press). Caillot, A.-C. E. 1914 Mythes, légendes et traditions des Polynésiens (Paris: E. Leroux). Capell, A. 1931 "Some curiosities of Polynesian possessives", The journal of the Polynesian society 40: 141-50. 1933 "The structure of Oceanic languages", Oceania 3: 418-34. 1935-37 "The Sikayana language: a preliminary grammar and vocabulary", The journal of the Polynesian society 44 (1935): 163-72 ; 45 (1936): 9-16, 67-73, 142-53; 46 (1937): 24-31. 1942 "Notes on the Fila language, New Hebrides", The journal of the Polynesian society 51: 153-80. 1949 "The concept of ownership in the languages of Australia and the Pacific", SJA 5: 169-89. 1958 The culture and language of Futuna and Aniwa, New Hebrides (= Oceania linguistic monographs 5) (Sydney: University of Sydney). 1961 Linguistic survey of the South-western Pacific, new and revised edition (= South Pacific Commission technical paper 136) (Nouméa: South Pacific Commission). 1961-62 "Interdisciplinary research on Polynesian origins", Oceania 32: 287-97.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

89

1962a "Oceanic linguistics today", CAnthr 3.4: 371-428. [cf. CHRÉTIEN (1962), K A H L E R (1962)] 1962b The Polynesian language of Mae (Emwae), New Hebrides ( = Te Reo monographs 2) (Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand). Carr, D. 1940 "A note on Polynesian orthography", The journal of the Polynesian society 49: 564-7. Carroll, V. 1965 "An outline of the structure of the language of Nukuoro", The journal of the Polynesian society 74: 192-226. Chamisso, A. von 1837 Über die hawaiische Sprache (Leipzig: Weidmannische Buchhandlung). Chomsky, N. 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax (Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press). Chrétien, C. D. 1962 "Comment on A. Capell: Oceanic Linguistics Today", CAnthr 3.4: 396-8. [cf. CAPELL (1962a)] Christian, F. W. 1898 "Nuku-Oro vocabulary", The journal of the Polynesian society 7: 224-32. 1924 Vocabulary of the Mangaian language (= Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 11) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). Churchill, W. 1905 "Principles of Samoan word composition", The journal of the Polynesian society 14: 24-45. 1906 "Root reducibility in Polynesian", The journal of the Polynesian society 15: 95-124. 1908 "Samoan phonetics in the broader relation", The journal of the Polynesian society 17: 79-92, 149-61, 290-21. 1912 Easter Island; the Rapanui speech and the peopling of Southeast Polynesia (Washington: The Carnegie Institution). Churchward, C. M. 1934 "Relative pronouns in Samoan", The journal of the Polynesian society 43:192-7. 1953 Tongan grammar (London: Oxford University Press). 1959 Tongan dictionary (Tongan-English and English-Tongan) (London: Oxford University Press). Churchward, S. 1926 A new Samoan grammar (Melbourne: Methodist Church of Australasia). [revised edition (1951)] 1928 "On the origin of the Polynesian passive", The journal of the Polynesian society 37: 300-5. 1932 "Traces of suffixed pronouns in Polynesian languages", Occasional papers of the B. P. Bishop Museum 9.22: 1-6. Codrington, R. H. 1885 The Melanesian languages (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Colenso, W. 1882 A comprehensive dictionary of the New Zealand tongue (Wellington:

90

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Government Printer). Collins, D. 1798 "A short vocabulary of the New Zealand language", in: D. Collins, An account of the English colony in New South Wales 1 (London: T. Cadell Jun. - W. Davies), pp. 532-6. Collocott, E. E. V. 1922 "The speech of Niua Fo'ou", The journal of the Polynesian society 31: 185-9. Colomb, A. 1890 Dictionnaire toga-français et français-toga-anglais, précédé d'une grammaire et de quelques notes sur l'Archipel (Paris: Chadenat). Cook, J. 1771 A journal of a voyage round the world [...] in the years 1768,1769,1770, and 1771 [...] to which is added a concise vocabulary of the language of Otahitee (London: T. Becket - P. A. de Hondt). Danielsson, B. 1953 "Tuamotuan kinship terms", Ethnos 18: 155-66. Davies, J. 1823 A grammar of the Tahitian dialect of the Polynesian language (Tahiti: Mission Press). 1851 A Tahitian and English dictionary, with introductory remarks on the Polynesian language, and a short grammar of the Tahitian dialect (Tahiti: London Missionary Society's Press), [réédition of DAVIES (1823)] Dempwolff, O. 1934-38 Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes, 3 vol. [1: Induktiver Aufbau einer indonesischen Ursprache (= ZES. Beiheft 15) (Berlin: Reimer; Hamburg: Friedrichsen - de Gruyter 1934); 2: Deduktive Anwendung des Urindonesischen auf austronesische Einzelsprachen (= ZES. Beiheft 17) (Berlin: Reimer; Hamburg: Friedrichsen - de Gruyter 1937); 3 : Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis (= ZES. Beiheft 19) (Berlin: Reimer 1938)] Dieffenbach, E. 1843 "Grammar and dictionary of Maori", in: E. Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand 2 (London: Murray), pp. 297-396. Dordillon, I. R. 1857 Essai de la grammaire de la langue des ties Marquises (Valparaiso: Imprimerie du Commerce). 1931 Grammaire et dictionnaire de la langue des lies Marquises, Marquisienfrançais (Paris : Institut d'Ethnologie), [réédition of DORDILLON (1857)] Dumont d'Urville, J. S. C. 1834 Voyage de découverte de l'Astrolabe exécuté pendant les années 1826, 1827 et 1829, sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont d'Urville; observations nautiques, météorologiques, hydrogeologiques et de physique (Paris : Ministère de la Marine - F. Didot). Durrad, W. J. 1913 "A Tikopia vocabulary", The journal of the Polynesian society 22: 86-95, 141-8.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

