<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000099" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">Dear all,<br>
<br>
here a little bit of brain storming, nothing more. Alex' wonderful
presentation of the Oceanic data as well as Michael's remarks on East
Caucasian remind me of a talk Theo Vennemann (Munich) once gave at our
University. He talked abot the yes/no patterns in Europe dwelling upon
the question whether the distribution of languages with yes/no-'words'
(e.g. German) and those with positive/negative sentential echoes
('(s)he did/n't, it is/n't etc. with many variants) (e.g. Celtic with
impacts on Old English etc.) is more than just coincidental. I do not
want to go into the details here, but Theo's talk has raised the
question whether a) yes/no-strategies are a universal of language at
all, whether b) the lexicalization of yes/no-words has common pathways
in the languages of the world. Naturally, the discussion did not come
to any defnite conclusion, still it made me thinking of the following: <br>
<br>
For methodological reasons, we should clearly distinguish between what
Alex has called vocal gestures and yes/no-words or
yes/no-constructions. Vocal gestures seem to be sound symbolic in
nature, and it would be highly interesting to collect a larger
typological sample of vocal yes/no-gestures to see whether they share
common features (both for their semantics and their 'form'). For
instance, I do not think that it is just coincidental that in Alex
examples, [ô] has a falling contour tone (> 'yes'), whereas [óòó]
ends with a final rise (> 'no'). This correlates with the general
observation that a falling prosodic pattern is frequently associated
with the expression of certainty, whereas a final rising pattern
indicates uncertainty etc. (compare German [jà] 'yes' (certain) vs.
[já] 'is it really so? I doubt / am amazed, wonder' (uncertain). The
natural outcome of 'uncertainty' in a communicative situation seems to
be some kind of (graded) 'negation' (e.g. S1: I will go! S2: Do you? (I
don't think so) > 'no') [by the way, this observation correponds to
the well-known relationship between negation and interrogation]. This
way, a vocal gesture indicatiing 'no' can at least in parts be derived
from its 'positive' counterpart. On the other hand, the expression of
'no' does not seem to be an obligatory technique to negate the
utterance of a speaker. We can also do without, compare: S1: I will go
to the market. S2: You stay here! Here, negation emerges from the use
of more or less antonymic expressions. A vocal gesture may then support
and strengthen this antonymic expression, leading to some kind of
negative assertion. Interestingliy enough, such vocal gestures seem to
have their own formal patterns, as can be seen for instance from the
paralinguistic usage of clicks (see WALS, map 142). For instance, some
German speakers know the use of the dento-alveolar click in the sense
of 'no' only if it is reduplicated, whereas it expresses amazement when
spoken out more than two times. Likewise in German, we have the
combination ['m-'m] (' = glottal stop with nasalization) to indicate
'no', but the simple form ['m] does not work at all. The same holds for
German ['ä/n-'ä/n] (/n = slight nazalization). I am left with the
impression that vocal gestures have their proper patterns which may be
both universal and particularized in nature. <br>
<br>
I do not know whether the same holds for vocal gestures expressing
'yes'. In German, we have a form ['`m´m`m] ('m with high-low-high)
which indicates some kind of 'yes' (and which clearly goes against what
I have said above for the opposition [ô] vs. [óòó]), but that's another
issue). Else, we sometimes see the combination of a laryngeal + vowel
(often a back vowel), e.g. [ho] in Udi (East Caucasian) or Georgian.
There are -as far as I can see - no such constraints on simple vs.
reduplicated etc. <br>
<br>
The lexical expression of yes/no may have sometimes evolved from vocal
gestures, though I do not know of any language that has for instance
lexicalized (and grammaticalized) the type of paralinguistic clicks
mentioned above. Interestingly enough, yes-words seem to be much more
transparent as for their etymology than no-words. This holds especially
if the yes-word does not stem from a vocal gesture. Sources may be for
instance modal deictic terms ('so', 'thus' etc.), terms related to
'truth'-concepts and so on. No-words are often taken from or derived
from a verbal negator, which makes me think that many no-words reflect
older echoe-techniques mentioned above. But then we arrive at the
question, where verbal negators stem from. In a number of languages, we
can reconstruct a verbal negator for the protolanguage (e.g. IE *ne,
Southern East Caucasian *t:e etc.) which illustrates that verbal
negators often are rather old in form (contrary to yes/no-words, which
are frequently borrowings). But it is difficult to relate such a
reconstructed negator to another meaning (thus claiming that such a
negator has come about via metonymy, metaphorization or the like). One
option would be interrogative words/morphemes (e.g. is Turkish -mI-
(negation and mI = interrogation just coincidental?), see above for
this assumption (I know that people usually derive certain
interrogative markers from a negative construction, but must it be
alwas this way?). <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Wolfgang</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Francois schrieb:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4434F123.6040408@vjf.cnrs.fr">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana"><small>(<i>sorry this is
going to be a bit long</i>)</small><br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
</font></small><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">Let me
mention here the situation in a few Oceanic languages from north
Vanuatu & eastern Solomons. </font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"><small><br>
[</small></font></small><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000"><small>See my page <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://alex.francois.free.fr/AF-field.htm">http://alex.francois.free.fr/AF-field.htm</a>
for a list and a map of these languages]</small></font></small></font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000"><small><br>
</small></font></small></font>
<small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">YES and NO work as
follows.
