Oceanic Linguistics Today

Author(s): Arthur Capell

Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct., 1962), pp. 371-428
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2739878 .
Accessed: 13/09/2011 18:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Today
Oceanic Linguistics
Capell
by Arthur

THE SETTING
THE LANGUAGES ofthePacificOcean-excluding those
of Australiaand Tasmania, whichforma distinctfield
of study-are agreed to consistof two groups,known
The
as Austronesianand non-Austronesian.
respectively
a title
formerwerepreviouslycalled Malayo-Polynesian,
firstgiven by W. von Humboldt in 1836, when the
Melanesian and Micronesianlanguages were still unrecorded.It is stillused by a numberof students.Later
came the name "Austronesian,"which has the advantage of not singlingout one group and one memberof
anothergroup to the exclusion of all others.The nonAustronesianlanguages were previouslyreferredto as
"Papuan," a geographicaltermwhichwas neverreally
and became still less so when languagesof
satisfactory
that type were recorded from areas entirelyoutside
New Guinea. The two groupswill be referredto here
as Austronesian(AN) and non-Austronesian(NAN).

is Reader in Oceanic Linguisticsin the Department of Anthropology,Universityof Sydney,Australia. He

was born in 1902 and receivedhis M. A. at Sydneyin 1931 and
his Ph.D. at London in 1938. His doctorate thesis was published in Sydneyin 1943 under the title Linguistic Position of
South-easternPapua. He is the author of a large number of
articleson various languages of Australia and the Pacific.
Capell has done extensive field work in a number of parts
of Australia, some of the results of which are now being prepared forpublication. He visitedFiji in 1940-41 to prepare the
New Fijian Dictionary,subsequentlypublished in Sydney.He
has travelledextensivelyin Papua and New Guinea and made
linguisticsurveysfor the Department of Education of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. He has also visited the
British Solomon Islands and the southern New Hebrides. In
1947-48 he was a member of the Coordinated Investigationof
Micronesian Anthropology,sponsored by the United States
Navy and the State Department,during which he studied the
Palauan language, as well as Sonsorol-Tobi. At the present
time, he is preparing his Australian materials,some of which
is expected to be published within this year.
The presentarticle,submittedto CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY on
June 9, 1961,was sent forCA* treatmentto thirty-six
scholars,
of whom the following responded with written comments:
C. D. Chretien, H. K. J. Cowan, William Davenport, Isidore
Dyen, Samuel H. Elbert, Ward H. Goodenough, George W.
Grace, Andre G. Haudricourt,K. J. Hollyman,Nils M. Holmer,
Hans Kahler, Peter A. Lanyon-Orgill,testmir Loukotka, Wilhelm Milke, G. B. Milner, Stanley Newman, Carl A. Schmitz,
Andrew Sharp, Eugene Verstraelen,and S. A. Wurm. The
commentswrittenforpublication are printed in full afterthe
author's text,and are followed by a reply fromthe author.
ARTHUR CAPELL

Vol. 3 -No. 4 *October1962

The termNAN cannotas yetbe replaced by a positive

termbecause theselanguagesdo not appear to formone
linguisticfamily,as theAN languagesdo.
Less is knownabout the NAN languagesthan about
theAN, but it is convenientto discusstheformergroup
so thatthe theoreticalquestionsraised by the AN
first,
languages may be treatedconsecutivelyafterthe discussion of the severallanguage groups.
THE NON-AUSTRONESIAN

LANGUAGES

The NAN languagesof the Pacificare foundchiefly

in New Guinea. A few occur in Portuguese Timor
(Capell 1944); others in New Britain, e.g. Baining
(Parkinson 1907, Rauscher 1904, Laufer 1946-49); in
Bougainville (Grisward 1910, Rausch 1912); and in
theWesternSolomons.In the latterarea thereare four
languages-Bilua (Vella Lavella), Bafiata (Rendova
Island), Lavukaleve (Russell Island), and Savosavo
(Savo Island) -of whichno fullaccountshave yetbeen
given. The languages of the Santa Cruz group, and
thoseof the Reef Islands thatare not Polynesian,have
such a thinveneerof AN as to be practicallystillNAN.
The wholeproblemofsubstratain Oceanic languagesis
linked with a knowledgeof theseNAN languages,especiallythoseeast of New Guinea.
in
While theNAN languagesvaryalmostindefinitely
theirvocabularies,even neighbouringlanguages often
presentinglittle or no resemblanceto each other, a
certainnumberof structuralfeaturestend to recurover
wide areas,especiallyin theislandseastof New Guinea.
These are:
1. The occurrenceofnoun classesinvolvinga concord
ofsomekindwithall therestof theutterancewhichhas
referenceto the nuclear noun. The number of such
classes varies from 2 (Savosavo), 3 (Lavukaleve), 5
(Bafiata), 8 (Baining) to 50 (Nasioi, S.E. Bougainvaryconsiderably,but
ville) . Methodsof classification
certaintypestend to recur.
2. Tendencyto marknumberas well as classin nouns
bya bound morphemeof somekindor,as in Bafiata,by
a demonstrativeparticle.There may be only singular
and plural, or, again as in Bafiata,dual and trial may
371

tt/AD~~

Guame

I/

-.

MICRONESIAN

~~~~~Palau

d
NCaoine

_--

/Marsh Is./
>>>

>4LANGUAGEsJ
'
~LANGUAGES

1NDONESIA
Glet

LANGUAGES
FijiFG 1

TAS MA

L___________9

PO LY NESIA N

Is.

M ELAN ESIA
/

/
LANGUAGESLAGUAES
/

,_

IAUSTRALIA

I
FIG.

~~TASMANIAI

1. LinguisticFamilies in the PacificOcean

also be foundmarked.In thesecases a concordsystem

in pronouns and adjectivesis usual, complicatingthe
language still further.
3. The verbal systemmaybe extremely
complicated,
as in most parts of New Guinea; but, where thereis
noun classification,
theverbalsystemtendsto be rather
less complex.In Baining,Bafiata,and Savosavo,forinstance,it is relativelysimple,whilein theCentralHighlands of New Guinea, where noun classes are absent,
many of the languages presentthousandsof possible
combinationsofverbalforms,involvingnot onlytenses
and moods but incorporatedsubjects and objects. In
noun-classifying
languages,the class may require to be
indicated in subject and object prefixesor suffixes.
An
example is provided by Monumbo in northernNew
Guinea (Vormannand Scharfenberger
1914).
4. The syntaxof theselanguagestendsto be remarkably uniform.The preferredword-orderin the utterance is subject, object, verb, in most parts of New
Guinea, as also in New Britain and the Solomon Islands. Relationships are generallyindicated by postpositionsratherthan prepositions,thoughthe position
of the adjectivemay be eitherbeforeor afterthe noun
in differentlanguages. (Referencemay be made to
Wurm 1954 foran informativediscussionof the structural characteristics
of NAN.)
NAN LANGUAGES IN INDONESIA
Two groupsof languagesin Indonesia are known to
be NAN: thoseof North Halmahera, includingMorotai; and certain languages in Portuguese Timor.
Among thelesserSunda Islands are some possiblecases
thathave not yetbeen explored,e.g. Alor.
The North Halmahera-Morotai languages were
studied by Van der Veen (1915) and have also been
used formissionpurposes,so that theymay be classed
as "known." Some account of Bunak and Makassai in
Timor was givenby Capell (1944), and Berthe (1959)
has givenfurtherinformationon Bunak. They cannot
be classed yet as really "known;" more studyis called
for,and the writeris assured that investigators
would
be welcomedin the area.
372

NAN LANGUAGES IN NEW GUINEA

Some progresshas been made in groupingthe NAN
languages in New Guinea. The Dutch and Australian
areas maybe consideredseparately,and thenPapua as
a third area (politically within Australian New
Guinea, but linguisticallyquite differentfrom,for
example, the Central Highlands).
DUTCH NEW GUINEA

offeredhere are suggestedby

The onlyclassifications
Cowan (1953a, 1957b,1960c)who groupstogethersome
of thelanguagesof theVogelkop (WesternPeninsula)
and makes a case forlinkingthemwith the languages
of North Halmahera, known to be NAN. He also suggestsa link betweenlanguagesinland fromHollandia
(Tami-group)and thoseof theUpper Tor River much
fartherwest,in spiteofunrelatedlanguagesintervening
(Cowan 1957b). This groupinghas less to support it
than the former,but may prove to be correct.The lanknown
guagesof theCentralHighlandsare imperfectly
(like all those of Dutch New Guinea) and cannot yet
be linked to each other or to any othergroup. Some
work has been done in Kamoro on the south coast
(Drabbe 1953) and in thesouthwest(byDrabbe and by
Boelaars [1950], using Drabbe's materials); Anceaux
(1958) has classifiedsome languages of the Bomberai
Peninsula (southwesternarea of Dutch New Guinea)
but only in outline. No glottochronologicalwork has
been done, except a little by Cowan. In the southeast,
Marind is well known,and Drabbe has studied its relationshipsto otherlanguagesin thatpart of theisland
(Boelaars 1950,Drabbe 1955).
There is thus much studystill waitingto be carried
out in Dutch New Guinea beforeanythingdefinitive
can be said about the classificationsof its languages,
either internallyor externally.Some pygmygroups
have been reportedin thisarea, but littlehas been recorded of their languages: Taipiro in the Goliath
Mountains is one of these; Pesechem,previouslyreported as another,seems to belong to the Dani group
in the Baliem Valley, Central Highlands (Le Roux
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

1950: Vol. II, 901 ff.).There is a certainoverlap with

languages in AustralianNew Guinea: all those along
the borderseem to overlap. Sko, east of Hollandia-a
tone language-links with Vainimo; Nyao crossesthe
border;Boadji and Kati seem to link withTelefolmin,
and there is probably also some overlappingfarther
south.
AUSTRALIAN

NEW GUINEA

Mandated Territory
In the AustralianMandated Territoryof New Guinea, muchinformationis stillto be sought-and indeed,
apart fromDutch New Guinea, thisis the richestfield
forlinguisticstudystill remainingin the Pacificarea.
Only a fewgroupingscan yet be discerned.The most
thoroughlystudied are the languages of the Central
Highlands. This work was done chieflyby Wurm in
1958,followingon foundationslaid by Capell (1948).
Wurm's summaryof resultsmay be taken first.It is
drawnfrominformationkindlyprovidedby him to be
included in a second edition (to appear in 1961) of
Capell's LinguisticSurveyof the South-Western
Pacific
(1954).
The stock,which Wurm has decided to name the
East New Guinea Highlandsstock,withapproximately
731,000 speakers, shows the following composition
when proceedingfromeast to west:
(1) Gadsup-Auyana-Awa-Tairora
family,
29,979speakers;
(2) Gende-Siane-Gahuku-Kamano-Fore
family (143,969
counted,plus8,400estimated);
(3) Hagen-Wahgi-Jimi-Chimbu
family(282,000),
withsubfamiliesChimbu-Chuave(141,781) and Chuave-Nomane
(24,691);
(4) Enga-Huli-Pole-Wiru
family,
withdivisions
intoEngaIpili (112,965),
Huli (54,000),andMendi-Pole(63,000),
while
theDuna Valleypopulationis estimated
at between8,000
and 30,000.
Full detailsand breakdownof thesefiguresand areas
will appear in Capell (1961).
The Binanderefamily,whichis foundalmostentirely
within Papua, also appears to link with this Central
Highland stockin someway (see below). The structure
is verysimilar,and thereis a certainamount of vocabularylinkageas well. This is one of theinstanceswhere
moreweighthas to be placed on structurethan on vodoes not seem to cover
cabulary,and glottochronology
such cases.
Othergroupingsthaton presentevidenceseem to be
indicatedare:
Far northwest:Vanimo-Sko-Sangke,connectingwith
Dutch New Guinea. All theselanguagesare tonal,and
sharegeneralstructuralkinship,as well as some vocabulary.
Maprik Group: These stretchinland from Wewak
(Boiken language) throughYangoru and Maprik to
the Sepik River. They were studied by Laycock (Australian National University,Canberra) in 1959, but
theresultsare notyetavailable. They showcertainlinks
with the Highland languages in the occurrenceof
sentencemedial forms,withvariationaccordingas the
subjectsof thetwoclausesremainthesame or change.
Bogia Group:Examinationby Capell (1952) has indiVol. 3 -No. 4 - October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

into threegroups: (a) Mocated tentativeclassifications

which see followingparnumbo-Ngaimbom-Lilau-for
agraph, Noun-ClassifyingGroup; (b) the languages
east of Lilau; (c) the westernand inland languages.In
the neighbourhoodof the Ramu River both Anaberg
and Atemble show points of contactwith Group c in
structurebut verylittle in vocabulary.The relationships are mostobvious in the firstgroup,but whether
thereis any more than a typologicalconnectionwith
Group remains
the languagesof the Noun-Classifying
to be proved.In Group b certainstructuralfeaturesare
held in common, including pronominal systemand
typeof verbsystem,but withconsiderablevariationin
detail. Vocabulary correspondencesare not striking.
For Group c, Capell remarks,concerningthe coastal
languages westof Monumbo, that theyappear to link
withthoseinland and that,"if thereis reallya language
familyinvolvedhere,theinland languageswould seem
to be the more archaic." The occurrenceof sentenceformsof the verb link these
medial and sentence-final
languageswith the Highlands and Huon Peninsula.
There is probablyat any rate a phylumconnection
of the Bogia group with the Mugil languages(Kasprus
1942-45)and those in the hinterlandof Madang, Nobonob, Amele,etc.
Group: lncludes Buna and Angoram
Noun-Classifying
on thelowerSepik,and Monumbo in theBogia district.
It remainsto be seen whethertheseultimatelyprove to
be a connectedgroupor simplyto coincidein one grammaticalfeature.Arapesh,westofWewak,and Muhiang,
south of Arapesh,are similarin structureto the other
languagesmentioned,but do not appear to be genetically linkedwith them.
Huon Peninsula: Pilhofer(1926) providedvocabularies
and grammaticalsketchesof 10 languagesof the Huon
Peninsula, showing much structural resemblance
amongthem,as well as withOno on thenortheastcoast
of the Peninsula. Kate is the best known of theselanguages and has been widelyused as a literarymedium
by the Lutheranmissionformore than half a century.
Schmitz(1960), approaching the problem fromthe
anthropologicalviewpoint,has grouped 133 dialects
and languagesof the Huon Peninsula into the following subgroups:(1) NAN languagesof theKa^tegroupin
theeast of theHuon Peninsula; (2) theNAN languages
of thegroupsnorthand southof theSaruwagedRange
(Boana, etc.); (3) NAN languages in the centralHuon
Peninsula between the Saruwaged and Finisterre
Ranges; (4) the NAN languagesnorthand south of the
FinisterreRange. Apart fromthe AN migrationsinto
thearea, he suggests-ina letterto thewriter-that"below thistheremustbe at leasttwonon-Melanesianbasic
culturesand languages.The one uses theword ijaiij for
'man,' and the older one in the central part uses the
word amine." A linguistic assessmentof Schmitz's
groupingsstillremainsto be carriedout. When thishas
been done, therewill probablybe considerablemodificationof his scheme.
It is clear that a considerablefieldof investigation
remains in the Mandated Territoryof New Guinea,
both in widerrecordingof the languagesand in depth
studyof thosealreadyrecorded.
373

HOLLANDIA

GEELUINK

?D
4

7c
*0

352_4

9>

Ic
?

BUKA I.

36

MADANG

,tHIGHLANDSj

>

'

NEW BRITAIN

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<)
9>~~~~2

\B

OUGAINVILLE
CHOISEUL

YSABEL
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0

*
D

<

~~~~~~~O
~~~~~2a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9

C4o

19118

8
O

fNEWIRELAND

NESIAN

RO

AUSTE12

0
PONT MORESBY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~PORT
MORESB

Y,

002642

410
UDAC
~~~~~~~0MALAI410
42:
TA

<
BELLONA
RENNEL;:a

*
*

POLYNESIAN

0
AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIA
Numbered
1.
2.

Northern Halmahera
and Morotal
Timor
Portuguese
Bunak
2a
2b
Makassai
2c
Dagoda
Vogelkop (some
are AN)
languages

4.
5.
6
7.