91

Dyen, I. 1959 Review of GRACE (1959), The journal of the Polynesian society 68: 180-4. 1965 A lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages (= Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, IJAL memoir 19; = Supplement to IJAL 31.1) (Baltimore: Waverley). Elbert, S. H. 1948 Grammar and comparative study of the language of Kapingamarangi; texts and word lists (= CIMA report 3) (Washington, Pacific Science Board, National Research Council), [mimeographed] 1951 Conversational Hawaiian (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press), [cf. ELBERT (1970)]

1953 "Internal relationships of Polynesian languages and dialects", SJA 9: 147-73. 1957a "Grammatical notes in Pukui", in: M. K. Elbert - S. H. Elbert, Hawaiian-English dictionary (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press), pp. xv-xxix. 1957b "Possessives in Polynesia", Bible translator 8.1: 23-7. 1959 Selections from Fornander's Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press), [cf. FORNANDER (1917-20)] 1962 "Phonetic expansion in Rennellese", The journal of the Polynesian society 71: 25-31. 1965a "Phonological expansions in outlier Polynesia", Lingua 14: 431-42. 1965b "The 127 Rennellese possessives", Acta lingüistica Hafniensia9:16-24. 1967 "A linguistic assessment of the historical validity of some of the Rennellese and Bellonese oral traditions" in HIGHLAND et alii (1967: 257-88).

1970 Spoken Hawaiian (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press), [cf. ELBERT (1951)]

Elbert, S. H. - T. Monberg 1965 From the two canoes: oral traditions of Rennell and Bellona Islands (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press; Copenhagen: Danish National Museum). Emory, K. P. 1963 "East Polynesian relationships: settlement pattern and time involved as indicated by vocabulary agreements", The journal of the Polynesian society 72: 78-100. Englert, S. 1938 Diccionario rapanui-español (Santiago: Prensas de la Universidad de Chile). 1948 La Tierra de Hotu Matu'a (Santiago: Imprenta y Editorial San Francisco). Fedorova, E. K. 1963 "O probleme charaktera jazyka tekstov ostrova Paschi" [On the nature of the language of the texts from the Easter Island], Sovetskaja étnografija 2: 41-7. Finck, F. N. 1904 "Die samoanische Partikel 'o", Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen

92

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1904: 1318-23. 1907 "Die samoanischen Personal- und Possessivpronomina", Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse 1907: 721-42. Firth, R. 1963 "L and r in Tikopia language", OL 2: 49-61. 1970 "Sibling terms in Polynesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 79: 272-87. Fornander, A. 1917-20 Collection of Hawaiian antiquities and folklore 3 vol. ( = Bernice P. Bishop Museum bulletin 4, 5, 6) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). [1 (1917); 2 (1918); 3 (1919)] [cf. ELBERT (1959)] Fox, C. E. 1947 "Phonetic laws in Melanesian languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 56: 58-118. 1948a "Passives in Oceanic languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 57: 2-29. 1948b "Prefixes and their functions in Oceanic languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 57: 227-55. Friedend, G. 1911 "Über die fremdartigen Sprachelemente im Tuamotudialekt", Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde (Leipzig) 1911: 89-90. Fuentes, J. 1960 Dictionary and grammar of the Easter Island language (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria). Funk, B. 1893 Kurze Anleitung zum Verständnis der samoanischen Sprache; Grammatik und Vokabularium (Berlin: Mittler und Sohn). Gaussin, P. L. J. B. 1853 Du dialecte de Tahiti, de celui des ties Marquises, et, en général, de la langue polynésienne (Paris: Finnin - Didot). Gifford, E. W. 1923 Tongan place names (= Bernice P. Bishop Museum bulletin 6) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). Gill, W. W. 1876 Myths and songs from the South Pacific (London: Henry S. King). Goodenough, W. C. 1961 "Migrations implied by relationships of New Britain dialects to Central Pacific languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 70: 112-36. Grace, G. W. 1959 The position of the Polynesian languages within the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) language family (= Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, UAL memoir 16; = IJAL supplement 25.3; = Bernice P. Bishop Museum special publication 46) (Baltimore: Waverley). [ = Columbia University dissertation of 1958] [cf. DYEN (1959)]

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

93

1961 "Lexicostatistical comparison of six Eastern Austronesian languages", AnL 3: 1-22. 1964 "Movement of the Malayo-Polynesians: 1500 B.C. to A.D. 500: the linguistic evidence", CAnthr 5: 361-8. Green, R. 1966 "Linguistic subgrouping within Polynesia: the implications for prehistoric settlement", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 6-38. Grey, Sir George 1854 Ko nga Mahinga a nga Tupuna [The deeds of the ancestors] (London: Willis). Grezel, S. M. 1878 Dictionnaire futunien-frangais avec notes grammaticales (Paris: Maisonneuve). Hale, H. 1846 "Ethnography and philology" in: United States expedition during the years 1838-1842 6 (Ed.: C. Sherman) (Philadelphia: C. Sherman), pp. 229-364. Hale, K. 1968 Review of H O H E P A (1967), The journal of the Polynesian society 77: 83-99. Handy, E. S. C. 1930 Marquesan legends (= Bernice P. Bishop Museum bulletin 69) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). Harawira, K. T. 1950 Teach yourself Maori (Wellington: Reed). Harris, J. 1751 Hermes, or a philosophical enquiry concerning language and universal grammar (London), [reprinted (Menston: The Scolar Press Ltd. 1968)] Haslev, M. 1967 "The Maaori stress system", Acta linguistica Hafniensia 10: 211-6. Heider, E. 1918-19 "Ausdrücke für 'Tod und Sterben' in der samoanischen Sprache", ZES 9: 66-88. 1926-27 "Die Zahlwörter und Zahlausdrücke in der samoanischen Sprache", ZES 17: 266-90. 1930 "Häuptlingssprache auf Samoa", Mitteilungen des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen Berlin 1: 83-130. Henry, T. 1928 Ancient Tahiti (= Bernice P. Bishop Museum bulletin 48) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). Herväs y Panduro, L. 1784 Catälogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas 2: Languages of the Pacific Islands (Madrid: Ranz). Highland, G. A., et alii (eds.) 1967 Polynesian culture history; essays in honour of Kenneth P. Emory (— Bishop Museum special publication 56) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). Hogbin, H. I. P. 1928-30 "Notes on a grammar of the language of Ongtong Java", Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 5: 823-53.

