Roger Blench

Kay Williamson Educational Foundation

WPL3Manokwari, Papua Barat

January 20-24, 2014

LAPITA CANOES AND THEIR MULTILAPITA CANOES AND THEIR MULTI--ETHNIC CREWS: MARGINAL ETHNIC CREWS: MARGINAL

AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES ARE NONAUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES ARE NON--AUSTRONESIANAUSTRONESIAN

Darrell Tryon (1942-2013)

In Memoriam

The papers I have put up the I have put up the pdfspdfs of both papers on my of both papers on my

academia.eduacademia.edu site, as well as site, as well as pdfspdfs of the of the powerpointspowerpoints

Since colour is an important part of the papers, Since colour is an important part of the papers, you may like to download those versionsyou may like to download those versions

What makes a language Austronesian?

Since George Grace (1981) there has been an ongoing debate Since George Grace (1981) there has been an ongoing debate about the soabout the so--called called ‘‘aberrantaberrant’’ languages of remote Oceania. languages of remote Oceania. Andy Pawley (2006) reviewed this area, without reaching any Andy Pawley (2006) reviewed this area, without reaching any conclusion except the conclusion except the ‘‘nonnon--archaeologicalarchaeological’’ solutionsolution

Mark Donohue and others have been active in drawing Mark Donohue and others have been active in drawing attention to presumed substrate features in Western attention to presumed substrate features in Western AustronesianAustronesian

But it is really in the Oceanic area that there are languages wiBut it is really in the Oceanic area that there are languages with;th;Relatively few Oceanic cognatesRelatively few Oceanic cognatesA classification that depends on the assumption that these A classification that depends on the assumption that these

are retained roots rather than borrowingare retained roots rather than borrowingAn absence of regular rules of correspondence with An absence of regular rules of correspondence with POcPOc with with

relationships are established on onerelationships are established on one--off arguments.off arguments.Leading to the argument that they must diversified at rates Leading to the argument that they must diversified at rates

without parallel in AN or indeed elsewhere in the worldwithout parallel in AN or indeed elsewhere in the world

What makes a language Austronesian?

The classification of languages as Austronesian is sometimes The classification of languages as Austronesian is sometimes carried out using a rather generous view of cognacy.carried out using a rather generous view of cognacy.

Blust (2013) draws attention to Blust (2013) draws attention to KokotaKokota (Solomons) and the (Solomons) and the Whiteman languages (New Britain)Whiteman languages (New Britain)

But this is particularly a problem for the languages of But this is particularly a problem for the languages of VanikoroVanikoro and and UtupuaUtupua, small islands in the Southern Solomons, , small islands in the Southern Solomons, as well as the Reefs/Santa as well as the Reefs/Santa CRruzCRruz group and offshore group and offshore languages in New Caledonia, such as languages in New Caledonia, such as DrehuDrehu. .

I believe we have been unduly influenced by the archaeology. I believe we have been unduly influenced by the archaeology. (and the views of the late Darrell Tryon).(and the views of the late Darrell Tryon).

There is no doubt that there was no human occupation in the There is no doubt that there was no human occupation in the Southern Solomons and New Caledonia before around 3000 Southern Solomons and New Caledonia before around 3000 BP.BP.

What makes a language Austronesian?

In New Britain and the Northern Solomons, we know there has been interaction with NAN languages, so this creates a possible explanation.

Kaulong, for example, may have interacted with an NAN language of a phylum and typology now completely vanished

A few wellA few well--known PMP cognates and a perception that an known PMP cognates and a perception that an island was uninhabited prior to the Oceanic expansion island was uninhabited prior to the Oceanic expansion may have allowed linguists to assign languages to may have allowed linguists to assign languages to Austronesian without serious historical argument. But...Austronesian without serious historical argument. But...

The usual assumption by archaeologists is that the The usual assumption by archaeologists is that the Oceanic languages start their career in the Admiralties Oceanic languages start their career in the Admiralties some 3200 years ago and there is a strong association some 3200 years ago and there is a strong association with the early Lapitawith the early Lapita

What makes a language Austronesian?

But the Admiralties have been occupied for more than 30,000 years and presumably once showed the same type of linguistic diversity as among NAN languages on the mainland

So 3000 years ago, there would have been intensive bilingualism, interaction and assimilation between NAN and Austronesian

Early canoes may well have had crews representing an ethnic and linguistic mosaic, which was transferred to the new settlements.

The languages were thus pre-diversified and this diversity was conserved even when the canoes reached their destinations.

What makes a language Austronesian?

But we have no idea about the nature of the pre-AN languages of the Admiralties, so it is inevitably hard to disentangle AN/NAN features

How far a language ‘is’ or is not Austronesian may eventually be undecidable

But we do not need to assume a language is Austronesian without careful analysis, an in particular the assumption that a small number of cognate are not simply borrowings

The example of Vanikoro and Utupua I

Vanikoro and Utupua are two isolated island groups at the far end of the Solomons archipelago.

Each island has three languages, although two of those on Vanikoro have only a few speakers remaining. The only major source of lexical data on these languages is Tryon & Hackman (1983).