Peninsula
Bomeral
AN)
(some languages
Kamoro
Marind
Central Highlands
7a
Wissel Lakes
7b. Ndani
7c
Pesechem

TA

~~~~GUADALCANAL

25

areas

8.
9.
10.
11
12
13.
14

or languages

are non-Austronesian,

7d
Tapiro
Boadjl
Kati
Telefolmin
Central Highlands
Vanimo
Bolkin
Maprik

FIG.

15.
16
17.
18
19
20.
21.
22.

all other areas

Bogia District
Ramu River
Nobonob
Amele
Buna
Angoram
Huon Peninsula
Kiwal

(except
23
24.
25
26
27.
28
29.
30.

Australia)

are Austronesian

Orokolo
Kolta
Mallu
Yele
Binandere
Waria River
Panaras
Idne

31.

Kilenge
(Melanesian)
Kol
Malkolkol
Kuanua
(Melanesian)
35. Baining-TaulilButam area

32.
33.
34.

36
37.
38.
39
40
41
42

Sulka
Gaktal-Tumulp
I
Bougainville
(mostly NAN)
Bilua
Banata
Lavukaleve
Savosavo

2. The Non-AustronesianLanguages

gratingfromeast to westhas leftits tracein the Kiwai

in the Kiwai languages there
languages.Furthermore,
In Papua AN languages are found along the coast seems to be an elementof the Upper Fly River area.
fromCape Possessioneastwardsand as far along the Later on, severalKiwai languagesappear to have been
northeastcoastas CollingwoodBay. In theCentralDisinfluencedby languagesspokento theeast of them,and
tricttheygo inland via the St. Josephand Lakekamu
thereare similaritiesbetweenKiwai words and words
Rivers,but in all otherareas are only coastal.
of languagesspokenin theNorthernand North-eastern
The remainderof Papua is occupied by NAN lan- Divisions. Finally, there are in the Kiwai languages
guages.In theinteriortheseare mostlyeitherunknown wordsfromMelanesianlanguagesspokenin theeastern
or merelyrecordedin shortvocabularies.Only a few part of New Guinea."
groupingsstandout definitely
as yet:
All these hypothesescall for investigation.What is
Kiwai Group: Occupyingthe coast fromDaru to the needed is an examinationof all therelevantlanguages,
ethnolinguisby all available methods-lexicostatistics,
Era River,theseforma veryclearlydefinedseries.Much
of the vocabularyis common,and the structuresof all
tics,and others.(Wurm'sworkwas done beforethe deare much alike. They are characterisedby an extremely velopmentof lexicostatisticalmethods.)This involves
in whichpersonis reckoned, fieldwork,to securemoreand bettermaterial.Existing
complicatedverbalsystem,
to establishbroad outlines;it may
not as first,second,and third,but as inclusiveand ex- materialwill suffice
then receive additions where gaps become apparent.
clusive. The formeris the person of the speaker,the
latterthatof personsaddressedor referredto. Thus in
The presentlack of clarity,the inevitable "may" and
"perhaps,"need not continueas long as the languages
Kiwai, n-ogu, "(I) go," r-ogu,"(you) go," "(he or she)
goes."Numberis indicatedbysuffixes,
and thesesuffixes themselvescontinueto be spoken.
will indicate the numberof actorsand goal, whether
General referencesare: for Kiwai, Ray 1931 and
singular,dual, trial,or plural,and the timeand nature
1933; forMiriam,Ray 1907.
of the action,in a mostelaborate "mathematical"way. Orokolo Group: Between the Kiwai and the western
The Miriam language,spokenin theeasternislands of
Melanesian languageslie thoseof the Orokolo Group.
the Torres Straits(Australia),is a "Papuan" language
These are all coastal languages: Orokolo, Vailala,
of verysimilarstructure,
Kerema, and Toaripi, with dialectal subdivisions.
thoughit does not showmuch
connectionwith the Kiwai group in vocabulary.The
Again the resemblancesin both vocabularyand strucclose resemblancein structure,
however,can hardlybe
ture are obvious. A paper by Ray (1913-14) supplies
accidental.In his preliminary
studyof Kiwai languages, material for developing these connections,although
the actual workingout stillremainsto be done.
Wurm (1951) summarisesthus: "In conclusion,it may
Koita Group: About Port Moresbyand inland towards
be statedthatthe Kiwai languageshave apparentlydeveloped froma structuralelementwhich may perhaps theOwen StanleyRange, the Koita groupof languages
be connectedwiththeMiriam language.A Marind elecomprisesKoita, Koiari,Efogi,and severalotherswhich
mentoriginatingfromthe Middle Fly area had merged share featuresof vocabularyand structuresufficiently
into thisfirstelement,and also the Marind elementmito justifytheirbeing classifiedtogether.What the dePapua

374

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

gree of relationship is remains to be investigated.

Strong(1912) held thatBiagi and Wovanga fittedinto
thisgroup,but manuscriptmaterialcollectedby Capell
in Wovanga does not agree with that published by
Strong.
Mailu Group: These are languages about Orangerie
Bay, of which Mailu is the best known (Saville 1912,
Lanyon-Orgill1944). They have been considerablyinfluencedby Melanesian,but theirbasic structureshows
them to forma single group,of a typequite different
fromKiwai, although there is equal complicationin
the verb. Referencefora briefsurveyof themmay be
foundin Capell 1943.
Jnsular:The only NAN language in insular Papua is
on Rossel Island. This language,commonlycalled Yele,
has never been investigated,and calls for study.Unpublishedfieldnotesgatheredby Capell show it to be
phoneticallycomplicated,possessingnasal vowels and
unusual consonanttypes,e.g. nasals withplosiveattack
as in pmi, "coconut,"or pciile, "thing":double or long
consonantsinitially(nna, "I"), and phonemiclength.
On the morphologicallevel there is classificationof
nouns in a numberof groupswithconcordof dependent words. The verbal systemis as complicatedas in
most Papuan languages. The neighbouringSud Est
Island has Melanesianlanguagesbut thesedepartwidely
frommostMelanesian typesand may showrelicsof an
earlierNAN occupationof a typesimilarto Yele. Their
phoneticscertainlyrecall Yele.
North coast and inland: A large part of the Northern
Division is occupied bymembersof theBinanderefamily of languages. Binandere itselfis well known (see
King 1926) and is a literarylanguage formissionpurposes, but some of the inland dialects or related languages need to be investigated.This familycrossesinto
the Mandated Territory,and some membersof it are
found along the Waria River. The grammaticalstructure is sufficiently
like that of the Central Highland
languages to make at least a stockrelationshipmore
than likely. The characteristicfeatureof distinction
verb forms
and sentence-final
betweensentence-medial
is made in preciselythe same manneras in the Central
Highlands.
To thesouthof theBinanderefamily,however,there
is a congeriesof languages,veryfewof themat all well
known and some not investigated.These include very
small groups,such as Onjob, and largergroupssuch as
Dimuga-Daga,whichlink withlanguageson thesouthern side of the Owen Stanley Ranges. All these languages providefieldsforstudy.Some,such as Wovanga,
Biagi, and the Chirima languages,appear to link with
theKoiari-Koitalanguages(Group 3 above) and so with
thecentralsouthcoast.
These and otherpossiblegroupingswill be discussed
morefullyin Capell 1961.
The presentposition regardingthe classificationof
theNAN languagesin New Guinea as a whole is setout
well in Wurm (1954a: 470):
"There has, however,been much less effort
made to
attempt to combine two or several small groups of
closelyrelated languages into largerlinguisticgroups.
One of the main reasonsfor this is the enormousdiscrepancyin the vocabulariesof languages which may
otherwiseshow considerableagreementin theirphoVol. 3 -No. 4 - October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

The general prinnetic and morphologicalstructures.

ciple of determiningrelationshipbetween languages
by which themain emphasisis laid on the comparison
of vocabularies and the establishingof sound-laws,
whereas the morphologicalstructureis regardedonly
as a criterionof secondaryimportance,is simplynot
applicable to the widercomparisonof non-Melanesian
languages. It may thereforebe necessaryto apply to
theselanguages,in the firstplace, the principleof the
and to classifyin groupsthose
comparisonof structure,
or allanguages which, though showingfar-reaching
most total disagreementof vocabulary,presentstrucwhich by far exceed those listed above.
tural affinities
The essentialfactorin thisis not theoccurrenceof only
one or two identical structuralfeaturesin purelylinespeciallyethnoguistic evidence; also non-linguistic,
logical and social anthropologicalevidencemay be of
use."
Wurm thengoes on to suggestthat furtherstudyof
the NAN languages may have two values: one, of
course,is the scientificvalue of discoveringunrecognised connections;the other,the practicalvalue to linin fieldworksituations,and
guistsand anthropologists
also to missionaries,including the choice of suitable
languagesforvernaculareducation.Schmitz(1960) has
also stated,"The explorationof the languagesof New
Guinea will last forgenerationsyet" (1960: 43).
NAN LANGUAGES

EAST OF NEW

GUINEA

NEW IRELAND AND NEW BRITAIN

Loukotka (1957: 59) states,quoting Kluge (1941),

that New Ireland possesses three NAN languagesNusa, Naiyama, and Letatan. The presentwriterhas
been able to locate onlyone-Panaras, whichis spoken
in a small area of the centralwestcoast of the island.
The remaininglanguages of this island and its geographical dependenciesare AN, but with varyingdegreesof NAN substratum.Depopulation and compulsory movement of populations have considerably
altered the linguisticpatterningof the area, and the
the
introductionof Kuanua and Pidgin has also affected
situation considerably.Undoubtedly there were once
more NAN languages here than are now extant.
In New Britain certainlanguages are known to be
NAN, and othershave been reportedas NAN although
no specimensare available. In the west of the island,
wheregeneralinformationis scarce,a language called
Idne is reportedto be NAN. All the languages of the
southwestcoast, thoughclassifiedas AN and certainly
containingAN elements,are onlyNAN languagesoverlaid with a veneerof AN. This applies fromthe west
end of the island (whereKilenge is much more clearly
AN) rightalong the southcoast as faras Cape Orford.
Some languagesclassifiedby Loukotka as "Papuan" (A
Kinun, Pulie) are membersof this semi-AN group
(Capell, unpublishedfieldnotes). The interioris very
sparselyinhabited, and nothing whatever is known
about the languages of the Kol and Makolkol tribes,
whose membersare veryrarelycontacted:indeed both
groupsare reportedto be on thevergeof extinction.It
is on the Gazelle Peninsula, where the language com375

monlycalled Kuanua-an AN languagewhichis in considerableliteraryuse-is spokenby thebulk of thepopulation, that the best known NAN languages are also
found.These are:
Baining: This language existsin a numberof dialects
and is spokenby some 4,000-5,000people in the Baining Ranges behind Rabaul. Some workhas been done
on it, especiallyby Roman Catholic missionaries(e.g.
Rascher 1904; also in Parkinson 1907). It is an 8-class
language,noun classification
being by suffix,
with concord of all other categoriesof word except the verb.
The verb is curiouslyundeveloped in all the dialects.
Taulil: A small, remnantlanguage, belonging to the
northernslopes of the Baining Hills, but completely
different
fromBaining. Work has been publishedon it
by Fr. Laufer (1950), and notes have been taken by
Capell (unpublished).
Butam: Also fromthe northside of the Peninsula,but
now apparentlyextinct.Work byFr. Futscherhas been
publishedin AnthroposbyFr. Laufer (1959).
Sulka: Spoken about Cape Orford,it was firstrecorded
by Parkinson(1907); but a grammarwas subsequently
drawn up by Br. Muller MSC and appeared in Anthropos(1915-16). There is someliteraryproductionin
it by thesame mission.Gaktai appears to be relatedto
it (see Parkinson1907),but has not been studiedin any
detail.

BritishSolomon Islands Protectorate

In the westernsectionof this area thereare several
NAN languages,of whichno accountshave been published:
Bilua, on Vella Lavella Island, has been used as a
medium of mission teachingfor many years; and, although a quantity of translationexists in published
form,no studyof its structurehas been made. The resultsof Milner'sworktherein 1955 are yetawaited.
Baniata, occupyingthebulk of Rendova Island, is unrecordedexceptforworkdone by Capell in 1960and as
yetunpublished.
Lavukaleve, spoken in the Russell Islands, was recorded by Capell in 1960; the results are yet to be
published.
Savosavo,spoken on Savo Island-the same remarks
apply as to Bafiata and Lavukaleve.
These 4 languagesall have a systemof noun-classifiin principlefromthose
cation,but it is quite different
oftheBougainvillelanguages(thoughsomemorphemes
appear to be common to them and to Bougainville).
They are structurallysimpler than the languages of
Bougainville,but all have the basic NAN featuresoutlined at the beginningof thissection.
In the eastern section of the area, some languages
AN and will probappear to be only veryimperfectly
ably have to be classed finallyas NAN. These include
Ndeni (Santa Cruz) and Nifilole (Reef Islands). CodSOLOMON ISLANDS
rington'soutline grammars(1885) of these two languages were writtenwith a Melanesian bias and are
AustralianSection
quite inadequate to give even an idea of theirreal naThe island of Bougainville is occupied more exten- ture.Nifilolehas been studiedbyWurm,who will soon
sivelyby NAN than by AN languages. Those in the publish his material as an Oceania LinguisticMonosouth are relativelywell known. For grammarsof graph; but Ndeni still awaits study.The same applies
the southeasternlanguages, see Grisward (1910) and
to the verymixed languagesof Utupua and Vanikoro.
Rausch (1912). Many Telei songs have been recorded These were sketchedby Ray (1926a) on imperfectinby Thurnwald (1912-13). Motuna or Siwai has been
formation,and need to be investigated.
studied by the Methodistmission,and an appreciable
There is a clear fieldof studyin the comparisonof
amountof translationdone into it,but grammaticalin- these NAN languages. No real work on classification
formationhas not been published.Incidentalinforma- has been done in the languages of the islands east of
tionmaybe foundin Oliver (1949: 9-13).
New Guinea. Nothing has been done towardsa comThis group of languages is phoneticallysimple but
parativestudyof Baining, Sulka, and otherNAN lanstructurallycomplicated. Its membersare all noun- guages in easternNew Britain, nor in regard to the
on a liberalscale. Nouns are groupedinto as
classifying
relationshipsamong the languages of Bougainville.
many as 50 classes,not only as far as countingis con- Some languagesare not sufficiently
documentedas yet:
whichreappearin pronounsand
cerned,but by suffixes
empiricalstudyis needed in Keriaka and others.The
adjectives.They do not requireconcordof theverb,but
NAN languagesof the BritishSolomon Islands (includthe verb is complicatedin other ways-distinctionsof
ing Santa Cruz and Reef Island) are onlyjust becoming
tense,and incorporationof the pronoun object. Com- available forcomparativestudy.There would appear to