<br>
Basically, we get a twofold strategy similar to that mentioned for
Caucasus languages by Michael Daniel and Stephen Hewitt: that is, the
equivalent of YES and NO take both the form of a</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">
"vocal gesture" (if this is the right term)</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> and of lexical material [see below]. </font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">There are
also facial gestures, which I won't describe here, but which of course
are worth of mention.</font></small><br>
<small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana"><br>
</font></small>
<ul>
<li><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">In the affirmative,
you generally combine the gesture with</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> the
sentence repeated, <br>
something like <i>Did you go there? -- Mmm! I
went there.</i> In this case, I guess we would say that the equivalent
of YES is the vocal gesture</font></small><small><font color="#000000"
face="Verdana"> (although this may be discussed).<br>
<br>
</font></small></li>
<li><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">Things are less
clearcut for NO, since we get both the gesture and a specific
single-word sentence used for negative statements. </font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">Both strategies (gestural and lexical)
are used in similar contexts for similar purposes [though there are
slight pragmatic nuances, which I won't detail here]. <br>
When they are combined, which is often the case, the gestural NO comes
first and the lexical second: see in the Lemerig example below “</font><b>Óòó,
niv!</b></small><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">”.
Incidentally, it would be interesting to check if this is always the
case in other languages (gestural NO comes before lexical NO).<br>
We may compare this twofold NO-sentence with a sequence “<b>Unhun, no</b>!”
in English, thus suggesting that the equivalent to NO is really /</font></small><small><b>niv</b></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">/; but we might as well point to the
English sequence “<b>No, I didn't</b>” -- thus suggesting /</font></small><small><b>Óòó</b></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">/ = NO and </font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">/</font></small><small><b>niv</b></small>/<small><font
color="#000000"> <font face="Verdana">= “I didn't” (and I agree with
Michael that the latter construction can be regarded as one of English
'NO's). </font></font></small><br>
</li>
</ul>
<small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">Unless we come up with a
stricter definition of what should be understood as "<i>equivalents to
YES and NO</i>", I see no strong reason for deciding which one is the
exact equivalent of English NO. </font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">So let's consider for the moment that
both /</font></small><small><b>Óòó</b></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">/ and /</font></small><small><b>niv</b></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">/ equally constitute equivalents to NO,
as they both can form (whether separately or combined) a well-formed
utterance showing the speaker's disagreement with the content of a
preceding question / claim / presupposed proposition, etc.<br>
<br>
</font></small><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana"><br>
</font></small>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">Now,
if we get back to the Oceanic forms:<br>
<br>
1. The vocal gesture normally takes the form of a vowel</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> with a specific pitch contour. [no
clicks]. <br>
The vowel is /<b>o</b>/ in 17 languages, and schwa in the two languages</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> (Lo-Toga and Hiw)</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> that possess schwa in their vowel
inventory.</font></small><br>
<ul>
<li><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">YES will be a
slightly elongated, though monosyllabic vowel, with a
falling prosodic contour of the type 4>1*</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> -- this roughly sounds the same as
the fourth tone of Mandarin Chinese</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">.</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"> <br>
Taking a tonal analogy, one may transcribe this as [<b>ô:</b>]</font></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">.</font></small></li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana"> (*I'm
using
here intuitively a scale from 1 = extra-low to 5 =
extra-high. Note that none of
these languages is tonal.)</font></small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">Its negative
counterpart takes the form of a longer vowel, following a
three-syllable pitch contour: a high plateau
followed by a low one and then a final rise: something like 4+1+3. <br>
Taking a tonal analogy, one may roughly transcribe this as [</font></small><b><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">ó</font></small></b><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana"><b>.ò.ó</b>]. In the examples below, It
will appear as /</font></small><small><b>Óòó</b></small><small><font
color="#000000" face="Verdana">/.<br>
</font></small></li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana"><br>
</font></small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">2. As for the lexical
equivalent to our NO: </font></small><br>
<blockquote><small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">In all the
languages of the area, the lexical form 'No' is the same
form as the negative existential predicate (henceforth <b>NegExist</b>)
-- Engl. '<i>There isn't</i> [+Noun]'
(or if the subject is anaphoric, '<i>There's none</i>'.)</font></small><br>
<small><font color="#000000" face="Verdana">Thus compare, for a
language called Lemerig (3 speakers, Vanua Lava):</font></small><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><b>N-pé <u>niv</u>. ~ <u>Niv</u>
pé.<br>
</b><b><small>Art-water NegExist. </small></b><b><small>NegExist
water</small></b><br>
<small>'There is no water.'</small><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><b>N-pé pän? -- Óòó, (<i>n-pé</i>)
<u>niv</u>.<br>
<small>Art-water Exist (no) (</small></b><b><small><i>Art-water</i>)
</small></b><b><small> NegExist<br>
</small></b><small>'Is there any water? -- No, there
isn't any.'</small><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Näk m-van 'i lé wongon?