94

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Hohepa, P. W. 1966 "Negatives as transformations: the case for Maori", Te Reo 9: 57-71. [cf. HALE (1968)] 1967 A profile-generative grammar of Maori (= Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, memoir 20; = IJAL 33.2.3) (Baltimore: Waverley). 1969 "The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 78: 295-329. Hollyman, K. J. 1959 "Polynesian influence in New Caledonia: the linguistic aspect", The journal of the Polynesian society 68: 357-89. 1962 "The lizard and the axe; a study of the effects of European contact on the indigenous languages of Polynesia and Island Melanesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 71: 310-27. Holmer, N. M. 1966 Oceanic semantics; a study in the framing of concepts in the native languages of Australia and Oceania (Uppsala: Lundeqvistska Bokhandeln). Humboldt, W. von 1836 Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts (Berlin : Dümmler). [reprint (Bonn: Dümmler 1968)] Iorss, M. 1961 Grammaire tahitienne; le tahitien à la portée de tous (Paris : Société des Océanistes). Janeau, V.-F. 1908 Essai de grammaire de la langue des îles Gambier ou Mangaréva [...] et dictionnaire mangarévien-frartçais (Paris: Chadenat). Jaussen, F. E. 1887 Grammaire et dictionnaire de la langue maorie, dialecte tahitien suivi de Vhistoire (de Joseph) et de l'évangile Saint Marc en tahitien et en français (Paris: Belin). [last réédition (1969)] Jensen, H. 1922-23 "Die Partikel ona im Samoanischen", ZES 13: 304-5. 1923 Studien zur Morphologie der polynesischen Sprachen, insbesondere des Samoanischen (= Sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen 1) (Kiel: Selbstverlag des Verfassers). 1925-26 "Zur Grammatik des Samoanischen", ZES 16: 241-56. 1927 "Fragesätze und Fragepartikeln in einigen polynesischen Sprachen", [ = lecture at the Deutscher Orientalistentag, Hamburg 1926; summary in:] ZDMG 81 : lxxxvi. Johansen, J. P. 1948 Character and structure of the action in Maori (= Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 31.5) (Copenhagen: Munksgaard). Jones, A. M. 1953 "Phonetics of the Maori language", The journal of the Polynesian society 62: 237-42.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

95

Judd, H. P. 1945 Introduction to the Hawaiian language (an English-Hawaiian vocabulary) comprising five thousand of the commonest and most useful words and their equivalents in Modern Hawaiian speech, correctly pronounced, with a complementary Hawaiian-English vocabulary (Honolulu: Tongg). Kahananui, D. M. - A. P. Anthony 1970 E Kama'ilio Hawai'i Kakou: Let's speak Hawaiian (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press Kahler, H. 1949-50 "Untersuchung über die Entstehung klassifikatorischer Präfixe in austronesischen Sprachen", ZES 35.3,4: 162-91. 1950 "Die Stellung der polynesischen Dialekte innerhalb der austronesischen Sprachen", ZDMG 100: 646-58. 1951-55 "Untersuchungen zur Morphologie polynesischer Dialekte", A&Ü 36 (1951-52): 145-62; 37 (1952-53): 35-48, 119-42; 38 (1953-54): 73-88, 165-86; 39 (1954-55): 129-45. 1962 Comment on CAPELL (1962a), CAnthr 3: 412-4. Kendall, T. 1815 A Korao no New Zealand [The language of New Zealand] (Sydney: Hove), [revised version: KENDALL - LEE (1820)]

Kendall, T. - S. Lee 1820 A grammar and vocabulary of the language of New Zealand (London: Church Missionary Society), [revised version of KENDALL (1815)] Kennedy, D. G. 1946 Handbook of the language of the Ellice Islands (Tarawa: Gilbert Ellice Islands Government). Kern, J. C. H. 1886 "De Fidjitaal vergeleken met hare verwanten in Indonesie en Polynesia", Verhandelingen der Koninklijk Nederlandsche Akademie von Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, Afdeling Letterkunde 16: 1-242. Kirchhoff, A. 1890 "Farben- und Zahlennamen der Samoaner", Globus 58: 174-5. Koskinen, A. A. 1960 Ariki the First-Born; an analysis of a Polynesian chieftain title (= FF communications 181) (Helsinki: Academia scientiarum Fennicae). 1963 "A preliminary statistical study of Polynesian place names", Studia missiologica fennica 2.8: 7-11. 1963-67 Linking of symbols: Polynesian patterns, 2 vol. ( = Annates societatis missiologicae fennicae 1, 5) (Helsinki: The Finnish Society for Missionary Research). Kramer, A. 1902-03 Die Samoa-Inseln, 2 vol. (Stuttgart: E. Nägele). Krupa, V. 1964 "On the category of possession in Maori", BSOAS 27: 433-5. 1966a "The phonemic structure of bi-vocalic morphemic forms in Oceanic languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 458-97. 1966b Morpheme and word in Maori (= Janua linguarum, series minor 46) (The Hague: Mouton).