parativestudyis called forin thisarea, as well as full be resemblance,at least typologically,
betweenSiwai in
recordingof other languages that have hardly been
southwestern
Bougainvilleand the BritishSolomon Isstudied as yet: Baitsi, Nagovisi, and Sibbe.
land languages-e.g. markerof masculineclass in Siwai
In the centreand northof Bougainvilleoccur other is so; in Bafiata,zo.
NAN languages,whichseemto be of different
structure
from those of the south. These are much less fully NAN LANGUAGES IN OTHER AREAS
known.Only one is representedby a published gramFrom timeto time,suggestionshave been made that
mar-Konua (Muller 1954). Rotokas is being used in
otherlanguagesin Oceania are NAN, but in no case has
the Methodistmission; and Eivo (togetherwith some
thesuggestionbeen maintained.Thus Loukotka (1957:
Rotokas) by the Roman Catholic mission;but Keriaka
61 ff.)has classifiedthe languages of New Caledonia
and Piva do not appear to be used by either.There is a
and the Loyalty Islands, as well as Aneityumin the
fieldof linguisticresearchin thisarea. The verbal sys- southernNew Hebrides,as NAN; but thisis not a fact.
temsall seemto be complicated,but theelaboratenoun
All theselanguages divergeverywidelyfromthe AN,
classificationis lacking.
but do containan AN elementsufficiently
large to jus376

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

ONTONG JAVA

IS.

CHOISEUL

m SIKAYANA

BILUA

KIA
KOLOMBANGARA

GANONGGA J9
SIMBO s

NEW GEORGIA

BANATA

P.

f DAI

YSABEL IS.

lb

BUGOTU

<X

MALAITA
RUSSELL
IS.
LAVUKALEVE

0
?.GELA

SAVOSAVO

\GL

IS.

GUADALCANAL

SAN CRISTOVAL

BELLONA
Non-Austronesian languages are underlined

<2

(MURGGIKI)

IS.

Polynesian languages carry broken underlining

others are Melanesian

RENNEL
IS.

(MUNGGAVA)

FIG. 3. The BritishSolomon Islands

tifygrouping them with those languages. They have

been sources of difficulty
to all classifiersof Oceanic
languages, and Codrington (1885: 16) regarded the
LoyaltyIsland languages as especiallytroublesometo
place. Ray (1926a: 76) was of the same opinion. Structurally,however,as well as in a portionof the vocabulary,theyare AN. A bettercase mightbe made out for
regarding the Tanna languages as NAN, but even
Loukotka does not do this.A subdivisionof "Semi-AN"
languagesseemsto be called for.
THE AUSTRONESlAN
GENERAL

LANGUAGES
APPROACH

AN languagesoccupythe whole of the PacificBasin

other than Australia,Tasmania, and the areas considered above. A few isolated areas such as Nauru present languages of an extremelyaberrant type grammatically,even though they contain a percentageof
AN vocabulary.The presentsectionof thisstudywill
thereforeconcern itself with the Austronesian languages. Traditionally,these are divided into IndoneVol. 3 *No. 4 *October1962

sian (IN), includingthe languages of Madagascar and

Formosa; Melanesian (MN); Polynesian(PN); and Micronesian(MC). Recently,doubtshave been caston the
correctness
of thissubdivision:forthissee "The Nature
of *AN in Detail," below. The accepted subdivision
appears to be geographic,but it is not entirelyso, although thereis actually a large degree of correlation
betweenlanguage and geographicalposition.
The basic textswhich have servedas landmarksin
thestudyof Oceanic linguisticsare listedin the Bibliography:see especiallyvon Humboldt,Gabelentz,Codrington,Kern,Brandstetter,
Schmidt,Ray, Dempwolff,
and Dyen. Kern and Brandstetter
werethefirstto apply
the theoriesof theneogrammariansto thelanguagesof
the Pacificregion, and theyprovided reliable soundlaws allowing the determinationof "commonIN" and
thence"originalIN." CommonIN comprises"such IN
linguisticmaterial as recurs in many differentlanguages either unchanged or modifiedonly in accordance with strictphonetic laws," while original IN is
"the hypotheticaloriginalIN language fromwhichthe
linguisticphenomenain thecommonIN have been derived" (Ray 1926a: 33). Ray extendedthesestudiesto
377

FORMOSA
(TAIWAN)

ELAO,
/

LAQU

HAINAN|?

The view presentsdifficulties

thatremainas yetunanswered.As Grace (1959: 22) points out, "everyone of
the innovationslisted above for proto-MN appeared
also in the proto-PN!" Grace has concluded that MN
and PN languages"haveshareda commonhistoryapart
fromthe IN languages."His analysiswould resultin a
diagramof thefollowingshape:
*

THAILAND

_____PN

CAMBODA
AMMBODIA

'PHILIPPINE

IN

,.

ISLANDS

MALAY

BORNEO

SUMATRA

Indonesian
languages
in square
enclosedunderlined
Kadai languages

FIG. 4. AustronesianLanguages in South East Asia

theMN fieldand held thatthiscommonelement(now

referredto as "originalAN") has come into Melanesia
in a pidginform.Althoughexceptionhas been recently
takento thisconceptof pidginisation,the existingAustronesianlanguages actuallydo give a large degree of
supportto it on both morphologicaland lexical levels.
More will be said of this below.
The establishmentof originalAN owes most to the
who also proposedthe name.
workof Otto Dempwolff,
There is no space here to evaluate Dempwolff'swork
in detail; forsuch evaluation see Grace (1959: 19-23)
Reizenstein(1959). RegardingDempand, morebriefly,
wolff'spostulatedtheoryof migrationsinto the Pacific,
there are divergencesof opinion. Dempwolff'sown
statement(1927: 42) is: "From theforegoingexposition
the conclusioncan be drawn,that is valid also forethnology,thattheAN elementin MN languagesis a unit,
derivablefromnone of the individualIN languagesor
groups,but which musthave separatedfromthe root
of the AN language familyand is thereforepre-IN."
MN separatedfromthe IN group beforethe latterhad
languages (1934-38:
into the present-day
differentiated
165).
According to Dempwolff'stheory,therefore,protoIN, proto-MN,and proto-PNmust be postulated,as
developmentsof an originalAN; and the present-day
languagesof each group mustbe regardedas local developments of each of these proto-languages.The
schemewould diagram as:
*

IN
378

AN

AN

MN

PN

MN

It is noticeable that none of the investigatorshas attemptedto place MC in thepictureat all, and hence it
is not included in eitherof the above diagrams.This
remainsyetto be done. Only one author (Thalheimer
1907) has attemptedanydetailedworkin thisfield,and
thisis limitedto pronouns.
Anotherformof the theoryis also possible: Western
formof *AN;
IN may be regardedas the present-day
and MC, MN, and PN are derivedfromolder stagesof
WesternIN. Capell (1943: 270-76) has shownthatmany
withgivenareasofIndonesia,
MN wordslink definitely
especiallyBorneo,CentralCelebes,and thePhilippines.
It is also possible that"of the threeintermediatestage
languages,the non-IN ones may in factprove to be the
more archaic.As yetthisthirdpossibilityis littlemore
thana suggestionforfurtherstudy"(Reizenstein1959:
12). There is more to be said forthis than Reizenstein
suggests.Besides the work of Haudricourtand Lenormand on New Caledonian languages,thereis the far
more radical thesis of Fox (1947), who regards MN
as anterioreven to IN, althoughadmittingthe derivation of the Oceanic peoples fromthe Asian mainland.
This view will be discussedin more detail below, because it has been practically disregarded by other
students.
CONTENT OF *AN
Dempwolff(1938) establisheda vocabularyof some
2,000 wordswhichhe regardedas "Original Austronesian" (Uraustronesisch).
The basis of thisrestorationis
found in two WesternIN languages,Toba-Batak (Sumatra) and Javanese,and one NorthernIN language,
Tagalog (Philippines). These, with occasional references to Malagasy, Olo-Ngadju (Borneo), and a few
otherlanguages,servedto establishproto-IN.He later
added to his list Fijian and Sa'a (SoutheastSolomons)
and based a "proto-MN" on the agreementsof these
with his *IN. In the third stage, he examined three
PN languages (Tongan, easternFutuna, and Samoa)
and similarlyestablisheda proto-PN.In each of the
lattertwo cases he soughtto establishphonologicalinnovationson the *AN sound-system,
to determinewhat
vocabularyappeared in each of the MN and PN areasagain with scant attentionto MC. Moreover,all his
PN languages belong to the westernsubgroup of the
family,withoutreferenceto Tahitian or Maori of the
eastern subfamily.He did not seek to establish any
original AN morphology;and verylittlehas yet been
done in thatsphere.
The subgroupingswithinthe AN familyas a whole
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

maynow be consideredone byone, beforea generaldiscussionof the validityof theworkdone by Dempwolff

and others.They will be takenseriatim,as in the case
of the subgroupingsof the NAN languages. Those
within IN and PN are betterestablished than those
withinMN or MC and may be brieflydealt with first;
afterIN and PN an outlineof presentknowledgeabout
the MN languageswill be given,followedby a similar
sketchof relationshipsknownwithinMC. Finally,the
natureand positionof MN, whichis thecrux of discussion in present-dayOceanic linguistics,will be dealt
with.

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

Tombulu, Makassar,Bugis); Illanun in NorthBorneo;

and, betweenthePhilippinesand Celebes,Sangir,Bantik,Bentenan,and others.Many of theseare quite well
documented,but some are still in processof investigation. Membersof the SummerInstituteof Linguistics
(Philippine section)are doing good workwith the lessknownlanguagesof thisgroup.It is of interestto note
that the languages of the negritogroups survivingin
the Philippines,such as Agta, all prove to be IN, and
do not forma separatenegritogroup or family(Oates
1958; Healey 1958).These northernlanguagesare strucINDONESIAN LANGUAGES
turallyby far the most complicated of the AN lanIN languagesoccupyan area stretchingfromMadaguages; but no comparativework in AN morphology
gascar to Timor, the Philippines,and Formosa. The
has yetbeen carriedout to showhow the complications
generallyagreedsubdivisionsofthegroupsare (1) West- arose or whetherthe westernand easterngroupsrepreern, (2) Northern,(3) Eastern.Malagasy,in spite of its sent degradationsof an originallyhighlyinflectedlangeographical position, has close formal connections guage. This is not generallyconsideredlikely,but it is
with the Philippine languages which belong to the possible. Certain MN languagesshow definiteconnecnortherngroup,thoughDahl (1951) has soughtto link
tionswiththisgroupof IN languages,especiallyin the
it morecloselywithone of theDayak groupsin Borneo.
use oftheinfix-inas a noun formant,
and in someof the
The westerngroupembracesthelanguagesof Sumatra, vocabulary: see below (p. 388). The general morphoJava, Bali, South Borneo, and the Malay Peninsula.
logical pattern is shared by Bugis and Makassar in
Cham, spoken in Cambodia, is also an IN language of southwestern
Celebes. The Toradja-Loina languagesin
thisgroup(Cowan 1949),whichhas come intotheAsian
central Celebes forma particular subgroup that has
mainland via northernSumatra (Haudricourt 1954), been studied by Adriani and Kruijt (1912-14) in parand has been stronglyinfluencedby Khmer.There are
ticular.
other less-knownIndonesian languages on the Asian
The outstandingproblemswithinIN languagesconmainland, such as Lati, Laqua, Jarai,and Kelao; and
cernthe acquisitionof greaterdetail in regardto many
on the island of Hainan thereis Li (Dai), which has
of them,especiallythoseof the mainland and Formosa
been stronglyinfluencedby Chinese. According to a
(along the lines of Asai's Sedik Grammar[Asai 1953]);
communicationof Asai at the Ninth Pacific Science theircomparativemorphology;and the relationshipof
Congress(Bangkok 1957), Chinese influencein Li has
theselanguages to the restof AN. The matterwill be
reduced AN disyllabic roots to monosyllables,which discussedmore fullyat a later point in this paper. To
have subsequentlytaken over the tones of the corre- the westof Sumatrathe languagesof Nias, Batu (Sichsponding Chinese words (see also Haudricourt 1954). ule), Siberut,Mentawi,and Engganostandratherapart
Pittman 1959 has published notes on the relation of fromthewesterngroupand are beingstudiedbyKahler
Jaraito AN as faras sound reflexesare concerned.Most
(1940, 1954, 1955).
of thesemainland languagesare as yettoo littleknown
POLYNESIAN
LANGUAGES
fortheirsubgroupingto be decided, but Haudricourt
in the above-mentioned
articlehas expressedthe belief
At theoppositeside of the Pacific,the PN languages
thattheoriginalhomeofAN is to be soughtin thisarea
presentgreateruniformitythan the IN and MN and
(NorthVietnamand South China) ratherthan farther are betterknownthan the latter.They are divided into
sought in SoutheastAsia. He has presentedevidence (a) Western,(b) Eastern,and (c) Outliers.The western
that is briefbut weighty.The immediateneed is for group comprisesTonga (phoneticallythe oldest), Safurtherstudyof thesemainland languages of the AN
moa, Futuna, Uvea, Niue, Ellice and Tokelau Islands;
family.
the easterngroupcomprisesHawai?i, Marquesas,Cook
The easterngroup of IN languages stretchesfrom Islands, Tahiti, Mangareva, Tuamotu, Easter Island,
Sumbawa to Timor, and north towardswesternNew
and, geographicallydisplaced,Maori of New Zealand.
Guinea; see also page 377, above. These easternlan- The outliersare the PN languages within Melanesia;
guages are somewhatlessknownon thewhole than the thesepresenta special problemwhichstill awaitssoluwesterngroup. Reliable informationabout some of
tion, and for this reason theywill be discussedbelow
them,e.g. Alor, is lacking,and theywould formthe
("Lexicostatistics")more fully than here. Both phosubject of a usefulseriesof studies.A few have been
neticallyand morphologically,the eastern languages
studiedin detail,e.g. Rotti (Jonker1908, 1915),Flores appear to be youngerthan the western.There is no
(Ngadha). The languagesof southeastCelebes fitbest clear evidencethatanyearlierinhabitantsprecededthe
into this group: see the grammarof Wolio (Anceaux
Polynesiansinto the easternPacific,though the pres1952).
ence of an earlierstratumhas been frequentlyclaimed.
The northerngroup includes the languages of the Recent archaeologicalresearchhas suggesteda much
Philippines,the IN languagesof Formosa,and, within earlier settlementof Polynesia than was formerlybeMicronesia, those of Palan and the Marianas (Chalieved. According to figuresgiven by Elbert (1953:
morro). It includes also the languages of northern 167 f.), based on glottochronology,
Samoa would have
Celebes and the entirewest of the island (Gorontalo, been settledabout A.D. 100,while the Marquesanswere
Vol. 3 *No. 4 - October1962

379

alreadyin residencein 480 B.C. Archaeologicalexamination,howvever,

suggestsa date before1,000 B.C. for the
Marquesan settlement(Shapiro and Suggs,1959; Suggs
1960),which,ifcorrect,will requirea re-thinking
of the
entireconceptofPN history.The outlierswill probably
be involvedin such a re-thinking,
but the dates of the
internalmovementsof the various PN groups within
the easternPacificwill presumablyremain unaltered,
based as theyare on interpretable
Polynesiantraditions.
