Comparing Noun Systems of Mawng and Other Australian Languages - Assignment Example

Comparing noun systems of Mawng and other Australian languages {Insert student’s name} {Insert instructor’s name} October 11th, 2011. Comparing noun systems of Mawng and other Australian languages Australian languages exhibit two types of nominal classification (classifiers and genders) that are easily distinguishable both in formal and functional analysis (Dixon 1980, p. 55). However, the latter author underscored that the gender agreement in noun classes is easily produced in Mawng language. Furthermore, semantics of the gender noun class vary depending on the referents introduced within a particular noun or verb phrase. According to Dench and Evans (1982, p. 18) Mawng language utilizes more of gender system than classifier system in noun class categorization. Apparently, whereas gender system plays a syntactic function in most languages, within the constraints of Mawng discourse, gender plays both the syntactic/semantic function whereby the latter plays a superior role (Dixon 1980, p. 62). Against this background, this essay is a comparative analysis of noun classes in Mawng language in relation to other Australian languages. It is imperative to mention that, comparative analysis in this sense was adapted to incorporate the analysis of both the similarities and differences. A noun class refers to grammatical categorization of nouns that is evident in some languages (Dixon 1976, p. 24). These noun classes are partly based on various characteristics such as gender, shape and animacy and their respectively referents within a particular noun class (Dixon 1980, p. 102). Moreover, the different categories of noun classes are distinguished from each other by introducing affixes in the noun phrase, a word in the noun phrase, or by introduction of affixes that bring subject/object agreement between noun /verb phrase constituents (McConvell 1996, p. 291). Generally, noun classes falls into four categories that is animate, gender, human class and inanimate class. However, some languages like Mawng further subdivide the categories of gender (feminine and masculine) and end up having five noun classes. Dench and Evans (1982, p. 6) underscore that even though some languages expose the gender disparities, the referents may not necessarily be based on natural sex distinctions. Furthermore, when the distinction is not based on natural sex distinction, such a noun classes is commonly referred to as neuter gender. It is imperative to mention that noun class grammatical categorization is not a universal characteristic of language as some language lack noun classes even though they qualify as prefixing languages (Dixon 1976, p. 24). Mawng is a minority language in Australia whose native speakers are estimated to 300 people. It is a non-Pama-Njugan language and a member of Iwaidgan language family (Alan. 1982, p. 48). According to Dixon (1980, p. 116) this family consists of only two languages that is; Mawng and Iwaidja. Mawng language is spoken adjacent to Iwaidja and Kunbarlang which belongs to Binibj Gun-wok dialect. Most adult speakers of Mawng are multilingual whereby they speaker English and at least one or more aboriginal languages besides Mawng (Alan. 1982, p. 52). In addition, most of them understand the lingua franca Bininj Gun-wok that is spoken east of Darwin region. Alan 1982 (p. 48) also classifies Mawng as polysynthentic head-marking language. According to (McConvell 1996, p. 291) Mawng exhibit five distinct noun classes and the motivation behind this classification is based on semantics. Class I includes names of masculine beings Class II includes names of feminine begins Class III includes ground objects except plants Class IV comprise of trees and its parts Class V comprises of vegetable foods and products According to (Dixon 1976, p. 24) noun classes in Mawng language are overtly marked on nouns whereby a variation in noun class of some noun may impact on semantics. For instance, the noun nimi can be varied in various ways to elicit the different noun classes in Mawng language. The noun nimi ‘long bone’ when joined with animate masculine prefix (j)i-nimi changes meaning to ‘his backbone with animate feminine prefix ninj-imi to mean ‘her backbone with class IV prefix ma-nimi to mean ‘trunk of a tree’ with class V prefix ad-imi to mean ‘main radicle’ for a yam vine . Similarly, noun classes in Mawng language can also be realized by evaluation of the subject/object agreement on verbs and also adjectives /possessive agreement in a statement. Contrastingly, Dyirbal which is Pama-Nyungan Language depicts four noun class categories. These noun classes are manifested by introduction of a demonstrative (noun marker) that subsequently portray disparity between proximal, medial and distal deixis (Alan. 1982, p. 52). The noun classes in Dyirbal language can be clearly demonstrated in the table below Table showing distribution of concepts in Dyirbal noun classes Class I (animacy (human) masculinity) (bayi) Class II (human) femininity (balan) Class III(edible plants) (balam) Class IV (miscellaneous) (bala) Men Kangaroos Possums Bats Most snakes Women Dog Platypus Some snakes Fire or water etc. Parts of the body Meat Bees Honey Source http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3209556/Women%20are%20not%20dangerous%20things%20-%20Pol,%20M.pdf?sequence=2 From the above table it is clearly evident that Dyirbal language utilized suffixation instead of ‘prefixation’ as evident in Mawng. (Alan 1982, 45) underscore the disparity in noun class categorization is due to the fact that one is prefixing language (Mawng) while the latter is