96

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

1966c "Rules of occurrence of the passive suffix allomorphs in Maori", AAS 2: 9-13. 1967a "On phonemic structure of morpheme in Samoan and Tongan", Beiträge zur Linguistik und Informationsverarbeitung 12: 72-83. 1967b Jazyk maori [The Maori language] (Moskva: Nauka). [cf. K R U P A (1968a)] 1967c "Impact of English on grammatical categories of present-Day Maori", AAS 3: 45-9. 1968a The Maori language (Moskva: Nauka). [ = translation of K R U P A (1967b)] 1968b "Range of distribution and word classes in Maori", AAS 4: 44-8. 1970 "A typological comparison of Polynesian phonemic systems", Beiträge zur Linguistik und Informationsverarbeitung 20: 58-92. 1971 "A contribution to the comparison of the Polynesian languages", AAS 5: 9-16. Kudrjavcev, B. G. 1949 "Pismennost' ostrova Paschi" [The writing of Easter Island], Sbornik muzeja antropologii i ètnografii 11: 176-221. Kuki, H. 1971 "The place of the glottal stop in Tuamotuan", Te Reo 13: 46-62. Lafeber, A. 1928 "The grammatical value of constructions with e in the Polynesian dialects compared with similar cases in Indonesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 37: 403-25. Large, J. T. 1902 "The vigesimal system of enumeration", The journal of the Polynesian society 11: 260-1. Lavondès, H. 1966 Récits marquisiens (Papeete: O.R.S.T.O.M.). Leverd, A. 1922 "A Polynesian language of Uvea, Loyalty Islands", The journal of the Polynesian society 31: 94-103. Lier, F. van 1962 Let us speak Maori. Ka Tuatua Maori Tatou (Verwiel: Waalwijk). Lovy, R. D. - L. J. Bouge 1953 Grammaire de la langue tahitienne (Paris: Musée de l'Homme). Makemson, M. W. 1938 "Hawaiian astronomical concepts 1", AA 40: 370-83. 1939 "Hawaiian astronomical concepts 2", AA 41: 589-96. Mariner, W. 1817 An account of the natives of the Tonga Islands in the South Pacific Ocean, with an original grammar and vocabulary of their language; compiled and arranged from the extensive communications of Mr. W. Mariner, several years resident in those islands, by John Martin, 2 vol. (London: J. Murray). Marsack, C. C. 1962 Teach yourself Samoan (London: English Universities Press).

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

97

Marsden, W. 1834 Miscellaneous works of William Marsden 1: On Polynesian, or EastInsular languages (London: Parbury - Allen - Co.). Matthews, W. K. 1949 "The Polynesian articles", Lingua 2: 14-31. Maunsell, R. 1842 Grammar of the New Zealand language (Auckland: J. Moore). [4th ed. (1894)] Mead, S. M. 1959 We speak Maori (Wellington: Reed). Milke, W. 1961 "Beiträge zur ozeanischen Linguistik", ZEthn 86: 162-82. 1965 "Experiments in matrix reduction applied to Austronesian data", Lingua 14: 445-55. Milner, G. B. 1957 "Mots et concepts étrangers dans la langue de Samoa", JSOc 13: 51-68. 1961 "The Samoan vocabulary of respect", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 91.2: 296-317. 1962 "Active, passive or perfective in Samoan: a fresh appraisal of the problem", The journal of the Polynesian society 71: 151-61. 1963 "Oceanic linguistics" in: Trends in modern linguistics, edited on the occasion of the 9th International Congress of Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass., 27 August - 1 September 1963, for the permanent international committee on linguists (Eds.: Christine Mohrmann - F. Norman Alf Sommerfelt) (Utrecht - Antwerpen: Spectrum), pp. 62-94. 1965 "Initial nasal clusters in Eastern and Western Austronesian", Lingua 14: 330-48. 1966 Samoan dictionary: Samoan-English and English-Samoan (London: Oxford University Press). Moeka'a, R. 1966 The structure of the Pukapukan verbal piece (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [typescript] Morton, E. J. 1962 A descriptive grammar of Tongan (Polynesian) (Bloomington, Indiana University), [unpublished dissertation] Mosblech, B. 1843 Vocabulaire océanien-français et français-océanien des dialectes parlés aux îles Marquises, Sandwich, Gambier, etc. (Paris: J. Renouard). Neffgen, H. 1903 Grammatik der samoanischen Sprache nebst Lesestücken und Wörterbuch (Wien - Leipzig: Hartleben). Ngata, A. T. 1959-61 Nga Moteatea 2 vol. ( = Polynesian Society Maori texts 1, 2) (Wellington : The Polynesian Society). Ol'derogge, D. A. 1949 "Parallel'nyje teksty tablic ostrova Paschi 'kohau rongo rongo'" [Parallel texts on the tablets Kohau Rongo-rongo from Easter Island],