The position of the outliers-Nukuria,Kapingamarangi, Nukoro, Mortlocks(Taku), Nukumanu, Ongtong Java (Luaijiua), Sikayana, Rennel and Bellona
Islands (Muijgava and Muijgiki),Tikopia and Anuta,
Reef Islands (Pilheni, Matema,etc.), Uvea in the Loyalty Islands, and in New Hebrides (Mae, Fila-Mele,
Futuna-Aniwa)-istheprincipalsourceof disagreement
beamong PN scholars.For thissee "Lexicostatistics,"
low.At thispoint it can be said, however,thatit is quite
possible,if the earlydate forsettlementin Polynesiais
finallyaccepted,that the PN outlierswill be shown to
be remnantsof such an earlyAN movement,whether
theyweresettledfromthewestor by "throwbacks"from
the east-in whichcase it does not matterwhetherthey
representcolonieslefton thewayeast or groupsreturning,willinglyor otherwise,fromtheeast. They are still
early and archaic PN. Some, such as Nukumanu and
Nukuria, may indeed be later,but certainlythe main
body are not the productof the latestmovementfrom
east to west of the presentday Polynesiansforthe last
1,000yearsor so.
Even some mattersof factregardingthe outliersstill
need rechecking.Thus Elbert (1953: 153) states that
"althoughno presentPN language distinguishesI and
r, some such distinctionmust have been phonemicin
Futuna-Aniwa(New Hebrides)does
proto-Polynesian."
distinguishthesetwo (and so does Mae) and this fact,
as well as the much greatermorphologicalcomplexity
of theselanguages,arguesforan earlydate.
Certain MN languages seem to approach PN very
closely. Apart fromBau Fijian (see "Fijian," below,
p. 384) which is known to have close connectionwith
Polynesia,the Nakanai language of New Britainoffers
many points of comparison;those of the southeastern
Solomons were long ago connectedby Schmidt(1899)
more closely with PN than any others. The whole
problem of the interrelationshipof AN languages is
involved here; it will be discussedbelow ("Lexicostatistics").
The original home of the Polynesians is another
problem of interest.It is generallybelieved to have
been on the Asian mainland. Some have suggested
places even as farwestas the east coastof India, but no
successfullocalisation of it has been reached. Polynesian traditioncalls it Savaiki, Hawaiki, etc. (according
to the local phonology).Unlike the Melanesians,Polynesianshave a definiteoriginstory,backed by lengthy
genealogieswhichwerekept by the priestlyclassesand
used to supportthe claims of a hereditarynobilityto
divine ancestry.The wholeseriesoflegendswas studied
in detail by Smith (1898-99). In some areas of Polynesia the name of the homeland is applied to the
presentsettlement,
much as European place names are
frequentlytransferredto new settlements.The Hawaiian Islands recall the name; and thereis Savai?i in
380

Samoa. The onlyplace wherethefullformof thename

is knownis in one of the outliers-Futuna,New Hebrides,whereSavaiki was knownin legends; but unfortunatelyDr. Gunn, the missionarywho recorded the
fact,did not botherto collect the legends.It may still
be possibleto do so.
Where, then,was Savaiki? Probably no solution to
thequestionis possibleat thepresentday. PercySmith's
identifications
of place names are ofteningenious,but
not always convincing.If, however,thereis any truth
in the Savaiki legendsat all, it needs to be reconciled
with the linguisticevidencefor *AN-whether Dempwolff'sor any othertheorybe thebasis of investigation,
the Polynesiansstill have to be fittedinto it. It is of
interestto noticethatthe twogreatseriesof Polynesian
myths-thestoriesof Tangaloa and those of Mauitikitiki-neveroccur togetherin the outliers.Where Tangaloa is known(as in Sikayana),Maui is unknown,and
vice versa.The Futuna-Aniwa-Filaregionof the southernNew Hebrides is fullof Maui stories,but Tangaloa
is eitherunknownor, as in Tanna and Aneityum,debased to a sea-snake(taijalua in Tanna) or even a land
snake.In thenorthernNew Hebrides,Tangaloa (in the
formTayaro, Tahar, etc.) appears as a god, but Maui
is unknown(see Capell 1938, 1960).
MELANESIAN

LANGUAGES

On a geographicalbasis, which also to a degree corresponds to linguisticdistinctions,seven-or possibly

eight-subgroups of MN languages may be distinguished.
WEST NEW GUINEA

AN languages occur along the coastal stretchof the

presentNetherlandsNew Guinea fromArguni in the
southwest,
around theVogelkopand GeelvinkBay,and
sporadicallyalong the north coast practicallyto the
borderof Australia.Cowan (1952, 1953) has attempted
to definesome of the boundaries,but much more facdetertual evidence is needed beforeany satisfactory
mination can be reached. The only languages really
well known are Numfor,Wandama (Windesi), and
Waropen, all in the GeelvinkBay area, forwhichdictionariesand grammarsexist and textsare available.
Here the problemis to decide therelationshipof these
languages to IN and, in particular,to set a boundary
line betweenlanguages that may rightlybe called IN
and thosethat are to be called MN. Cowan (1952) has
gone into thisproblem,followingFriederici(1912) and
others,and would set the line of demarcationsomewhere about the Molucca Islands within Indonesia.
Closer definitionhas still to be reached. Much doubt
oftenremains,even when informationis to hand. As a
matterof fact,Cowan, speakingof the Vogelkop languages (1953: 47) says,"Anothercomplicationin this
connectionis that in all theseVogelkop languages the
conjugationof the verb appears to be effectedby pronominalprefixes,
as is also thecase in theMN languages
of New Guinea, but is found in many undoubtedly
Papuan languages as well. It is, however,these pronominalprefixesand thepersonalpronounsthemselves
that make an AN interpretation
difficult
if not impossible. In several cases these pronouns remind one of
those in the northernHalmahera languages whose
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

NAN characteris an undisputed fact. This does not

mean that the authorwould suggesta connectionbut
only that the factpleads againstan AN interpretation
as it did for the northernHalmahera languages (Van
der Veen, 1915),even if the resemblanceswere purely
accidental.In the meantimethe matterneeds further
investigationby meansof morereliable and morecomplete data."
EASTERN NEW GUINEA

A good deal of studyof individual languages in the

easternpart of New Guinea has been done, but little
comparativeworkexists,except that by Capell (1943)
on the southeastof Papua. The MN languages (as at
presentaccepted)fallmostnaturallyinto the following
subgroups:
1. North-west,embracing the area between the
Dutch border and Bogia on the north coast of New
Guinea. Informationis to hand concerningSisano,
Arop, Malolo, Tumleo, Ali, Yakamul, Suain, Karesau
and Kairiru, Wogeo, and Manam, but the only publishedmaterialof anyscope is thatprovidedby Schultze
(1911) on Tumleo. This group is characterisedby the
paucity of MN content and by relative simplicityof
structure.
2. The area about Madang and along the Rai coast.
The Gedaged (Graged, Ragetta) language has been
used for half a centuryby the Lutheran mission as a
lingua franca throughoutthe region, and there is a
good dictionaryby Mager (1952). Related languages
are spokenon the mainland,e.g. Ham, and also to the
north(Kasprus 1942-45),but along the Rai Coast the
typeof MN graduallychanges.Verylittleis known of
theMN languagesof theRai Coast.
3. Northeastgroup, extendingfromSio round the
coast to thePapuan border,includingsome of the Siasi
Islands. Again informationis scarce for some areas,
especiallythe extremenorthand south,and the group
has to be subdivided.The centralmembersfromYabem
to Labu are betterdocumented.Yabem has also long
been a lingua francaof the Lutheranmission.For this
language thereis a grammarby Dempwolff(1939) and
a handbook by Zahn (1940), who also compileda large
dictionary,whichremainsonly in cyclostyleyet. Some
of thelanguagesare tonal: Taemi, Kawa?,Yabem,Labu
(Capell 1949b).
4. The AN languages of Papua have been analysed
by Capell (1943), some of whoseresultshave been subjected to furtheranalysis by Chretien (1956). These
languagesfall into a numberof subgroups(11 according to Capell's reckoning)and representverydifferent
traditions.Those along the south coast have a higher
islands.
AN contentthan thoseon some of the offshore
In regardto theirpositionin the over-allpictureof
AN, theseAN languagesof New Guinea presenta problem whichis as yetunsolved.They providean interesting instanceof whatRay meantby sayingthat theAN
elementwas presentin a pidginform (Ray 1926a: 597).
There is a clear but small AN vocabulary content:
Capell identified320 AN rootsin the SoutheastPapua
languages,with a group thatwill probablyprove to be
AN but was not recognisedby Dempwolffas such;
othersprobablyoccur in the north.There are also AN
morphologicalfeatures,but thesyntaxof thelanguages
Vol. 3 -No. 4 *October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

is verylargelyNAN-postpositions are used as against

prepositions,and tenseformationsare oftenquite differentfromthoseof the normalMN languages farther
east. These New Guinea languagesare those to which
Cowan would restrictthe termMN (see "The Nature
of * AN in Detail," below). What elementsare shared
betweenWest and East New Guinea AN are as yetuninvestigated.It cannot, therefore,be shown whether
theyrepresenta single eastwardmovementor not. It
seemsunlikely.
5. In the AdmiraltyIslands again are found a number of AN languageswhichpresentcertainelementsin
common. Apart froman unpublished surveyby Dr.
Smythe,made in 1949,verylittle detail has been obtained about them and they appear to be yielding
groundratherrapidlyto Pidgin English.They have an
elaboratesystemof classingnouns intomanygroupsfor
purposesof counting:thiswill be referredto again in
the discussionon MC languages.
6. New Ireland and the adjacent islands are ANspeakingexceptforthe districtof Panaras in New Ireland wherea NAN language survives.A fewlanguages
are tonal,but the tonesdo not appear to be semantic.
Little studyhas been done in theselanguages. Capell
holds unpublished fieldnotes coveringmost of them,
includingPanaras.
7. In New Britain,on the otherhand, considerable
workhas been done. The language of Rabaul districtcommonly but wronglycalled Kuanua-serves as a
lingua francafor both missionsand governmentand
bids fair to become a language of general communication fora largepart of New Ireland as well. In thislanguage a definitePhilippine elementis noticeable,especially the use of the infix -in- to form nouns from
verbs: mat, "die" > m-in-at,"death." This infixalso
occursin some languagesof the westernSolomons.Its
possiblehistoricalimportanceis pointedout by Capell
(1943: 272-74).
Ray's division of MN languagesinto 8 main groups
(1926a: 1), of which "New Guinea and the Louisiade
Archipelago"formsthe first,is thus seen to be inadequate. More detailed analysis in this region is still
awaited. To classify,say, Yabem and Kuanua in one
subgroupis quite impossible.Even betweenYabem and
the languagesof the upper MarkhamValley thereis a
great difference
in the phoneticshape of the AN content (Capell 1949-50).
SOLOMON

ISLANDS

Again the obvious divisions are also geographical;

lesser subdivisionswithin each area remain to be established.
Buka and northern Bougainville:

These present a

special linguistictypecharacterisedby twofoldindicationof personand tensein theverb.

A few isolated languages along the southeast coast of

Bougainville: Torau, Uruava, Rorovana. For the first

two see Rausch (1912); Rorovana has not yet been
studiedbut is presumedto be the modernremnantof
what Wheeler (1926) called Old Alu.
Bougainville Straits: Mono is the onlysurvivinglanguage. Accordingto Wheeler'sbelief,Alu probablybe381

longed to the same group. If, on examination,Rorovana does appear to representOld Alu, the comparison
will be ofinterest.
WesternSolomons: Ganongga, Simbo, Kolombangara, New Georgia,and Mairovoareas. These languages
present considerable variation in vocabulary among
themselves,but structurallytheyforma well-marked
group. They tend to support original AN final consonantsby the additionof a vowel,insteadof reducing
the words to CVCV type by losing the original final
consonant,as generallyhappens to easternMelanesia.
This suggestsat least that the AN words were intact
when theyreached this area, and thereforethese languagesshould be comparativelyarchaic.
Ysabel Island: There is a markeddifference
between
thesoutheast(Bugotu) and theremainderof theisland.
Bugotu links closelywith the Gela and Guadalcanar
languages;Kia at thenorthernend has definiteconnectionswithGroup 4, while theotherlanguages-Marirje,
Gao, etc.-exhibit less AN vocabularyand show phoneticcharacteristics
such as unusual consonantclusters,
and voicelessnasals (e.g. Mariyjehiiokro,'sit') which
recalltheLoyaltyIslands.The languagesof theBugotuGela-Guadalcanargroup have alwaysbeen regardedas
the most "typical" MN languages of the Pacific and
have been linked eastwardswith Mota (Banks Islands)
and Fijian in thisconnection.The agreementsamong
the other languages suggestthat this may again be a
case in which the coming of the Austronesianshas
added to the linguisticdiversity,as it appears to have
done also in southeasternPapua.
Malaita: The languages of Malaita divide into two
groups,a northernand a southern,markedby phonetic
variationsas well as morphologically.
There is need for
more detailed studyof the southernlanguages,as only
thoseof "Small Mala" and Ulawa are well documented
(see Ivens 1918,1921,1926).

NAN with a veneer of AN, chieflyvocabulary.They

are mentionedhere,however,by reason of the poverty
of available informationabout them. Much more is
needed beforeanyvalid classification
can be made. PublishedvocabulariesexistofNdeni (Santa Cruz) Nifilole,
Utupua, and Vanikoro (see Fox 1908),but all are very
incomplete.No good grammarsexist,althoughRay included Vanikoro and Utupua (1926a: 447-69). An unpublished studyof Nifiloleby Wurm showsit to be a
basicallyNAN language.
THE NEW HEBRIDES

With theNew Hebrides,theTorresIslands and Bank

Islands will be included as obviously formingone
group, subdivisible as follows:
Northeastern group: Torres Islands, Banks Islands

and the northeasternislands of the New Hebrides

(Maewo, northRaga, Omba). Only northernRaga falls
into this division.Syllable patternCVC is allowed in
the Torres and Banks Islands,but in the othersonly if
the finalC is /n/.The best-knownof theselanguages
is Mota, whichwas formanyyearsthe lingua francaof
the Melanesian mission and so became a standardof
referencein comparativework by Codrington,Fox,
Ray, and others.There is a Mota grammarin considerable detail in Codrington(1885), a grammarand dictionaryby Codringtonand Palmer (1896), and much
literature,chieflyreligious,includingthe entireBible.
Sketchesof grammarsof theotherislands are included
in Codrington,but theselanguageshave had no further
literarydevelopment.Ivens (1937) has done grammar
sketchesof northRaga and Omba.
Northwestern
group: This includesthe languagesof