--
Óòó, <u>niv</u>.<br>
<small>2sg Preter1-go Pret2 Locative beach
(no) NegExist<br>
</small></b><small>'Did you go to the beach? -- No, I didn't.'</small><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">Note
the
perfect parallels in Bislama </font><font color="#000000">(</font><font
color="#000000">the English-lexifier pidgin of Vanuatu), with <i>Nogat</i>
[<Eng. <i>no + got</i> 'have not']:</font></small></font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Wora i <u>nogat</u></b><b>.
~ (I) <u>nogat</u> wora.</b><b><br>
<small>water Pred NegExist.
Pred
NegExist water<br>
</small></b><small>'There is no water.'</small><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Wora i gat? -- </b><b>Óòó, </b><b>
(wora) i <u>nogat</u>.<br>
</b><b><small>water Pred Exist (no) (</small></b><b><small><i>water</i>)
</small></b><b><small>Pred NegExist</small></b><br>
<small>'Is there any water? -- No, there isn't any.'</small><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Yu bin go long sanbij? --
Óòó, </b>(*i)<b>
<u>nogat</u>.<br>
<small>2sg Preter go Locative beach
(no) </small></b><small>(*Pred)</small><b><small> NegExist<br>
</small></b><small>'Did you go to the beach? -- No, I didn't.'</small><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000"> In Solomon
Pijin, the form is</font><font color="#000000"> <i>Nomoa</i>
[<Eng. <i>no + more</i> 'not any more'].</font></small></font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000"><br>
Almost all of the Oceanic languages on which I have first-hand data
behave the same. In a way, they
illustrate your query, since they have a NO form that has its own
meaning and syntax, apart from being a sentential word.<br>
However, in almost all these languages, you can't really say that the
NO word is morphologically complex, since it consists essentially of a
single morpheme (glossed here NegExist): e.g. </font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">Teanu <i><b>tae</b></i>,
Tanema <i><b>eia</b></i>, </font></small></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000">Hiw <b><i>tego</i></b>, </font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">Mwotlap <i><b>tateh</b></i></font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">, Lemerig <b><i>niv</i></b></font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">, Vurës <b><i>odiang</i></b></font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">, Vera'a <i><b>gitag</b></i></font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">, </font></small></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">Mwesen <b><i>eneng</i></b>,
</font></small></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000">Mota
<i><b>tagai</b></i>,
</font></small></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000">Nume/</font></small></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000">Dorig/Koro <i><b>bek</b></i>,
</font></small></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000">Mwerlap
<b><i>tégé</i></b>…<br>
<br>
In two languages, Olrat and Lakon, the word is morphologically
analysable as prefixed with a Stative aspect: <i><b>ga iv</b></i>
/Stative/NegExist/.<br>
</font></small></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
</font></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">3.
More
interestingly, two
languages (other than Bislama and Pijin mentioned earlier) show a
morphologically complex form for 'No':</font></small></font><br>
<ul>
<li><font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">In Araki,
'No
= NegExist' is <i><b>mo ce re</b></i>, analysable as /mo/ '3rd.pers.
Realis' + /ce/ 'Negation' + /re/ 'Partitive' = '<i>not any</i>'.<br>
</font></small></font></li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small><font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">[see
p.65 of: </font></small></font><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000">François,
Alexandre. 2002. <i>Araki: A disappearing language of Vanuatu.</i>
Pacific
Linguistics, 522. Canberra: Australian National University.]</font></small></font></small>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><font face="Verdana"><small><font color="#000000">In Lo-Toga,
'No' is <i><b>tate-gë</b></i>, analysable as /tate/ 'NegExist' + /gë/
'thing' = '<i>there is nothing</i>'.<br>
<br>
</font></small></font></li>
</ul>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Verdana"><small><font
color="#000000"><br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Alex.</font></small></font><br>
<br>
<hr size="2" width="100%">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><small>Alex François
LACITO - CNRS
7 rue Guy Môquet
F - 94801 Villejuif
FRANCE
email <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Alexandre.Francois@vjf.cnrs.fr">Alexandre.Francois@vjf.cnrs.fr</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://alex.francois.free.fr">http://alex.francois.free.fr</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr">http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr</a></small></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>schulze adr</title>
<small><font face="Arial Unicode MS">#############################<br>
<small><span style="font-weight: bold;"><big>Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
</big></span></small><br style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-style: italic;">Institut für Allgemeine
und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft
</span>(IATS)<br style="font-style: italic;">
[General Linguistics and Language Typology]
<br>
Department für Kommunikation und Sprachen / F 13.14
<br>
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
<br>
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
<br>
D-80539 München
<br>
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180 2486 (secretary)
<br>
++49-(0)89-2180 5343 (office)
<br>
Fax: ++49-(0)89-2180 5345
<br>
E-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de">W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de</a>
<br>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php">http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php</a></font></small>
</div>
</body>
</html>