98

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Sbornik muzeja antropologii i ètnografii 11: 222-336. Pawley, A. K. 1960 "Samoan phonology in outline", Te Reo 3: 47-50. 1961 "A scheme for describing Samoan grammar", Te Reo 4: 38-43. 1962 "The person-markers in Samoa", Te Reo 5: 52-6. 1966a "Samoan phrase structure", AnL 8.5: 1-63. 1966b "Polynesian languages: a subgrouping based on shared innovations in morphology", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 39-64. 1967 "The relationships of Polynesian Outlier languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 76: 259-96. 1970 "Grammatical reconstruction and change in Polynesia and Fiji", in: Pacific linguistic studies in honour of Arthur Capell (Eds. : S. A. Wurm D. C. Laycock) ( = Pacific Linguistics C. 13) (Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra), pp. 301-67. Pearce, G. L. 1964 "A classification of the forms of the 'passive' suffix used with Maori verb-bases", Te Reo 7: 51-8. Petrov, D. 1967 "L'indoeuropéen et l'austronésien", Orbis 16: 335-46. Pratt, G. 1862 A grammar and dictionary of the Samoan language (London: Trubner and Co.). [4th edition revised and enlarged by J. E. Newell, reprinted (Malua, Western Samoa: Malua Printing Press 1960); 2nd edition (1876)] Pukui, M. K. - S. H. Elbert 1957 Hawaiian-English dictionary (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). 1964 English-Hawaiian dictionary (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). Ranby, R. 1966 Notes on the language of Nanumea Island, in the Ellice group (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [mimeographed] Ray, S. H. 1896 "The common origin of the Oceanic languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 5: 58-68. 1912-21 "Polynesian linguistics: past and future", The journal of the Polynesian society 21 (1912): 65-76,164-72; 24 (1915): 62-4; 25 (1916): 18-23, 44-52, 99-103; 26 (1917): 34-43, 99-105, 170-9 ; 28 (1919): 168-77; 29 (1920): 76-86, 207-14; 30 (1921): 28-34, 103-18. 1919-20 "The Polynesian languages in Melanesia", Anthropos 14,15: 46-96) • 1922 "Les langues polynésiennes en Mélanésie", Bulletin de la Société des Études Océanistes 6: 10-22. Reiter, P. 1907-20 "Traditions tonguiennes", Anthropos 2 (1907): 203-40, 438-48, 743-54; 12,13 (1917-18): 1026-46; 14,15 (1919-20): 125-42. 1933-34 "Trois récits tonguiennes", Anthropos 28: 355-81 ; 29: 497-514. Revzin, 1.1. 1964 "Kakovo znacenije malajsko-polinezijskich jazykov dl'a obscej teorii modelirovanija jazyka?" [What is the importance of Malayo-Polynesian languages for a general theory of language modelling?], in:

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

99

Voprosy struktury jazyka (Ed.: V. V. Ivanov) (Moskva: Nauka), pp. 104-16. Roussel, H. 1908 "Vocabulaire de la langue de l'Ile-de-Pâques ou Rapanui", Muséon, nouvelle série 9: 159-253. Salzner, R. 1960 Sprachenatlas des Indopazifischen Raumes, 2 vol. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Savage, S. 1962 A dictionary of the Maori language of Rarotonga (Wellington: The Department of Island Territories), [unfinished] Schmidt, W. 1899 "Über das Verhältnis der melanesischen Sprachen zu den polynesischen und untereinander", Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 141.6: 1-93. Sharpies, P. 1968 Sikaiana syntax (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University). [dissertation, mimeographed] Shortland, E. 1851 The southern districts of New Zealand (London: Longman, Brown, Green - Longmans). Simmons, D. 1966 "The sources of Sir George Grey's Nga Mahi a nga Tupuna", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 177-88. Simmons, D. - B. Biggs 1970 "The sources of the lore of the Whare-wänanga", The journal of the Polynesian society 79: 22-42. Smith, S. P. 1901 "Notes on the dialect of Niue Island", The journal of the Polynesian society 10: 178-82. 1913-15 The lore of the Whare-wänanga; or, teachings of the Maori College on religion, cosmogeny and history [...] translated by S. P. Smit, 2 parts (= Polynesian Society memoirs 3,4) (New Plymouth: Thomas Avery). Soper, A. C. 1943 Faka-Uvea, an abridged vocabulary and grammar of the Wallisian language, [mimeographed] Stimson, J. P. 1919 A new grammar of the Tahitian dialect of the Polynesian language (Papeete: Rossiter). 1928 "A system of diacritical marks designed to facilitate the comparative study of the Polynesian languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 37: 318-324. 1930 "A discussion of the Hamzah and some allied aspects of Polynesian phonetics", The journal of the Polynesian society 39: 263-83. 1934 The legend of Maui and Tahaki (= Bernice P. Bishop Museum bulletin 127) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum). 1937 Tuamotuan legends (Island of Anaa) 1 : Demigods (— Bernice P. Bishop Museum bulletin 148) (Honolulu: Bishop Museum).

