Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” - Online First

This paper examines a poorly studied theme in Australianist linguistics, the expression of knowing and ignorance. The investigation is typological, based on a sample of 149 Indigenous Australian languages, largely a convenience sample, though most major genetic groupings and geographical regions are covered. It examines basic lexemes and grammatical constructions employed in expressing knowledge and ignorance. It is shown that many languages lexicalise both knowledge and ignorance, usually as nominals, less commonly as types of verb. The basic grammatical properties of these lexical items are overviewed, including their semantics (they typically encompass both practical and declarative knowledge) and use in complement constructions. There are two emically distinct complement types in some languages, one expressing practical knowledge, the other declarative knowledge. The practical construction has a complement clause embedded in the matrix clause, whereas in the declarative construction the complement clause is framed as an encoding of a putative fact.

We probe a new approach to linguistic areas. Instead of similarity of a feature across languages of the area, we focus on its adaptation to the area. Adaptation is a set of changes and/or retentions in a language towards, but not necessarily into, similarity with the other languages of the area. Technically, we estimate adaptation by comparing the distance between the focus language from the area and a geographically and genealogically closely related language outside of the area (its benchmark language) as tertium comparationis. If the focus language is closer to the area than its benchmark, we interpret it as evidence for adaptation towards the other languages of the area. Adaptation includes all possible scenarios of change and non-change. We test word order and find that all languages of the CB area show effects of adaptation, with Baltic Romani and both Baltic languages being in the center of the area.

In Chiquitano (Macro-Jê), multiple constructions are used to translate other languages’ transitive clauses. The language has traditionally been analyzed as a nominative–accusative one, with almost all transitive verbs taking more morphological marking than the intransitive verbs. In this contribution, I put forward an alternative proposal, whereby Chiquitano is considered to be an ergative–absolutive language. The constructions traditionally analyzed as basic transitive clauses are shown to be representative of voice alternations — antipassive or inverse —. I further show that the language has a class of pseudo-transitive verbs, which can likewise enter a kind of inverse construction (“pseudo-transitive inverse”). I conclude the paper by comparing my proposal to previous analyses; my account of the facts fares better with regard to the syntax of subordination in desiderative clauses, typological plausibility of lexicalization of certain predicates as transitive, and economy of exponence.