a non-prefixing language. In addition, whereas Mawng language categorizes gender noun class grammaticality based on natural sex restriction, Dyirbal extends the categorization to include neuter gender. For instance, the categorization of fire/water within the noun class of gender is symbolic. Gender system noun class On the same note, Mawng has reserved the five-gender system noun class category that is a unique characteristic of Iwaidgan family. The five-gender system includes masculine (m), feminine (f), vegetable (v), neuter (n), and miscellaneous (mis) (Dixon 1980, p. 55). However, whereas Mawng have retained this original five-gender system within its noun class, other closely related languages such as Iwaidja and Ilgar have lost some categories along the evolution path (Silverstein 1976, p. 118). For instance, Ilgar/Garig has lost the miscellaneous gender and generalized masculine noun class as the default. In addition, only masculine and feminine noun classes can agree freely with all verbs as the other categories exhibit some restrictions. Contrastingly, Iwaidja oversimplifies the concept of gender by generalizing the miscellaneous to act as the common gender whereas the masculine/feminine noun classes only agree with restrictive number of objects (Silverstein 1976, p. 118). Furthermore, unlike Mawng, object and intransitive subject within vegetable and neuter categories in both Ilgar and Iwaidja are contextually restricted. The criteria of gender are allocated haphazardly in Mawng language and most analysts do not find the need to analyze the gender agreement prefixes inserted at the beginning of words. The above notion creates a clear cut distinction between Mawng and neighboring languages which have been identified as having separate head class and defined agreement class systems (Alan. 1982, p. 52). Silverstein (1976, p. 118) adds that the class systems act as predictors of the noun class gender. Against this background, Dench and Evans (1982, p. 22) argue that Mawng gender class system can be perceived as more semantically orientated than formal owing to the fact that prefixing phonemes gives no indication of the anticipated gender noun. Restrictions in gender contrast In Mawng the semantic of gender can be derived by analyzing the agreement of determiners and adjectives within the NP. On the contrary, gender contrasts in Iwaidja and Ilgar is not found within the NP modifiers but only on verbs. Additionally, whereas Mawng has an independent method of determining semantics of this gender these two languages lack this concept because of its restricted gender type (Dixon 1980, p. 55). According to Silverstein ((1976, p. 118) gender agreement in Mawng language goes beyond the NP and can be identified in various places such as; verbal pronominal prefixes, free pronouns, articles, some inflecting body part nouns, demonstratives and some nominal modifiers. Semantic creativity of Mawng gender noun class (animate/inanimate) As epitomized above, gender marking in Mawng noun classes has a strong semantic basis than syntactic prediction. A clear depiction of how Mawng extends its gender system in order to distinguish between animate/inanimate entities is provided by (Alan. 1982, p. 45) in the table 2 below; Table 2 showing semantic categorization of gender system in Mawng language Masculine (MA) Feminine (FE) Land(LL) Vegetation (VE) Edible (ED) Male humans Large animals such as kangaroo Generic terms for snakes, fish, birds, meat, animas Most snakes Fish Honey Sugar Song Most European artifacts Moon Rain lightning Some body parts Female humans Some birds Most crabs A few small animals Sun and stars (no body parts) Land: earth, rocks, sand , mud Landforms such as mountains, valleys etc. Places names Liquids: water, milk, bodies of freshwater Events Time: seasons, temporal adverbials Some body parts Plant: trees, grasses, vines Many wooden artifacts: generic term for spears and many specifie terms (others masculine) String, most specific terms for woven artifacts Fire, firewood Some body parts Vegetable foods, food (generic) Housing, general household possessions Wind Some terms for clouds and skys Some body parts Source: Alan (1982, p. 45) Blake (1977, p. 12) further exemplify that even though the semantic domains presented above provides a basis for predictions of how other entities can be categorized in Mawng language, they are many exception that may hinder correct categorization. These exceptions are also evident in Dyirbal noun class categorization as shown in table 1 whereby there is no clear cut explanation as to why some entities fall into one class but not another. Moreover, Silverstein (1976, p. 118) borrows a leaf from the principles developed by (Dixon 1976) to explain the exceptions in Mawng gender system categorizations. Both Dixon (1980, p. 55) and Silverstein (1976, p. 118) explain the above exceptions from mythical point of view by virtue that language is culturally specific whereby they explain that the unpredictable categorization of some animals and celestial bodies under masculine/feminine gender could be due because they are personified in myths. In addition, Dixon (1976, p. 24) also underscore that some gender assignments exceptions in Mawng as well as most Australian languages can be attributed to how society interact with some entities in their everyday life. For instance, Mawng language categorizes wooden artifacts as masculine mainly because they are commonly used by men. (Dixon 1976, p. 24) also explains that it is common to find exceptional members whose gender is very different from other members under that category. For instance, wulminkaykay ‘file snake’ is often categorized as