100

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Stimson, J. F. - D. S. Marshall 1964 A dictionary of some Tuamotuan dialects of the Polynesian language (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff). [based on data of 1923-38] Stokes, J. F. G. 1955 "Language in Rapa", The journal of the Polynesian society 64: 315-40. Stübel, O. 1896 Samoanische Texte (= Veröffentlichungen des Königlichen Museums für Völkerkunde 4) (Berlin: Das Königliche Museum). Thorpe, A. s.a. Notes on the phrase structure of Ongtong Java (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [mimeographed] Tregear, E. 1891 The Maori-Polynesian comparative dictionary (Wellington: Lyon Blair), [reprinted (1969)] 1892 "Polynesian causatives", The journal of the Polynesian society 1: 53-6. 1893-95 "A Paumotuan dictionary", The journal of the Polynesian society 2 (1893): 195-202; 3 (1894): 1-8, 51-8, 113-20, 179-86; 4 (1895): 1-16, 73-88, 157-60. 1899 A dictionary of Mangareva (or Gambier Islands) (Wellington: Government Printing Office). Tregear, E. - S. P. Smith 1907 A vocabulary and grammar of the Niue dialect of the Polynesian language (Wellington: Government Printer). Tryon, D. T. 1970 Conversational Tahitian (Canberra: Australian National University Press). Turner, G. 1847 "Ethnology of Polynesia 4. Language of deference and respect; Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Java", Samoan Reporter 6:1. Turner, N. 1828 First lessons in the language of Tongataboo, one of the Friendly Islands (Sydney: Gazette Office). Vernier, C. 1948 "Les variations du vocabulaire tahitien avant et après les contacts européens", JSOc 4: 57-85. Vernier, C. - A. Drollet 1934 Grammaire de la langue tahitienne (Paris: Maison des missions). Violette, L. 1879 Dictionnaire samoa-français-anglais, précédé d'une grammaire de la langue samoa (Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie). Voegelin, C. F. - F. M. Voegelin 1964 "Languages of the world: Indo-Pacific fascicles 1, 2", AnL 6.4, 6.7. Walch, D. B. 1967 "The historical development of the Hawaiian alphabet", The journal of the Polynesian society 76: 353-66. Walsh, D. S. - B. G. Biggs 1966 Proto-Polynesian word list 1 (Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Z e a l a n d ) , [ m i m e o g r a p h e d ; 2 n d v e r s i o n BIQGS - WALSH - WAQA ( 1 9 7 0 ) ]

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

101

White, R. G. 1958 A linguistic check-sketch ofTahitian. [heliograph] 1967 "Onomastically induced word replacement in Tahitian" in: H I G H L A N D et alii (1967: 323-38). 1968 "Borrowing and taboo in Eastern Polynesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 77: 57-73. Williams, H. W. 1919 "Some notes on the language of the Chatham Islands", Transactions of the New Zealand Institute 51: 415-22. 1928 "Some observations on Polynesian verbs", The journal of the Polynesian society 37: 306-17. 1929 "Some elements of Polynesian grammar", The journal of the Polynesian society 38: 60:80. 1938 "Some problems of Polynesian grammar", The journal of the Polynesian society 47: 1-15. Williams, W. 1844 A dictionary of the New Zealand language and a concise grammar [... ] (Paihia: Press of the C. M. Society). 1957 A dictionary of the Maori language6 (Wellington: Government Printer). Williams, W. L. 1862 First lessons in the Maori language with a short vocabulary by W. L. Williams (London: Trubner and Co.). [11th edition (1950)] Wills, W. H. 1950 Lessons in the Maori language; a new approach to learning Maori (New Plymouth: Thomas Avery). Yasuda, A. 1968 The structure of the Penrhyn phrase (Honolulu, University of Hawaii), [unpublished Master's thesis]

7.2 SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY 7.2.1

Surveys of research and reference

Biggs, B. G. 1967 "The past twenty years in Polynesian linguistics" in : H I G H L A N D et alii (1967: 303-22). Capell, A. 1961 Linguistic survey of the Southwestern Pacific, new and revised edition (= South Pacific Commission technical paper 136) (Nouméa: South Pacific Commission). 1962a "Oceanic linguistics today", C Anthr 3.4: 371-428. [cf. K Â H L E R (1962)] Elbert, S. H. 1967 "A linguistic assessment of the historical validity of some of the Rennellese and Bellonese oral traditions" in H I G H L A N D et alii (1967: 257-88).

102

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Milner, G. B. 1963 "Oceanic linguistics", in: Trends in modern linguistics, edited on the occasion of the 9th International Congress of Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass., 27 August - 1 September 1963, for the permanent international committee on linguistics (Eds.: Christine Mohrmann - F. Norman Alf Sommerfelt) (Utrecht - Antwerp: Spectrum), pp. 62-94. Salzner, R. 1960 Sprachenatlas des Indopazifischen Raumes, 2 vol. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Voegelin, C. F. - F. M. Voegelin 1964 "Languages of the world: Indo-Pacific fascicles 1, 2", AnL 6.4, 6.7.

7.2.2

Polynesian

languages in general

Barthel, T. S. 1960 "Zu einigen polynesischen Verwandtschaftsnamen", ZEthn 85:177-86. 1964 "Ethnolinguistische Polynesienforschung", Anthropos 59: 920-6. [ = review of KOSKINEN (1963-67 1)] Biggs, B. G. 1960 "Morphology-syntax in a Polynesian language", The journal of the Polynesian society 69: 376-9. 1965 "Direct and indirect inheritance in Rotuman", Lingua 14: 383-415. Biggs, B. G. - D. S. Walsh - J. Waqa 1970 Proto-Polynesian reconstructions with English to Proto-Polynesian finder list; interim listing January 1970 ( = Working papers in linguistics) (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University). Capell, A. 1949 "The concept of ownership in the languages of Australia and the Pacific", SJA 5: 169-89. Demp wolff, O. 1934-38 Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes, 3 vol. [1: Induktiver Aufbau einer indonesischen Ursprache (= ZES. Beiheft 15) (Berlin: Reimer; Hamburg: Friedrichsen - de Gruyter 1934); 2: Deduktive Anwendung des Urindonesischen auf austronesische Einzelsprachen (= ZES. Beiheft 17) (Berlin: Reimer; Hamburg: Friedrichsen - de Gruyter 1937); 3: Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis {= ZES. Beiheft 19) (Berlin: Reimer 1938)] Dyen, I. 1965 A lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages (= Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, IJAL memoir 19; = Supplement to IJAL 31.1) (Baltimore: Waverley). Elbert, S. H. 1953 "Internal relationships of Polynesian languages and dialects", SJA 9: 147-73. 1957b "Possessives in Polynesia", Bible translator 8.1: 23-7. 1965a "Phonological expansions in outlier Polynesia", Lingua 14: 431-42.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