Santo, the east side (Hog Harbour, Sakau) being aberrant but radically similar. Hog Harbour presentsan
extremelycomplicatedphonetic patternof which no
analysishas yetbeen published.It includesa laryngeal
Florida (Nggela) and Guadalcanar, as stated, link
/h/ (which seems to be unique in the Pacific) and a
numberof centralisedvowels.In southSanto thereis an
closelytogether.For theformer,thereis a dictionaryby
Fox (1955). Apart fromarticlesby Bouillon (1915-16)
interdentalvarietyof /t/. In the morphologythese
and sketchesof Vaturanga grammarby Codrington south-Santodialectsshow a femineprefixve-withsome
(1885) and Ivens (1933-35), thereare only briefgram- of the kinshipterms,e.g. Tangoa, tama-,"father";"famars of certain languages,vocabularies,and mission ther'sbrother";ve-tama-,"father'ssister."This prefix
translations.The Marau language at the extremeeast
is AN binay,"woman."As againstGroup 1, thesyllable
end of Guadalcanar is a southernMalaita language patternCVC is not allowed except in Hog Harbour,
(Ivens 1928-30), while the Larjalarja language on the where-C maybe realisedin a numberof ways,as in the
southeastof Malaita is Guadalcanar in type.These lan- Banks Islands.
guages frequentlyshow a trial number in pronouns
Ambrymgroup: Comprises central and southern
whichis remarkablylike the trialformswhichin Poly- Raga, Paama and Ambrym.There is an unpublished
nesian have been functionalplurals, and bear out the
thesis(later microfilmed
by the South PacificCommisclose connectionaccepted by Schmidt(1899), amongst sion) by W. F. Paton, embracingconsiderabledetail
others,for the Group 7 languages with PN.
about two dialectsof Ambrym,and slighterrecordsof
San Cristoval:These languages are divisible into 3
the other dialects. There is no published analysis of
groups,crossingthe island fromnorthto south: Arosi- centralRaga, and thereare folktales only fromsouthern Raga (Tattevin 1929, 1931). Ray gave a sketchof
Warjo in the west,Bauro in the centre,and Kahua in
the east. The last is subdividedinto dialects.No com- Paama (1926a: 315-29) based on scripturetranslations.
parativestudyhas yetbeen made, but thereis a gramEpi languages: These are marked by a systemof
marsketchofWaijo (Arosi)and Fagani (Bauro) in Codchangein theinitialconsonantofverbstemsas between
rington(1885), and an Arosi dictionaryby Fox still in
futureand non-future,
a systemwhich extendssouthmanuscript.
wardsto Nguna and Efate,but becomingless perfectas
it goessouth.This was studiedbyDempwolff(1927: 41)
SANTA CRUZ AND REEF ISLANDS
who called it "der wichtigstekombinatorischeLautThis area hardlyentersinto AN studies.Some of the wandel der in einigen MN Sprachen lebendig wirkt"
languages are PN, and the remainderpredominantly (italics his). The southernextensionhas been studied
382

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Capell:
0
o TORRES
a

IS.

TA

OMBA

SANTO

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

NEW CALEDONIA

'KI o

BANKS IS.

OCEANIC

C)

~~RAGA

MALEKULA

AMBRYM
b

PAAMA

EPI
FIG. 5. The Northern New Hebrides

by Capell (unpublishedMs.).

Central New Hebrides: Nguna and Efate dialects.

Phoneticabbreviationincreaseswithsouthwardmovement from Tongoa; Makura is stronglydivergent,

thoughstillof the group.It yetawaitsstudyin any detail. Nguna and Tongoa differalmostonly in pronunciation: /d/ in Tongoa is (nd), in Nguna (t) -retroflexed and devoiced. TIhese languages, with Malo
(Group 2), approachFijian and on one side theCentral
Solomons most closely.MacDonald (1907) worked in
thenortherndialect ofEfateand produceda dictionary
ofit whichis almostuseless.He propoundeda theoryof
SemiticoriginsofOceanic languages,based on misinterpretation and distortionof these Efate dialects, and
compiled his dictionaryto prove this theory.
Southern New Hebrides:

The

EPI
4 TONGOA
MAE ?
BUNIKI
sEsAKE.9o(PN;
NGUNA o
EFATE
VILA

languages of Ero-

manga,Tanna, and Aneityumdivergemostof all from

therestof theNew Hebrides,whilenot agreeingamong
themselves.They divergealso fromthe NH typeas a
whole. Eromangan contains only about 29% AN vocabulary, according to a letter of Dempwolffto the
writer.Tanna is even more divergentin generalstructure.Aneityumwas studiedbyKern (1906). Ray (1926a:
171-95) included a sketchof Eromangan but resting
chieflyon materials from translationsprinted in an
unusually poor orthography.He included also Kwamera Tanna in the same volume (pp. 146-70). Other
dialectsare underpreparationby Capell forlaterpublicationalong withAneityumand Eromangagrammars
based on personal studies.The entireBible was published in Aneityumand portionsof it in Eromangan
and threedialects of Tanna.
Vol. 3 *No. 4 *October1962

In some respects New Caledonia is better documentedthan otherareas of Melanesia, forLeenhardt's

large work gives much detail concerning the languages. He has also published a volume of folk tales
in Houailou (Wailu) (Leenhardt 1932). Nevertheless
the position of these languages within the general
frameworkof AN is unclear. Specificaspects of them
have been studiedby Hollyman(1959a, b), and Haudricourt(1948, 1951). The LoyaltyIsland languages (Lifu
or Dehu, Mare or Nengone,and Iai) forma subgroup
by themselves.
For Nengone see Codrington(1885); for
Lifu see Gabelentz (1861), Ray (1917; 1926a: 111-36),
and Lenormand(1951). Less has been published about
Iai, but see Ray (1917: 308-14; 1926a: 84-110). Ray
summarisesthe characterof theselanguages by saying
(1926a: 76) "The languages of Nengone,Lifu and Iai,
thoughsomewhatsimilarin phonology,have littleelse
in common,excepta fewwordsderivedfromcommon
IN (i.e. Original AN). They are also remarkablydifferentfromthe laliguages of the MN islands lyingto
thenorth,and thereis no close resemblanceeven to the
nearerlanguagesof Aneityum,Tanna and Eromanga.
Von der Gabelentzincluded themin the MN. Codrington (1885) regardedNengone as one of the four 'difficultexceptional languages' in a list of 34 MN languages." At the same time they stand equally apart
fromthe languagesof New Caledonia itself,and their
place in the frameof AN remains,like thatof theNew
Caledonian languages, to be determined.The mainland languages make liberal use of nasal vowels,affri-

URA_
DILLON'S

EROMANGA

BAY

TANNA

FUTUNA (PN)

ANEITYUM QO

FIG. 6. The SouthernNew Hebrides

383

cated consonantssuch as /r/(closelysimilar to Czech

r), and semantictone,all of which are absentfromthe
LoyaltyIsland languages and generallyfromOceania.
FIJIAN

Fijian is undoubtedlythe best known of MN languages,and in manywaysrightlyregardedas a "type"

language.A Dictionaryby Capell (1941) and grammars
by Churchwardand Milner are included among the
mostmoderntreatments
of Fijian. The standardwork
for long was the last edition (1914) of Hazlewood's

UVEA (POLYNESIAN

NENEM

IAI)

YENGEN
IS.

IZ )MARE
<>AJIE

WAILU

(NENGONE)

LIFU

(DEHU)

KAPONE
NOUMEA

FIG.

ISLE OF PINES

7. NewCaledonia

(KUNIE)

ish territory.
Most writersappear to regardNauru also
as MC, and Yap also is classedratherdoubtfullyas MC.
The language of Mapia in Dutch New Guinea is also
MC, related closelyto Sonsorol. There are, of course,
manydialectalvariationswithinthegroupsherecalled
"languages,"especiallyin the Truk area, but thesedo
not reach the level of mutual unintelligibility
within
thegroup and so maybe overlookedforthe purposeof
the presentdescription.
The linguisticposition of these languages has not
been fullydefined.Schmidt(1926) classifiedthemas a
subgroup of MN. If the position of MN is disputed,
then that of MC will also require reconsideration.
There are featuresof the MC languages that are not
commonlyfoundin MN, however,and some whichdo
not appear southof the equator. Ceremoniallanguage
appears only in the LoyaltyIslands amongstMN languages, and numeralclassificationis not a typicalfeatureof MN languages.
In a useful article, Matthews (1949) summarises.
the situationregardingthe MC languages,which has
not materiallyaltered in the eleven years since the
article was written."Micronesian has been the least
thoroughlystudied, and many MC languages remain
to be adequately described.The systematicinvestigationofAN phonetics,too,has hardlybegun,and the all
too hastydiachronicstudyof AN has neglectedMC in
its quest of the archetype(Ursprache)chieflythrough
lack of material" (p. 422). Dempwolff,too, took no account of MC in establishinghis AN, and no investigaROTUMAN
tion has yet been carried out to show whetherthat
The small island of Rotuma, 200 milesnorthof Fiji,
omissionhas caused any skewingof AN forms.Thalhas proved to be a special problem in classification. heimer(1907) studiedthepronominalsystem;no other
Codrington(1885: 402) regardedit as MN; Kern (1887)
comparativework has yet been done. The CIMA exwas inclinedto class it withPN. It has, in fact,features pedition of 1947-48 included linguisticstudyof MC,
of both, as well as a stratumof vocabularypeculiar to
and some resultshave been published,mostlymimeoitself(Churchward1938). The standardgrammarand
graphed and limited editions (Capell 1949 [Palau];
dictionaryis thatof Churchward(1940). A recentstudy 1951 [Sonsorol-Tobi]).
by Grace attemptsto determinethe place of RotuIn thecase of Truk, moreworkhas been done, espeman in AN (Grace 1959),but the solutionoffereddoes
cially by Dyen (1949). Undoubtedly the best known
notseemsatisfactory
(see reviewofGracebyDyen 1960). MC language is Gilbertese,in which grammarsand
As this studyraises problemswhich affectthe general vocabulariesexist,as well as a considerableand increasproblemof thenatureof MN, it will be dealt withsepa- ing body of literaturethatis chiefly,
but by no means
rately("Developmentof theoriesof *AN," below).
entirely, religious (Bingham 1908, 1922; Eastman
1948;Cowell 1951).For Nauruan thereis a largemimeoMICRONESIAN
graphedgrammarbyKayser(1938); Hambruch'searlier
Micronesianlanguages are fewerthan those of any volume is inaccurateand was scathinglycriticisedby
otherAN group. Not all the languageswithinthe geo- Kayser(1917-18).
graphicalambit of Micronesiaare MC; the exceptions
One pointofimportancefortheclassification
of these
are Palau and Chamorro,alreadylistedunderIN. The
languages is the pronominal system,as both ThaltrueMC languagesare thoseof Tobi, Sonsorol,Ulithi, heimer(1907) and Matthews(194l9)have pointed out.
Truk, Ponape, Kusae, and the Marshall Islands in the The PN plural pronouns are historicallytrials,and
AmericanTrust Territory,and Gilbertesein the Brit- except in Futuna and Aniwa (New Hebrides) the origFijian Grammar and Dictionary. The work that still has

to be done in Fijian is a studyof the dialects.Material

has been gatheredby a number of students,but very
little has been published. Referencemay be made to
Capell and Lester (1941), Milner (1955?),Raven-Hart
(1953) and Biggs (1953a, 1953b).
The importanceof the non-standarddialects of Fijian restson theirdeviation in both morphologyand
vocabularyfromthe standardlanguage. Modern literaryFijian is reallythe language of Bau (Mbau), an island of only 21 acresjust offthe east coast of the main
island of Viti Levu. It gained a place of predominance
throughthe militaryprowessof the Bau chiefsin the
earlypart of the 19thcentury,was adopted by the early
Methodistmissionariesas theirlingua franca,and later
was takenas thestandardby theBritishadministration
afterthe Cessionof 1874.
Bau, however,is reallya typicalspecimenonlyof the
easterndialectsof Viti Levu. Those of the Lau Islands
agreewithit in generalexceptfora largerPN element
in thevocabulary;but thedialectsof westernViti Levu
and Vanua Levu differverygreatly.Those of western
Viti Levu in particularshow a different-andpresumably earlier-MN typeand agreebetterwithlanguages
of the CentralSolomon Islands. The dialectsof Vanua
Levu also show a strangeelement in the vocabulary
whichis not so easilyplaced, thoughtheirgrammarfits
in betterwith standard Bau Fijian (see Capell and
Lester 1941).

384

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

inal PN plurals do not function as separate words in

PN. In MC languages there are usually trial and plural.
In Marshall dialects, besides the AN plurals there are
dual, trial, and quaternal, and a limited plural (a few
more than 4), built up by abbreviated forms of the
numerals. In Ponape the plurals end in -il (dual, 1st.
incl. kitail, 1st. excl. kit, 2nd person komail, 3rd person
irail). This -il is without doubt the AN * talu, "three."
PN languages present (ki)ta-tou, (ki)matou, koutou,
(ki) ra-tou (or phonetic variants of these) in which AN *
talu>-tou, except in Tongan, where the full -toltt is
preserved. It would seem that Ponape at least is closer
to western PN than to eastern PN in this regard. This
relationship needs investigating. In Gilbertese, on the
other hand, there are no dual or trial forms and no
distinction of inclusive and exclusive firstperson plural.
Phonetic change is also more advanced than in the more
northerly languages. In the Carolines, while the nounclasses usual in MN languages are found-the distinction between the nouns that take possessive suffixesand
those that do not, but require an independent morpheme-there is another classification that cuts across
the former: the grouping of nouns into groups marked
by suffixesto numerals. In Gilbertese there are five
such groups (Capell 1949a) in common use and fifteen
rarer ones (Cowell 1951); even in the IN Palauan there
are half a dozen such classes. Here undoubtedly is a
pre-AN element which is found markedly e.g. in Bougainville, amongst the non-AN languages of the southern half of the island, but also in Nauru (over 40 classes)
and in the Bismarck Archipelago, where the languages
are classed as MN. These features have not yet been
accounted for.
The problem concerning MC at present is therefore:
if these languages are to be classed with MN, what is
their precise relationship to that group? There is obvious PN influence in Gilbertese; the ceremonial language in Ponape and Kusae (not in Truk) points in
the same direction. Kusae ceremonial language is usually AN when the ordinary language is not, e.g. "hand,"
ceremonial lima (AN * lima), but common bo; "ear,"
ceremonial selblje (AN * taliyja) but common sa. Ponape ceremonial language, however, is not of this nature
and is more highly developed, including both noble and
royal forms. What is the history behind all this? Further, if the relationship between MN and PN has to
be rethought, what is the final position of MC? Matthews' conclusion, accepting the subdivision of AN into
four groups, was "Among these four types MC, in its
nuclear variety [he included the IN type Chamorro and
Palau] must be treated as lying completely outside the
orbit of the other three" (1949: 437). Thalheimer's result can be diagrammed thus:
AN

*IN

*MN
PN

Philippine

west

Chamorro

Palau

east

Vol 3 No. 4* October1962

MN

MC

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