Tryon (1994) regarded these languages as Oceanic and they are thus classified in typical sources including Ethnologue (2013) and Gray et al (2010). Tryon & Hackman (1983:55) classify Vanikoro and Utupua as related to one another and their parent language as a primary branch of Oceanic.

Tryon (1994: 635) says:“The status of the six languages of Utupua and Vanikorois in no doubt. These are clearly Austronesian languagesby any standards.”

The example of Vanikoro and Utupua II

François (2006, 2009) has an important discussion of the problem of classifying Vanikoro. It is hard to see what the linguistic basis for this is; the number of actual or possible cognates with Oceanic is barely above the level of chance. Moreover, the languages are extremely dissimilar from each other.

Tryon (2002) is a grammar sketch of Teanu [= Buma] deriving from earlier work. Sentence structure does indeed resemble Oceanic, but without much of the characteristic morphology of Austronesian.

The appendix on the printed paper gives a comparative wordlist together POc, where available and this is the heart of the argument

The Solomons

Are Vanikoro and Utupua a subgroup?

The assumption is that the ancestors of the Vanikoro and the Utupua peoples left the Admiralties some 3000+ years ago and immediately settled their new homes

And it is therefore surprising how little lexicon is shared evenbetween these relatively close islands

Possibly explained by borrowing. This is certainly accounts for ‘cognates’ such as ‘dog’ and ‘pig’

which we know from archaeology are likely to be subsequent introductions

Vanikoro

Vanikoro

Languages of Vanikoro

3Tanema

4VanoLovono

800 BumaTeanu

SpeakersAlternateName

Languages of Vanikoro

Even where forms resemble Oceanic?

Francois (2006) assessed a vocabulary of 1100 items in Teanu and could come up with 87 that might resemble POc.

This is 8% or just above chance Even those resemblances are highly idiosyncratic;

• /mokoiu/ ‘sleep’ perhaps *maturuR• /moloe/ 'red' might be a reflex of *meRaq• /okoro/ ‘bamboo’ could be a reflex for *qauR• /otovo/ ‘sago palm’ recalls *qatop.

Do the languages of Vanikoro form a group?

A number of lexemes that certainly look related However, also many that look ‘suspiciously’ similar in the

light of the general diversity E.g.

kekeke*kaʀati-to bite

mukamukamukɔ*ñamukmosquito

Vanikoro: common word order, but?

The three Vanikoro languages have a common word order, but a distinct lack of segmental cognates in the morphology.

The following example is given by Francois (2006)

‘We were in our garden, we've been planting crops.’

TEA Pi-te ne sekele iupa, pi-wowo none.LVN Nupe-lu ne amenonga iemitore, nupe-ngoa nane.TNM Tei-o ini vasangola akegamuto, ti-oa bauva.

1exc:pl-stay in garden our 1exc:pl-plant food

Vanikoro: Oceanic typology?

Typological features of Vanikoro languages are generally reminiscent of Oceanic languages

– S-V-O order– Possessed-Possessor– Prepositions– [Noun-Adj-Dem]– Verbs take subject prefixes (Realis vs Irrealis)– Serial verb constructions– Verb ‘say’ grammaticalised as Complementiser– Three numbers (sing, dual, plural); no gender, no case– Contrast of (in)alienability + Food/drink classifiers– Geocentric system of space reference

Or lack of it?

Noun morphology– no trace of article *na– no affixation on inalienable nouns (personal suffixes, *-qi, …)– Food/Drink classifier (≈Ø-) does not reflect *ka-– Drink classifier me (<POc *ma-) in little use [borrowed?]

Verb morphology– no trace of POc object suffixes– no trace of transitiviser *-i– no trace of applicative *-aki(n)– no valency-changing affixes (Causative *paka-, Reciprocal

*paRi-…)– no derivation { Verbs <—> Nouns } (!)– no use of reduplication (!)

Utupua

Utupua

Languages of Utupua

50Tanimbili40Asumboa

150AmbaNembaoSpeakersAlternateName

Languages of Utupua

Do the languages of Utupua form a group?

A few lexemes that certainly look related Sparse relationship with;

Each other Oceanic Vanikoro

Lapita pottery

Lapita sites

How do we account for this?

An important aspect of the persuasiveness of this model is that south of the Pleistocene site of Kila on Buka in the Solomons, there are no pre-Austronesian sites. The fact that we can no longer identify relatives of these NAN languages does not seem to be an objection, since the remaining NAN languages in the Solomons are so different from one another as to not form a group.

Presumably many more languages of unknown affiliation were spoken before 3000 years ago. Each of the three languages each on Vanikoro and Utupua are so different from one another; this cannot be the result of in situ diversification, unless the process works improbably fast.

It is more likely that these languages were already distinct, that the original settlers spoke diverse NAN languages and these converged on the islands. This would account for the fact that although Vanikoro and Utupuan languages have words in common, these do not showing regular correspondences.

Questioning mathematical models of Austronesian

Recent years have seen an explosion of ‘new’mathematical models of Austronesian, especially associated with Auckland and Russell Gray

Including prestige lectures and publications in high-profile journals

Yet the Austronesian languages with fewer than 5% cognates with PMP (i.e. at a level corresponding to chance) do not even show up as outliers

The ‘method’ cannot distinguish chance, borrowing and non-Austronesian. So what is the value of the results except to the career of its originators?