103

Emory, K. P. 1963 "East Polynesian relationships: settlement pattern and time involved as indicated by vocabulary agreements", The journal of the Polynesian society 72: 78-100. Firth, R. 1970 "Sibling terms in Polynesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 79: 272-87. Goodenough, W. C. 1961 "Migrations implied by relationships of New Britain dialects to Central Pacific languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 70: 112-36. Grace, G. W. 1959 The position of the Polynesian languages within the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) language family (= Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, UAL memoir 16; = IJAL supplement 25.3; = Bernice P. Bishop Museum special publications 46) (Baltimore: Waverley). [ = Columbia University dissertation of 1958] Green, R. 1966 "Linguistic subgrouping within Polynesia: the implications for prehistoric settlement", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 6-38. Hohepa, P. W. 1969 "The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 78: 295-329. Hollyman, K. J. 1962 "The lizard and the axe; a study of the effects of European contact on the indigenous languages of Polynesia and Island Melanesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 71: 310-27. Holmer, N. M. 1966 Oceanic semantics; a study in the framing of concepts in the native languages of Australia and Oceania (Uppsala: Lundeqvistska Bokhandeln). Kähler, H. 1951-55 "Untersuchungen zur Morphologie polynesischer Dialekte", A&Ü 36 (1951-52): 145-62; 37 (1952-53): 35-48, 119-42; 38 (1953-54: 73-88, 165-86; 39 (1954-55): 129-45. Krupa, V. 1966a "The phonemic structure of bi-vocalic morphemic forms in Oceanic languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 458-97. 1967a "On phonemic structure of morpheme in Samoan and Tongan", Beiträge zur Linguistik und Informationsverarbeitung 12: 72-83. 1970 "A typological comparison of Polynesian phonemic systems", Beiträge zur Linguistik und Informationsverarbeitung 20: 58-92. 1971 "A contribution to the comparison of the Polynesian languages", AAS 5: 9-16. Pawley, A. K. 1966b "Polynesian languages: a subgrouping based on shared innovations in morphology", The journal of the Polynesian society 75: 39-64.

104

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

1967 "The relationships of Polynesian outlier languages", The journal of the Polynesian society 76: 259-96. 1970 "Grammatical reconstruction and change in Polynesia and Fiji", in: Pacific linguistic studies in honour of Arthur Capell (= Pacific Linguistics C. 13) (Eds.: S. A. Wurm - D. C. Laycock) (Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra), pp. 301-67. Ray, S. H. 1912-21 "Polynesian linguistics: past and future", The journal of the Polynesian society 21 (1912): 65-76, 164-72 ; 24 (1915): 62-4; 25 (1916): 18-23, 44-52, 99-103; 26 (1917): 34-43, 99-105, 170-9; 28 (1919): 168-77; 29 (1920): 76-86, 207-14; 30 (1921): 28-34, 103-18. Tregear, E. 1891 The Maori-Polynesian comparative dictionary (Wellington: Lyon Blair). Walsh, D. S. - B. G. Biggs 1966 Proto-Polynesian word list 1 (Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand). 7.2.3

Tongic

languages

7.2.3.1 Tongan Burgmann, A. 1942 "Syntaktische Probleme im Polynesischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Tonganischen", ZES 32: 1-30, 89-113, 183-201. Churchward, C. M. 1953 Tongan grammar (London: Oxford University Press). 1959 Tongan dictionary (Tongan-English and English-Tongan) (London: Oxford University Press). Morton, E. J. 1962 A descriptive grammar of Tongan (Polynesian) (Bloomington, Indiana University), [dissertation] 7.2.3.2 Niue Smith, S. P. 1901 "Notes on the dialect of Niue Island", The journal of the Polynesian society 10: 178-82. Tregear, E. - S. P. Smith 1907 A vocabulary and grammar of the Niue dialect of the Polynesian language (Wellington: Government Printer). 7.2.4

Samoic and Outlier

languages

7.2.4.1 Fila Capell, A. 1942 "Notes on the Fila language, New Hebrides", The journal of the Polynesian society 51: 153-80.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 7.2.4.2 Futunan Grézel, S. M. 1878 Dictionnaire futunien-français avec notes grammaticales Maisonneuve).

105

(Paris:

7.2.4.3 Kapingamarangi Elbert, S. H. 1948 Grammar and comparative study of the language of Kapingamarangi; texts and word lists (= CIMA report 3) (Washington: Pacific Science Board, National Research Council, Washington), [mimeographed] 7.2.4.4 Mae Capell, A. 1962b The Polynesian language of Mae (Emwae), New Hebrides (= Te Reo monographs 2) (Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand). 7.2.4.5 Nanumea Ranby, R. 1966 Notes on the language of Nanumea Island, in the Ellice Group (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [mimeographed] 7.2.4.6 Nukuoro Carroll, V. 1965 "An outline of the structure of the language of Nukuoro", The journal of the Polynesian society 74: 192-226. Christian, F. W. 1898 "Nuku-Oro vocabulary", The journal of the Polynesian society 7: 224-32. 7.2.4.7 Ongtong Java (or Luangiuan) Hogbin, H. I. P. 1928-30 "Notes on a grammar of the language of Ongtong Java", Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 5: 823-53. Thorpe, A. s.a. Notes on the phrase structure of Ongtong Java (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [mimeographed] 7.2.4.8 Pukapukan Moeka'a, R. 1966 The structure of the Pukapukan verbal piece (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University), [typescript] 7.2.4.9 Rennellese Elbert, S. H. 1965b "The 127 Rennellese possessives", Acta linguistica Hafniensia 9:16-24.