This picture is worth furtherconsideration, but cannot be accepted as final, if only because Philippine influence is, as was pointed out above, visible also in
parts of MN.
THE

NATURE

OF *AN

The research problem in NAN still remains the empirical collecting of material; many areas are so inadequately known that no finalitycan be reached as to the
origins and interrelationships of these languages. Certain useful knowledge can be gained by means of lexicostatistics; this also remains an unfulfilled task. The position of AN studies is more advanced and calls for
furtherdiscussion at this point. The answer to the question: "W/hat is *AN as established so far?" needs to
be given on the levels of phonemes and vocabulary;
morphemes and syntacticpatterns are probably beyond
direct demonstration. The dominating aspect of AN
studies has so far been vocabulary content; but as this
restson phonemic structure,the latter is best considered
firstin the present paper.
PHONOLOGY

Early observers were struck by the vocabulary resemblances they found between Malay and the Eastern
Polynesian languages. Sound correspondences were noticed, but until the development of the comparative
method in Indo-European philology it is hardly to be
expected that such principles should be applied in the
Pacific field. It was actually Kern who began the application of these principles (see e.g. Kern 1906: 11) but
even at this stage only as a matter of establishing sound
correspondences between existing related languages,
not of establishing a proto-language from which existing AN languages could be derived. In Kern's work
*AN is still an assumption rather than an entity to be
definitelyproved.
It was the Swiss scholar Renward Brandstetter who
in the early years of the present century firstset out to
establish a proto-language. He was trained in IndoEuropean philology and had also worked in the IN
field, into which he sought to extend the principles he
had learnt in the former field. So his effortswere directed towards establishing a proto-IN. He not only
traced sound correspondences throughout IN but essayed to establish the phonemes from which existing
phonemes in individual languages had developed.
Brandstetter established the well-known RLD and
RGH laws for IN languages and in so doing demonstrated that *IN must have possessed two /r/phonemes,
one of which developed into sounds of a lingual and
dental nature and was thereforepresumably a front-r;
the other developed into velar and pharyngeal sounds
and was thereforeto be regarded as velar itself. Hence
he postulated *r1and *r2, the formeralveolar, the latter
velar. In this type of analysis he was laying firmfoundations, and his work has by and large stood the test of
time. Dyen has since proposed a furthersubdivision of
the /r/ phoneme (Dyen 1953b). Most of Brandstetter's
wvorkwas done in the form of short monographs on
single langulages and isolated subjects, and so lacks
385

consecutiveness. The most useful part nowadays is the

series of four essays on IN linguistics (translated into
English by Blagden (1916).
The wider problem, the establishment of *AN as a
whole, was undertaken by Dempwolff. After the publication of a number of smaller essays (1927, 1928),
he elaborated his ideas in the three volumes of the
Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes (1934-38). As the title indicates, Dempwolff was
concerned primarily to establish the phonology of *AN,
not the morphology. His third volume is therefore an
*AN dictionary; as he died in 1939 any contribution he
might have made to the morphology was not made.
Dempwolff's method was to select "criterion languages"
in each area-IN, MN and PN-which would show unambiguously the development of a given pair of easily
confused phonemes, e.g. lateral and retroflex /1/, dental and retroflex /d/, etc. By the behaviour of the criterion languages he was then able to determine whether
a possible phonemic distinction had existed in the protolanguage or not, and to establish vocabulary on this
basis. Some words he left undetermined, e.g. (dd) ayah,
"blood": it could have been /dayah/ or /dayahl; the
evidence was still indecisive. He refused to admit /s/
or /r/into the list of phonemes; Brandstetter'sr1 and r,
became /g/ and /y/respectively, while Dempwolff regarded the modern /s/ phoneme as developing from a
frontal palatal plosive /f/.He also found that the plosives developed differentlyin differentlanguages, and
even differentlyin individual words in the same language, and accordingly postulated a prenasalised variety
of each plosive as well as the simple consonant. He never
succeeded in demonstrating when one or the other variety of plosive was to be postulated in the original AN
word, and many of his words thereforehave two forms,
one with and the other without prenasalisation. This
uncertainty is one of the most difficultpoints about
Dempwolff's system,unless it can be assumed that simple
and prenasalised formsalready existed in freevariation
in the parent language-which seems unlikely. The difficulty is probably linked with Dempwolff's special views
on the expansion of the original language into the Pacific,which will be considered below (p. 388).
Dempwolff's final list of *AN phonemes is as follows:
Plosives: p, mp; b, mb; t, nt; d, nd; t, nt; d, nd; t',
nt'; d', nd'; k', g'; k; ijk; g,ijg; h;'.
Nasals: m, n, n, ij; the retroflexn only as part of
the plosive clusters.
Laterals: 1, 1
Semivowels: j, v
Soft onset: ', as against ', glottal plosive.
u
Vowels: i
e a o
a
Clusters: aj, av ( _ ai, au).
This remained the accepted phonemic systemof *AN
until the publication of various articles by Isidore Dyen
of Yale University, especially The Proto-MalayoPolynesian Laryngeals (Dyen 1953). Further modifications have also been suggested by Haudricourt (1951).
Both revisions need consideration.
Dyen began from the obviously unsatisfactorynature
of Dempwolff's pharyngeals, and set out to show that
386

*AN possessed initial vowels, /?/ and /h/, though he

deliberately left the phonetic natures of the "laryngeals" somewhat open. Dempwolff had held that *AN
words did not begin or end with vowels but with a
phoneme comparable to the Greek "smooth breathing"
and that a true glottal stop did not form part of its
phonemic system. Dyen demonstrated effectivelythat
"this assumption is no longer applicable," and based
his work very largely on Tagalog (and its congeners)
and Tongan. His results may be safely accepted, at any
rate in outline, and even so they make a considerable
differencein the shape of the *AN vocabulary as left by
his predecessor, e.g., Dempwolff *kalah, Dyen *karaq,
"shell" (as of a turtle), where /q/ is the glottal stop.
The theoretical implications of these modifications of
the phonemic system of *AN are of importance also.
Dyen likewise rejected certain others of Dempwolff's
phonemes, changing /t'/ to /s/, /k'/ to /c/ (palatal
plosive), /1/ to /r/, /g'/ to /j/, /v/ to /w/ and /j/
to /y/.Some of these are only orthographic changes but
others imply phonemic alteration. Certain of these
modifications had already been made by Capell (1943),
viz., /t'/>/s/, /k'/>/c/, on the grounds that had
/t'/ and /k'/ ever existed they would have been completely unstable because they are too close phonetically
to each other.
Haudricourt's modifications are more debatable and
involve the recognition in *AN of compound consonants such as /kp/ (Iabio-velar plosive) and clusters
such as /rjgb/,/yjm/and /kph/.Ray has expressed to
the present writer in private correspondence his conviction that the original language did not possess what
he called the "compound consonant" in any form,and
he regarded occurrences of the clusters that Haudricourt sought to embody in *AN as part of the NAN
substratum of the languages-especially as they occur
only in a very limited area where the substratum seems
clearest. Haudricourt began from the New Caledonian
languages and proceeded on the assumption that complex sounds would tend to be simplified rather than
developed and therefore would have existed in the
earlier stage. The particular difficultythat led to the
reconstruction of compound consonants as elements
of AN lies in the fact that apparently related words do
occur in differentparts of Oceania with consonant variations not accounted for by Dempwolff. One such is
the root constructedby Dempwolff as *-yumah, "house,"
forwhich Gilbertese has umwa, New Caledonia -,mwa;
or the relationship between *(')u(n)tah, "vomit" and
such forms as Gilbertese umuta, Ponape umuc and
Truk mwus, New Caledonia qmunja. It will be noticed
that these are marginal languages of which Dempwolff
took no account. In the process Haudricourt also adds
to the total *AN vocabulary. Such additions are a special problem that will be discussed in the following
section of this survey.
Dyen's conclusion is that "three languages were not
entirely sufficientfor the reconstruction of all PMP
( *AN) phonemes in all positions," and there seems
to be no good reason to quarrel with this conclusion,
especially when the field of vocabulary comes to be
considered. It is to be noticed that Dyen (1953a: 42)
refrained from assuming or constructing any subfamilies within. IN as a whole and treated his "TaZalic."
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Malay, Javanese, and Tongan as co-ordinate-again a

justifiable position at the present stage of his investigation.
No other reforms in Dempwolff's phonemic statement for *AN lhave been proposed; apart from Dyen's
rather widle-reaching imodifications,especially for the
laryngeals in intervocalic position, the system appears
to be acceptable. It now remnainsto consider the reconstructed vocabulary itself.
VOCABULARY

While the work of I)eipwolff lhas been as epochmaking in the fiel(dof Oceanic linguistics as that of
Brugmiiannand others in the Indo-European field,it is,
of necessity, neither perfect nor complete. It was
oriente(l from the IN si(le outwards, an(I in that fact
lies its limlitations. Words which originally existed in
IN and couil(dbe traced furthereastwards find a place
in Dempwolff's lists as Original Austronesian, but at
the same time there are words whichl are widesprea(d
in Oceania buLtare not found in the IN area. These are
not mentioned in Dempwolft's pages. It does not seem
to have occurred to him that words might be entirely
lost in the west but, having moved out from there,
might be retained elsewhere. Comparison of IN material would have shown him many comparable instances
in that linguListicfamily,where words nmissingfromone
grouLpwill reappear in others and be accepted as part
of the original common stock.
This problem was brought forward originally by Capell (1943) buLtseems to have been largely overlooked.
He was struickby the occuirrenceof quite a number of
verywidely scatteredwords, in many parts of the eastern
Pacific of which Dempwolff made no mention. At the
timiiehe merely listed these (1943: 164-68) and passed
on to other subjects, buitwas never satisfiedabout them.
A few he ventured to add to Dempwolff's vocabulary,
but the otlherswere left for future stuidyand still remain unaccounted for. Fox (1947) took notice of this
body of vocabulary and accounted for it by starting
from the MN side and working back towards IN, but
Fox's theory of origins and development is so revolutionary that it requires special study (and is worth it,
even if the verdict goes ultimately against it; see below,
1) 390). A notable feature of Dempwolff's list is the
large number of worcdsthat never spread beyond Indonesia at all; Grace (1959: 22) reckons up to 60%, and
this seems to be quite correct. Capell (1943) recognised
320 in souitheastern Papua; ancl, as Dempwolff establislhedsome 2,000 words, this is again a very small number. Some that do not appear in Papuia appear in the
New Hebri(les and elsewhere, but even so it seems
(loubtful whether 600 words found their way into the
eastern areas. On the other hand the number of words
that do not appear in the Indonesian area is also considerable, though not so large as tlhis.Capell listed some
36 (1943); others are suggested by Haud(ricourt (1951).
At the same time, the formsposited by Haudricourt are
often (lifferentfromthose of I)empwolff even when the
H *iib)oitk,
roots are the same, e.g. T
D . n(u uk, H-1.
"a
fly," "min
ige." These mlodificatio)nsalre based on the
northern languages of New Caledonia as criterionlanguages and so involve thlequestion of the nature andl
positionl of MIN, which has to be tliscussetlbelow ("DeN I
Vol. 3 No.

October 1969

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

velopment of Theories of *AN").

The nature of this widespread but not generally IN
vocabulary may be illustrated by two of the words,
s ambaw, "down" and *lama, "sea." The formeroccurs
widely in southeastern Papua, southeastern Solomons,
New Hebridles, as far as Fiji, and finally appears as PN
htifo, ifo; but in the IN area Sangir sa bbutand Bisaya
sobbu represent it almost exclusively. An original AN
*s mbaw is the logical restoration; *lama, "sea" is
found in all the accepted divisions of AN (including
MC) but apparently not in IN. It can hardly be regarcleclas evolved somewhere in the eastern region, but
muist have been part of the common stock which has
lisappeared from the western section.
Thus there appears to be every reason to expect that
*AN vocabulary may be extended beyond that restored
by Demupwolff,if his particular set of "criterion languages" are abandoned in the wider search. This change
of viewpoint will, however, be necessary, and a good
case for it will appear when the position of the languages generally called MN comes to be reviewed ("Development of Theories of *AN").
MORPHOLOGY

It hias been mentioned that Dempwolff did not atteml)t to restore *AN morphology, and no later scholar
hlas yet undertaken this task. The difficultylies on the
IN side. The morphological patterns of MN languages
are generally fairly uniform; MC structure is on the
whole very similar. PN departs a little more widely
the MN type,but is coherent to a verylarge degree
fromn
within its own group. IN languages, however, diverge
very widely from the MN type, particularly in the
northern section, where both morphology and syntax
have developed in particular ways. The languages of
the Philippine groups, with Malagasy and Palau, have
an extremely complicated verbal system,resting on distinctions, chieflyof aspect, that do not occur elsewhere
in Oceania, while other parts of Indonesia present quite
(lifferentpatterns.
Ray (1926: 61 ff.)has a chapter entitled "Indonesian
Grammar in Melanesia," in which he shows the essential MN pattern of morphology. It is, of course, unfortunate that he spoke of "Indonesian" grammar, and as
remarked elsewhere in this paper much of the discredit
being thrown oni Ray's work at the present day seems