feminine because the Mawng culture perceived it as non-poisonous. On the same note, some trees and plants are exempted from the vegetation class and instead are classified as Masculine due to their medicinal or other significant elements. In conclusion, Mawng is both a prefixing and noun class marker language. It noun classes falls under five different categories and gender agreement stands out as the most defining factor that predicts categorization. Additionally, whereas most languages in Australia utilize the classifier system to categorize noun classes, Mawng utilized gender system. Gender agreement in Mawng extends beyond NP unlike Ilgar and Iwaidja which are contextually restricted. Presentation 1. Types of nominal classification in Australian languages Classifiers Genders The above are easily distinguishable both in formal and functional analysis 2. Mawng noun classes Mawng exhibit five distinct noun classes and the motivation behind this classification is based on semantics instead of syntactic relationships as the case in most languages in Australia. Class I includes names of masculine beings Class II includes names of feminine begins Class III includes ground objects except plants Class IV comprise of trees and its parts Class V comprises of vegetable foods and products Contrastingly, Dyirbal which is Pama-Nyungan Language depicts four noun class categories. These noun classes are manifested by introduction of a demonstrative (noun marker) that subsequently portray disparity between proximal, medial and distal deixis. 3. Semantic variation in Mawng language Noun classes in Mawng language are overtly marked on nouns whereby a variation in noun class of some noun may impact on semantics. For instance, the noun nimi can be varied in various ways to elicit the different noun classes in Mawng language. The noun nimi ‘long bone’ when joined with animate masculine prefix (j)i-nimi changes meaning to ‘his backbone with animate feminine prefix ninj-imi to mean ‘her backbone with class IV prefix ma-nimi to mean ‘trunk of a tree’ with class V prefix ad-imi to mean ‘main radicle’ for a yam vine . 4. Gender system noun class categorization Mawng language utilizes more of gender system than classifier system in noun class categorization whereby five categories as shown in the table below are identified. Table 2 showing semantic categorization of gender system in Mawng language Masculine (MA) Feminine (FE) Land(LL) Vegetation (VE) Edible (ED) Male humans Large animals such as kangaroo Generic terms for snakes, fish, birds, meat, animas Most snakes Fish Honey Sugar Song Most European artifacts Moon Rain lightning Some body parts Female humans Some birds Most crabs A few small animals Sun and stars (no body parts) Land: earth, rocks, sand , mud Landforms such as mountains, valleys etc. Places names Liquids: water, milk, bodies of freshwater Events Time: seasons, temporal adverbials Some body parts Plant: trees, grasses, vines Many wooden artifacts: generic term for spears and many specifie terms (others masculine) String, most specific terms for woven artifacts Fire, firewood Some body parts Vegetable foods, food (generic) Housing, general household possessions Wind Some terms for clouds and skys Some body parts Source: Alan (1982, p. 45) From the table, it is evident elements seems to be out of place in their respective categories. This unpredictable characteristic is also evident in Dyirbal language where some categorization can be attached to any rule but seems to arise because of mythical perceptions among the speakers of these languages. For instance, both languages classify some snakes under the feminine category because they are perceived to be non-poisonous and also because they are edible. However, within the Iwaidgan family only Mawng has retained this five class categorization whereas other languages such as Iwaidja and Ilgar have lost some categories via oversimplification. For instance, Ilgar/Garig has lost the miscellaneous gender and generalized masculine noun class as the default. 5. Gender restriction Gender agreement in different noun classes is easily produced in Mawng language than in any other Australian language whereby the gender agreement in Mawng language goes beyond the NP and can be identified in various places such as; verbal pronominal prefixes, free pronouns, articles, some inflecting body part nouns, demonstratives and some nominal modifiers. In contrast, Iwaidja and Ilgar gender contrasts not found within the NP modifiers but only on verbs. Most importantly, only masculine and feminine noun classes can agree freely with all verbs as the other categories exhibit some restrictions. References Alan. 1982. The Development of an Accusative Case Marking Pattern in the Ngayarda Languages of Western Australia, Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 43-59 Blake, B. J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Dench, A & Evans, N. 1988. Multiple Case-Marking in Australian Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 8(1), 1-47. Dixon, R.M.W. (ed). 1976. Grammatical categories in Australian languages: Proceedings of the 1974 AIAS conference. Canberra: AIAS. Dixon, R.M.W.1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press McConvell, P. 1996. The Functions of Split-WackernagelClitic Systems: Pronominal Clitics in the Ngumpin Languages (Pama-Nyungan family, Northern Australia). In A. Halpern & A. Zwicky (eds). Approaching Second: Second Position Clitcs and Related Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI, 299- 331. Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.). Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: AIAS, 112-171. Read More