106

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

7.2.4.10 Samoan Churchward, S. 1926 A new Samoan grammar (Melbourne: Methodist Church of Australasia). Milner, G. B. 1961 "The Samoan vocabulary of respect", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 91: 297-317. 1962 "Active, passive or perfective in Samoan: a fresh appraisal of the problem", The journal of the Polynesian society 71: 151-61. 1966 Samoan dictionary; Samoan-English and English-Samoan (London: Oxford University Press). Pawley, A. K. 1960 "Samoan phonology in outline", Te Reo 3: 47-50. 1966a "Samoan phrase structure: the morphology-syntax of a Western Polynesian language", AnL 8.5: 1-63. 7.2.4.11 Sikaianan Sharpies, P. 1968 Sikaiana syntax (Auckland, Anthropology Department of the University). [mimeographed] 7.2.4.12 Tikopian Durrad, W. J. 1913 "A Tikopia vocabulary", The journal of the Polynesian society 22: 86-95, 141-8. Uvean 7.2.4.13 Bataillon, P. 1932 Langue d'Uvea (Wallis); grammaire-dictionnaire uvea-français; dictionnaire français-uvea-anglais (Paris : Geuthner). 7.2.4.14 West Futunan - Aniwan Capell, A. 1958 The culture and language of Futuna and Aniwa, New Hebrides (= Oceania linguistic monographs 5) (Sydney: University of Sydney). 7.2.5

East Polynesian

languages

7.2.5.1 Easter Island Barthel, T. S. 1958 Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift (Hamburg: de Gruyter). 1963 "Rongorongo-Studien (Forschungen und Fortschritte bei der weiteren Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift)", Anthropos 58: 372-436.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

107

Englert, S. 1938 Diccionario rapanui-espanol (Santiago: Prensas de la Universidad de Chile). 1948 La Tierra de Hotu Matu'a (Santiago: Imprenta y Editorial San Francisco). 7.2.5.2 Hawaiian Elbert, S. H. 1970 Spoken Hawaiian (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). Pukui, M. K. - S. H. Elbert 1957 Hawaiian-English Dictionary (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). 7.2.5.3 Mangarevan Janeau, V.-F. 1908 Essai de grammaire de la langue des îles Gambier ou Mangaréva [...] et dictionnaire mangarévien-français (Paris: Chadenat). Tregear, E. 1899 A dictionary of Mangaréva ( or Gambier Islands) (Wellington : Government Printing Office). 7.2.5.4 Maori Biggs, B. G. 1961a "The structure of New Zealand Maaori", AnL 3.3: 1-54. Hohepa, P. W. 1966 "Negatives as transformations: the case for Maori", Te Reo 9: 57-71. 1967 A profile-generative grammar of Maori (= Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, memoir 20; = I J AL 33.2.3) (Baltimore: Waverley). Johansen, J. P. 1948 Character and structure of the action in Maori (= Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 31.5) (Copenhagen: Munksgaard). Krupa, V. 1966b Morpheme and word in Maori (The Hague: Mouton). Pearce, G. L. 1964 "A classification of the forms of the 'passive' suffix used with Maori verb-bases", Te Reo 7: 51-8. Williams, H. W. 1957 A dictionary of the Maori language (Wellington : Government Printer). 7.2.5.5 Marquesan Dordillon, I. R. 1857 Essai de la grammaire de la langue des îles Marquises (Valparaiso: Imprimerie du Commerce).

108 1931

7.2.5.6

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Grammaire et dictionnaire de la langue des Iles Marquises Institut d'Ethnologie).

(Paris:

Moriori

Williams, H. W. 1919 "Some notes on the language of the Chatham Islands", Transactions of the New Zealand Institute 51: 415-22.

7.2.5.7

Rapa

Stokes, J. F. G. 1955 "Language in Rapa", The journal of the Polynesian society 64: 315-40.

7.2.5.8

Rarotongan

Buse, J. E. 1960 "Rarotongan personal pronouns: form and distribution", BSOAS 23: 123-37. 1963a "Structure of the Rarotongan verbal piece", BSOAS 26: 152-69. 1963b "Structure of Rarotongan nominal, negative, and conjunctival pieces", BSOAS 26: 393-419. 1963c "Rarotongan sentence structure", BSOAS 26: 632-45. Savage, S. 1962 A dictionary of the Maori language of Raro tonga (Wellington: Department of Island Territories).

7.2.5.9

Tahitian

Tryon, D . T. 1970 Conversational Tahitian (Canberra: Australian National University Press). Vernier, C. 1948 "Les variations du vocabulaire tahitien avant et après les contacts européens", JSOc 4: 57-85. White, R. G. 1967 "Onomastically induced word replacement in Tahitian" in HIGHLAND et alii (1967: 323-38).

7.2.5.10

Tuamotuan

Danielsson, B. 1953 "Tuamotuan Kinship Terms", Ethnos 18: 155-66. Kuki, H. 1970 "The place of glottal stop in Tuamotuan", Te Reo 13: 46-62. Stimson, J. F. - D. S. Marshall 1964 A dictionary of some Tuamotuan dialects of the Polynesian language (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff). White, R. G. 1968 "Borrowing and taboo in Eastern Polynesia", The journal of the Polynesian society 77: 57-73.