Are we all mesmerised?

Conclusions I It is not possible to demonstrate definitively the affiliation oIt is not possible to demonstrate definitively the affiliation of f

the the UtupuanUtupuan--VanikoroVanikoro languages; the data remains too languages; the data remains too sparse. But we can say that;sparse. But we can say that;

the incidence of Oceanic cognates is strikingly few, barely the incidence of Oceanic cognates is strikingly few, barely above levels of chance resemblance and therefore the above levels of chance resemblance and therefore the potential for regular correspondences with potential for regular correspondences with POcPOc must be must be discounteddiscountedthat the irregular correspondences with Oceanic make a that the irregular correspondences with Oceanic make a hypothesis of borrowing equally crediblehypothesis of borrowing equally credibleUtupuanUtupuan bears few resemblances to bears few resemblances to VanikoroVanikoro and there is and there is no reason to group them together; lookalikes may be no reason to group them together; lookalikes may be borrowingsborrowings

Conclusions II

that the languages of each group are extremely lexically that the languages of each group are extremely lexically diverse; and where the languages share a common lexeme diverse; and where the languages share a common lexeme borrowing must be a candidate explanation. Hence they borrowing must be a candidate explanation. Hence they may have had diverse origins prior to settlementmay have had diverse origins prior to settlementthat the type of that the type of ‘‘aberrancyaberrancy’’ often invoked to explain often invoked to explain diversity on Grande Ile, New Caledonia, cannot account for diversity on Grande Ile, New Caledonia, cannot account for this situationthis situationthat although that although VanikoroVanikoro languages show typological features languages show typological features that resemble the grammar of other Oceanic languages that resemble the grammar of other Oceanic languages there is little or no cognate morphology, suggesting a there is little or no cognate morphology, suggesting a convergence due to longconvergence due to long--term bilingualismterm bilingualism

Conclusions III

that it is perfectly possible, archaeologically, for NAN that it is perfectly possible, archaeologically, for NAN languages to be present in languages to be present in UtupuaUtupua--VanikoroVanikoro, if speakers , if speakers travelled in canoes as part of the expanding Lapita culturetravelled in canoes as part of the expanding Lapita culturethat such a model would explain the type of physical that such a model would explain the type of physical diversity now found in many places, but typical, for diversity now found in many places, but typical, for example of Te example of Te OumaOuma in Efate in Vanuatuin Efate in Vanuatuthat linguists have been unduly influenced by existing that linguists have been unduly influenced by existing models of prehistory concerning the first settlement of models of prehistory concerning the first settlement of previously unoccupied islandspreviously unoccupied islandsthat the presence of numerous species deemed to that the presence of numerous species deemed to characterise characterise ‘‘MelanesianMelanesian’’ arboriculture in the Reefs/Santa arboriculture in the Reefs/Santa Cruz area may point to a model of NAN peoplingCruz area may point to a model of NAN peopling

And so?The larger conclusion that may be drawn is that we have The larger conclusion that may be drawn is that we have simply been wrong about the languages of Remote Oceania. simply been wrong about the languages of Remote Oceania. The hypothesis has to be considered that some of them are The hypothesis has to be considered that some of them are not Austronesian, but rather have a small number of Oceanic not Austronesian, but rather have a small number of Oceanic borrowings due to the circumstances of first settlement. borrowings due to the circumstances of first settlement. We have no idea about the typology of the original languages We have no idea about the typology of the original languages of the Admiralties, so there is no easy way to compare of the Admiralties, so there is no easy way to compare modern languages. modern languages. But we can say that where there are Austronesian languages But we can say that where there are Austronesian languages in islands where nonin islands where non--Austronesian languages are known to Austronesian languages are known to persist, such as New Britain and the Solomons, persist, such as New Britain and the Solomons, ‘‘aberrantaberrant’’ or or eroded languages are surely the product of some type of eroded languages are surely the product of some type of interaction. interaction. In Vanuatu, irregularities may result from indirect contact. In Vanuatu, irregularities may result from indirect contact. The diversity of languages in The diversity of languages in UtupuanUtupuan--VanikoroVanikoro and the and the Loyalties would then be because they were directly settled by Loyalties would then be because they were directly settled by speakers of nonspeakers of non--Austronesian languages travelling in Lapita Austronesian languages travelling in Lapita canoes.canoes.

And so?

The map then divides these The map then divides these ‘‘aberrantaberrant’’ languages into languages into three categories, those who may simply be nonthree categories, those who may simply be non--Austronesian, those demonstrably in contact with nonAustronesian, those demonstrably in contact with non--Austronesian and those where this is a reasonable Austronesian and those where this is a reasonable hypothesis, without direct evidence.hypothesis, without direct evidence.

Mapping a revised classification

Do the non-Austronesians

still exist?

THANKS• To the late Darrell

Tryon, John Lynch and Alex Francois for data, and to Glenn Summerhayes and Christophe Sand for discussions on the archaeology.