to rest on a misunderstanding of what he meant by
"In(lonesian." Here the term "AN" may be substituted
for his "Indonesian." In the chapter inentioned, Ray
pro(luces quite an impressive array of morphological
featurescomminion
to all hut the most aberrant MN languages, an(l findsverymianyparallels to these in IN (in
the literal sense of IN as a branch of *AN). The diffictultyis that his comparisons with IN are often regional,
lacking any validity as "general" IN. It is this lack of a
common pattern of IN morphology that has yet to be
overcome. It may prove that there were regional types
of morphology within IN, and that each of these is
relpresentedin differentparts of modern Melanesia and
even Polynesia. One point worth mentioning in this
conlnection is the phenomnenonknown as the "ligative
article." T<his is a particle found between noun and
387

adjective in parts of IN (especially the Philippines languages); serving merely to link the nucleus with its
little,"
attribute: Tagalog an iso -qmalaki, "the dog
"thle little dog" provides a convenient example. The
particle is basically aq , the same as the preceding article
a?7. This reappears in parts of MN: e.g. Kuanua, a
raj(lana pal, "tlhe big . . . hoLuse" (with reversedlwor(1
order) as na. It appears also in parts of the New Hebri(les an(l here and there in Plolynesia (Futuna, New
Hebrides, tiokii a fare, "my . . . hlouse"; Niue, hla mautoli a rnathta,"our ... father") in a more abra(ledl form.
Certainly Ray hiasgiven valuable indlicatorsin the chapter relerred to here, which need to be followedlup.
The firstnecessityfor this follow-up is a comiparative
study of IN morphology. The foundations for this are
laid in Brandstetter's work, especially the four "Essays
on Indonesian Grammar" translated into English by
Blagden (191 6). For the purp)1osesof such analysis, Indonesia may wcll be divided into a numllberof areas anti
parcellecl oLt amiiong scholars who are experts in each:
the western section (Sumatra, Java, Malaya); the northern section (Philippines, Malagasy, ancdother languages
of this type, e.g. northern Celebes); Formosa; and the
eastern section (where Jonker'swork might be taken as
a foundalationi);
andl this woul(d lead to the establishmient
of p)roto-morphologiesfor eatcharea, trom which mucll
might be learnedl. The next step is obviously to compare the results attained with the over-all patterns of
MN, PN, and MIC. These three may well be compared
among eaclh other pa-i passat with the detailed of IN.
This last remark miiustnot be taken to imply that one
proto-language of MN, PN, and MC existedl at any
time: to dlo so is to beg a question whiclhhas yet to be
(liscusse(l. It appears certainly to have been Dempwolff'sbelief that suLcha set of proto-langUages dli(donce
exist (see "Development of Theories of *AN"), but
not all scholars are agreed that this is so.
Such an examination would in the nature of the case
have to be a co-operative work, because the nunmberof
languages involved in Indonesia alone is too great for
a single sttudentto deal with all in any reasonable time.
It is to be hopedl that it will be carried out at an early
(late. Somiiecommon plan needs to be initiatecl at a
given centre anid followed out consistently to achieve
the purp)ose.
DEVELOPMENT
AUST1RONESIAN

OF Tl^HEORIES OF

It hiasbeen mentioned several times that a generally

accepted subclivision of the *AN linguistic family has
been that into IN, MN, PN, and MC. It has also been
ientionedl that in fairly recent years the mutual relationships of these four branches have been re-examined,
and the reality of a "Melanesian" branch of the family
has been questioned. This accepted subdivision has
been challenged in two (lirections; (a) the reality of MN
PN, and (b) the relalanguages as a groul) apart fromn
tionship between MN and PN. The position of MC is
so vague that no challenge as yet touches it.
Two challenges have been issued, either of which
wouldl result in the elimination of MN as a sepJarate
group of languages within the AN family.
(Iowan, in corresp)ondencewith the writer,has sought
)88

to combine the present MN and PN groups into one,

reserving the title MIN for the mixed languages of the
New Guinea area, which had been classified by Ray as
"Melano-Papuan." Cowan's arguments rest on the difficulty ol findlingany purely linguistic criteria not sharedl
by both MN and PN. His theory might be tabulated
thus:
*AN

IN

Proto-MN

(New Gtinlea) MN

MN + PN

?MC

Dissatisfaction with the position earlier assigne(c to

MN goes back to Sclhmidt(1899), who, although he did
not wish to abolish the two grotupsMN ancl PN, trie(d
to clarify the relationship between the two ancl hieldl
that the MN languages of the southeastern Solomon
Islands were the closest to the Polynesian andl presuiiiably represented the linik between PN andl the other
\MNlanguages. (For an outline history of comparative
stUdy of MN see Ray 1926a: 19-25.)
Kalhler has argued for the classification of IPN as part
of IN. From both geographical andl linguistic aingles
this is a more difficult proposition to sustain than Cowan's. His conclusion is (1952-55, Part VI: 144): "I believe that I have shown by means of my investigations
that the PN dialects exhibit essentially the samiielinguistic means of expression and therewiththe same typological structureas languages in the IN area. The question
of the (legree of relationship is in my opinion to be answeredl by way of saying that the PN dialects belong
immediately to the idlioms of the IN archipelago, and
that they are therefore IN languages." This theory,so
to)speak, by-passes MN languages altogether and seems
to point to Dempwolff's basic conception that eaclh of
the groups is independent of the others as far as development andl inigration are concerned. Kahler, however,
in pointing out that norms in PN languages are often
elements fotundlin individual IN languages, specifically
lays clown that they do not represent certain definite
regionisol In(lonesia. He admits, however, Capell's contcntiovi that correspondences with some specific areas
of It(Ionesia, particularly with the Philippine languages, are noticeable.
I)emi)wolff had laid down the basic theory of the relationships between the various branches of AN in the
following terms (1934-38, Volume 2:193): "A light
skirlne(dpeol)le of unitary language colonisecl the island
worl(l olfthe Pacific Ocean many generations ago. Where
they imieta (lark skinned people, they inifluencedlthese
witlh their culture and language and also took over
u ich f'rom the culture and language of the others.
XVhcrevermalaria and other (liseases ruled on those
islands, the race went un(ler, but left clear signs of its
culture rin(d
lhmguage.Only when this race came across
malaria-free islancls could it remain and develop.
"Its mother tongue dic not remain pure in these long
and1wi(de journeyings, lout it retained a common worcl
store ande some phonetic phenomena both in the linguistic content that it Ipassed1on to other IpeoI)les, aIS
also ill that whichlit salvagedl for itself. In thlisway MN
C U R RE NI'

A N IT 1 R O PO I O G Y'

and PN languages became related to each other, but

have not taken anything frompresent-dayIN languages,
but only shared with them a common origin; all three
linguistic groups are Austronesian."
Dempwolff accordingly established not only a phonemic systemof *AN, but one forproto-MN and proto-PN
as well, and drew up a diagram showing how the sound
systemof each branch of the original AN mother tongue
had become simplified as time went on and their separation became spatially greater. His scheme is as follows: *AN represents the mother tongue; *MN the
proto-Melanesian; and *PN the proto-Polynesian language from which the various modern languages have
developed:
*AN
*
*MN
*PN

*AN

nn

*MN
*PN

m
m

n
n

*AN
*MN
*PN

aue

i
i

aj

k
?

ry

bp

dd

tt

b
f

d
e

ij
1j

mb mp nd nd
mb
p

D-av

d't'g'k g k
d'
s

g'
k

nt nt

n'd' n't' Ig' i'k'

ijg ijk

nt
t

n'd'
h

1ig
k

nd
t

*AN
*MN

v
v

11
11

j
j

*PN

(p

Y
Y

In point of fact,this schematisation is too simple and

does not cover the facts of the case as a whole. Thus,
there are areas of MN where AN n' is retained-e.g.
Bugotu, in southeastern Ysabel, Solomon Islands; but
AN 1 and 1 are unified at the MN stage, not simply at
the PN stage.
Dempwolff, however, did not quarrel with the distinction between MN and PN languages but actually
distinguished the two branches of the family, (1) "by
the still more advanced unification of UIN (= *IN) nt
and nt with UIN t and t, of UIN (ijg) and ijk with UIN
g and k, of UIN 1 and 1 with UIN d and d. (2) By the
loss of UIN -yand j." Then he added, "From a purely
linguistic treatment the conclusion presents itself that
the two groups only reached a far-reaching agreement
in phonetic development of UIN, from the fact that
they belonged originally to the word content of a unitarypeople."
Cowan's dissatisfaction with the classification of MN
as a separate group over against PN, within the framework of *AN, restson the claim that he cannot find any
purely linguistic criterion by which to distinguish the
two. It is difficultto see why Dempwolff's criteria are
not acceptable (although even if accepted they may
not clarify the historical aspect of the problem altogether), for it is certain that there are very clear typological differencesbetween MN and PN. Cowan answers that these are quite compatible with PN's being
simply a younger offshootof MN, still essentially part
of the same group. The question then to be answered,
from Cowan's side, is "What are the features that difVol. 3 *No. 4 *October 1962

Capell:

OC_ANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

ferentiate MN from other language types in the Pacific

in such a way that MN would rightlybe regarded not
as an earlier stage of PN but as a differentbranch of
the original tongue, in much the same way as e.g. Celtic
and Slavic are regarded as separate branches of IE?"
The differencesbetween languages classified as MN
and those classified as PN are noticeable on all levels
of analvysis-phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary. In many instances, however, they fall short
of complete demonstration in linguistic terms of division into two subfamilies as against older and younger
members of one family. If it be taken as basic that all
branches of *AN stem originally from the Asian mainland, departing from it at differentperiods, then much
of the differenceis accounted for, including probably
the physical differencesbetween Melanesians and Polynesians (though this has nothing to do with the linguist). If, however, PN be regarded as basically a form
o( M\4Nthat has branched off from a proto-MN somewhere within the Pacific Basin, these differences are
somwawhatharder to account for.
To the present writer the differencesbetween MN
and PN seem to be cumulative rather than absolute,
but sufficientto support the traditional division. They
are not capable of parallel alignment, MN being on one
side of the line and each trait corresponding to something differentin PN on the other side. The characteristic features of each group are worth comparing and
contrasting so that a clear picture of the points at issue
may be gained. This will now be done as brieflyas possible.
1. On the phonemic level, the "compound consonants" produce difficulty.Haudricourt's suggestion that
thev are part of *AN is a wide departure from Dempwolffand seems to raise the northern New Caledonia
languages into the position of criterion languages. If
they are not accepted as such, the earlier opinion that
these sounds with double articulation (/kp/) and the
clusters (/ijm/) are substratum remnants is justified,
and in this case the occurrence of such sounds in MN
and their absence from PN does not provide an argumerit for any separation of the two groups otherwise
than by age. The same argument can be applied to the
occurrences of the consonant clusters in IN, MN, and
MC as compared with their absence from PN. A development of *AN in terms of time will explain the differences.The nature of the syllable raises perhaps more
difficulty.Syllables of the types V and CV are common
to all the subgroups; the type CVC is absent from PN
and from those MN languages such as southeastern
Solonions and Fiji which have been regarded as closest
to PN. The main body of MN languages retain CVC
type syllables; one group, having eliminated CVC,
produces CV final syllables by adding a vowel to the
consonant ending of the *AN word: this is the case in
the western Solomons, e.g. Roviana matayutu, "fear"
<ma + takut. On the other hand, a still more archaic
treatment is seen in Eromangan nomurep "live, life,"
<ma + hud-ip,"living." None of these phenomena argues decisively for the separation of MN and PN into
differentsubfamilies; they may be so or they may be
related to each other as Sanskrit and the modernlAryan
389

languagesof India.
2. On the morphemiclevel the differenceshardly
appear to be so easily harmonised.The expressionof
possessionis a case in point. It is true that a few PN
outliers have suffixedpronouns as possessivesin the
singular number (which is all that really happens in
the IN languages),and that otherPN languages show
possessives(see Churchward1932),but
tracesof suffixed
as a methodof procedureseems
thistypeof suffixation
to be as foreignto PN as it is of the essenceof MN: at
the same time the methodsemployedand the underlying concepts are quite different(Capell 1949). PN
languagesformtheirpossessiveson the basis of article
+ preposition"of" + suffixed
pronoun: Maori t-a-ku,
t-o-ku,"the-of-me"(the a/o distinctionis irrelevant
here), while MN languages base theirson "property
noun" + suffixed
pronoun: Mota no-ko aka, "property
mine the boat." This cannot be explained away as a
historicaldevelopmentfromMN to PN. Moreover,MN
develops in various areas formsof noun classification
accordingto the use to be made of the article: Mota

by a certainpatternof morphologicalcharacterswhich
its memberspossessin commonand which have been
found by the pragmatictestof experienceto be sufficientlydistinctiveand consistentto distinguishitsmembersfromthoseofotherrelatedgroups."In otherwords,
what is to be sought is a Gestaltungof each Austronesian subgroup.To quote Le Gros Clark again, "It is
fundamentallytrue of taxonomythat closenessof resemblancein total morphologicalpatternis an indication of a correspondingclosenessin zoological relationship" (p. 17). At the same time,the possibilityof
convergentor parallel evolutionmustnot be forgotten,
and some formof glottochronological
studywill have
to be made. In thisstudy,however,morphologyusually
playslittleor no part,and thisis one of itsweaknesses.
Morphologymust alwaysbe involved in phylogenetic
if only because, as Greenberghas put it,
classification,
"resemblancein meaningonly is frequentlythe result
of convergencethroughlimitedpossibilities."
A third revisionof the traditionalposition of the
groups withinAN has been advocated by Fox (1947)

coconut (to eat)"; mwa-k o matig, "my coconut (to

drink)"; and thereare otherclassesin Mota and other
MN languagesare moreelaborate.Space does not allow
the developmentof morphological comparisonsfurtherthanthis,but thereare othersalso ofimportance.
to discuss,espe3. Syntacticlevels are more difficult
cially as the typicalPN arrangementof verb + object
+ subject or verb + subject + object is not absolute
in itselfand is paralleled in partsof theIndonesianarea
as well. Yet this arrangementjust does not appear in
MN exceptin one or twoinstanceswherePN influence
is definitelyto be suspected.On the other hand, historical change could account for it to a large extent.
The changein syntaxas betweenLatin and themodern
Romance languages, ancient and modern Greek, etc.
weakens the argumentinto a matterof comparison
witha bias on one side or theother.
4. Vocabularycontrastsdo appear,althoughherethe
argumentfromabsenceis risky,and maybe overthrown
by subsequent discovery.Some words are "typically"
MN and some "typically"PN. The possibilityof separating PN and MN on this level is demonstratedby
Kahler'sclaim thatPN is to be linked directlywithIN
ratherthanwithany part of MN: if a case forKahler's
thesiscan be made out, at least the arguabilityof the
whole situationis shown.
The presentwriterthereforebelieves that the acis valid (the natureof therelationceptedclassification
shipsbetweenthetwo,and amongthesubgroupswithin
each beingstillleftundefined)and thatitsvalidityrests
ofa largenumberof structural
on thecumulativeeffects
In otherwords,he looks for a
and lexical differences.
charactercomplex-groups of characteristics
which in
combinationmust be treated as a whole and which
markthe twogroupsofffromeach otheras subfamilies
and not just as motherand daughter.Such a method
of classificationis used in the fieldof zoological morphology.One may quote fromLe Gros Clark's Fossil
Eiiid ence of Human Evzolution (Universityof Chicago
Press, 1955,p. 25; see also p. 50, fn. 5): "Each natural
group of animalsis defined(on thebasis of data mainly
derivedfromcomparativeanatomyand paleontology)

His revisionis farmoreradical than eitherCowan's or

Kahler's. He holds that MN provides formsof words
closerto originalAN than does IN. All otherstudents
have held theoppositeview; Fox's thesiswould demand
the complete re-thinkingof the entire problem. His
point of departureis found in the so-called thematic
consonantsin MN verbs.These are consonantsusually
or base formsof verbs,but
absentfromthe intransitive
added to thestembeforea transitiveending.Thus, Sa'a
(Malaita, Solomons)ano, bury>ano-m-ia,"buryhim."

no-k o matig, "my coconut (to own)," yak o matig, "my

390

in an article in the Journal of the Polynesian Society.

This -m-appears as a final in the IN side: Malay tanam,

"bury." It is usually accepted that the AN final consonantsare lost in MN but retainedin IN (or at least
westernIN). Difficulty
has arisen from the fact that
differentMN and PN languages often "resuscitate"
different
consonantsforthe same word,none of which
may correspondto the IN, e.g. *daiqey,"hear">Malay
dao,ar,but Fijian rorjo-5-a,"hear (him)"; Vaturanga
(Guadalcanar) ro rjo-m-ia,Bugotu (Ysabel) ro o-v-ia.
Neither -m-,-5-nor -v-answers to any likely sound-shift

of-y.In facttheproperequivalentof -ydoes not appear

in thiswordanywherein thePacific.Fox would propose
that M\N languages "are a group of languages .

. be-

tweenIN and PN, a knowledgeof which is necessary

before IN and PN can be thoroughlyunderstood"
(1947: 59). This does not necessarilyimply that any
one group is derivedfromany other,apart fromFox's
particularcontention.
Although Fox stressesthe fact that IN final consonantsdo not usuallyappear in MN and PN and holds
that theyhave been developed in IN, in point of fact
occasional MN languages do retain IN final consonants,e.g. the previouslycited example of Eromanga
no-murep,"live,life" < * ma + hudip, "be living."Reference has also been made to the fact that othersfrequentlyadd a supportingvowelwherethesyllablestructureof thelanguageis CV or V and finalconsonantsare
not permitted:Roviana (westernSolomons) onomo,
"six" < *anam; mata7utu, "fear" < ma + takut,"be
afraid"; i7ana, "fish"< ikan. These cases do not seem
to be explicable on Fox's theory.Fox has worked in
areas of the Banks Islands and the centraland eastern
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Solomonswheresuch phenomenado not appear: Lau,

forinstance,has for the above words,ono, "six," iP a,
"fish,"while *takutdoes not appear. His theorywould
require some such genealogical tabulation as:
*proto-MN(=AN)
MN

MC

PN

IN

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

sent influences from an already formed insular PN.

Schmidt's formula fails to account for all these facts.
LEXICOSTATISTICS

and the interactionof the groupsis no clearerthan before.Fox also claims a much largervocabularycontent
for his "Austronesian"than Dempwolffever contemplated; he says: "apparentlylanguagesof thisarea contain at least eightto tenthousand'Austronesian'words,
perhapsmore" (1947: 86), speakingof a MN which he
definesas the area "fromthe centralSolomons by the
monsoon to Fiji," without riskingan opinion as to
how farwestof the centralSolomonsit should be reckoned. Included in that 8,000-10,000are Capell's "unplaced words,"of which Fox says: "Why not look towardsMN, forthosewordsare there."
Schmidt (1899) has also laid stresson the key position of the southeasternSolomon Islands: "the true
MN languagesbegin togetherwith thoseof the southernSolomonIslands,and branchedout fromthereafter
the New Hebrides group had separated from them.
They firstreachedthe Louisiade Archipelagoand then
pushed ever fartherto the north-west
as far as Cape
Possession(Papua)." This positionhas a certainresemblance to Fox's much laterand quite independentcontention,but does not imply(nor did Schmidtintendit
to imply)that *AN as a whole developed in the Solomon Islands, but only that proto-MNdeveloped there
and thatPapuan MN was derivedfromthatsource,presumablyon a sortof "returntrip."Whetherthisis feasible or not is quite anotherquestion,on whichno definite opinion needs to be expressedhere. Capell (1943)
had treatedNew Guinea and Papuan MN as partof the
eastward-moving
streamof AN speech.The separation
of a New Hebridesgroup fromthe regionof the southern Solomonsalso needs fulleranalysisthan is possible
of the same AN
yet.The occurrenceor non-occurrence
elementsin each area as criteriawould be the deciding
factor,and thishas not yetbeen investigated.At best it
would apply onlyto certainpartsof the New Hebrides.
The frequentoccurrenceof plural pronounswhichare
in formreally trialsis of interestin some partsof the
New Hebrides,e.g. easternMalekula (Capell 1962,s.v.,
Malekula). The westerndialectsof theisland do not exhibit this phenomenon.It does occur, however,very
widelyin theGuadalcanar languagesof theSolomon Iswhichmaybe of
lands. There is, however,a difference,
historicalimportance:in theSolomonIslands languages
(a) thefullformsof thenumeral"three"(tolu) occur as
to the full formsof the true plural pronouns,
suffixes
e.g. Inakona (S. Guadalcanar) yita-tolu,"we, three(inclusive),"and the trueplurals occur also as freeforms:
yita, "we, (inclusive),"whereasin easternMalekula a
veryabbreviatedformof the numeral (-to,-ti) shorter
than thoseof Polynesiaproper(e.g. Ahamb nra-to,"we
(inclusive),"cf.Samoan ta-tou, i-ta-tou):
and (b) as in
PN, no trueplural appears; the Malekulan formsare
not "we three"or "swe,limitedplural,"but simply"we,"
as in PN. This suggeststhatthe Malekulan formsrepreVol. 3 *No. 4 October1962

Capell:

AND AUSTRONESIAN

Since the development of lexicostatistical and glottochronological study, it will naturally be asked: What
has lexicostatisticsto offertoward a solution of the problem of interrelationship among AN languages?
The only contributions yet made in this field are an
analysis of PN by Elbert (1953) and work by Grace
(1959), concentrated on Rotuman and PN. Elbert examined PN in general and reached the following conclusions: (a) establishment of a proto-PN phonemic system
based on 20 PN languages tested through his 202 word
vocabulary; (b) morphologically there has been simplification in eastern PN and to a lesser extent among the
outliers; (c) confirmation of a schism between eastern
and westernPN, with subdivisions in both, more clearly
apparent in the east; (d) establishment of "at least 3 PN
languages," western PN, Kapingamarangi, and eastern
PN. This last section is less satisfactorythan the others,
in that it is most unlikely that Kapingamarangi would
stand alone in this manner, and calls for furtherstudy
of other outliers (Elbert 1953: 169-70). He presented a
family tree in the following patterns:
*PN
*Tonga
Futuna

Uvea 7//
Niue/
Tonga

Tikopia

*Sa
*Sa\

Ellice
Samoa Kapingamarangi

-Outliers-East
*Outliers - East
*Easterr,

*Marquesas- Tahiti
*Tahiti
Tahiti
Mangareva
*Marquesas
Rarotonga
Hawai'i
Tuamotu
Marquesas
New
Zealand
Easter I,

This result is based on the examination of 202 words

in 20 PN languages. Elbert's paper shows that the
postulated division of PN into eastern and western
branches holds good; eastern PN retains 71% of the
words examined, western PN retains 86%. As already
stated, the so-called "outliers"-PN languages spoken by
relativelysmall and isolated communities of Polynesians
within the geographical bounds of Melanesia-have
long been regarded as "throwbacks" from eastern Polynesia, colonies founded after the establishment of the
PN settlements in the eastern Pacific. As a rule they
lack the typical PN religious and social organisations,
and are atypical in other ways. Capell has defended the
view that these outliers represent colonies left behind
during the eastward movement of the Polynesians and
are thereforeactually older than either western or east391

ern PN. There are a fewpossible exceptions to this statement, but he believes that the cultural differencescould
be explained by the absence of a priestlycaste and chiefs
among the groups thus leCtbehind, so that the typical
PN religious and social organisations have never developed; on the linguistic side the outliers show a considerable amount of non-PN material that is definitely
not borrowed from neighbouring MN languages, and
grammatical features that could not have been derived
fromsuch languages, because they do not exist in them,
but represent archaic PN, lost in the eastern PN and
western PN languages alike (Capell 1937, 1959). In
Sikayana, for instance, Capell analysed the vocabulary
into four strata: (1) an aboriginal element, there called
"unplaced"; (2) an element agreeing with the eastern
group of PN; (3) an element agreeing with western PN
(where this differsfrom the eastern group); (4) an element agreeing with the western outliers of PN, including Futuna-Aniwa (New Hebrides) (1937: 38). FutunaAniwa is something of a testcase for this theory,because
its grammatical processes offer so much that is not
clearly PN. PN has a set of plural pronouns which are
historically trials: tatou<*kita + tolu, "we three," etc.,
but in Futuna-Aniwa these occur as trials and there is a
separate set of plural pronouns, illustrated by Futuna
kitea, "we (inclusive)." These could hardly be borrowings fromTanna, because the nearest Tanna dialect has
ketaha, "we," keteha-r, "we three"-a diferent formation. (See discussion in Capell 1959: 166.)
On the other hand, some of the outliers present plural
pronouns retaining the initial syllable ki- of *AN kita,
"we, inclusive": Sikayana kitatou, as against the more
frequent PN tatou. It is certainly right to call this a
"retention," and it is shared by Futuna-Aniwa, Vaitupu
(Ellice Islands), as well as Tongan (kitatolu) and Samoan (pita:tou) where, however, tatou is also used. This
fact serves to link these outliers with western PN, on
formal grounds with Samoan rather than Tongan, but
they are earlier than Samoan in that they preserve the
initial consonant. The languages that preserve the kiformsare Tokelau, Samoan, Tongan, Kapingamarangi,
Kukuoro, Sikayana, Mukuria, Munggava, Pilheni,
Futuna-Aniwa, Western Uvea (Loyalty Islands). It is
lost in some of the outliers: Ongtong Java, Taku, Tikopia, Mele-Fila (New Hebrides) and Mae (New Hebrides). Hence Elbert's Table needs revision or extension
which would probably change the present lonely position of Kapingamarangi. Futuna-Aniwa preserves a-so,
as stated, the true plural in addition to the trial-plural.
Moreover, initial a appears before ki- in some instances:
e.g. Sikayana, a-ki-tatou. This a- is a form of the socalled "personal article." Evidence of this nature makes
it seem very doctrinaire to regard all the outliers without exception as "throwbacks" from eastern Polynesia.
In some instances there are origin legends: westernUvea
is said to be a colony of eastern Uvea dating from the
18th century (Guiart 1953). The language as a whole
belies this, though there may have been such a movement then as something secondary which has unduly
impressed itself on more recent memory. The value of
migration stories has recently been serioulslyimpugned
by Suggs (1960), on the grounds that they are not capable of harmonisation with archaeological findingsas
tested by radiocarbon dating. Lexicostatic examination
392

of the vocabularies of the outliers still waits to be done,

but Capell had provided a certain amount of material
in Sikayana before the establishment of lexicostatistics
as a special method of approach: this material now
needs to be submitted to the new method, preferably
using Elbert's lists as a check. The same applies to
Futuna-Aniwa, but here the vocabularies await publication.
Grace (1959) has recently approached the same problem from a differentangle and indirectly, as his basic
enquiry concerned not PN and MN as a whole, but the
linguistic position of Rotuman, a language classified by
differentscholars now as MN and now as PN. Earlier
Grace (1955) published a brief outline of presumable
results gained by himself and Sturtevant from the TriInstitutional Program (1953-55), but no evidence was
produced to support the rather unexpected conclusions
until his later book on the position of Rotuman (Grace
1959) appeared. Nevertheless there seems to be a rather
precipitate tendency among writers whose field is not
specifically AN to accept Grace's outline without the
evidence. A very differentgrouping has been put forward by Milke (1958), for which evidence is produced
that is worthy of furtherevaluation. It rests on the behaviour of AN *19, *d and *y.Milke's subdivisions again
are not without difficulty,in that he omits all morphological considerations, classing together, as languages
in which AN *-yand *d both > /r/ while *1 is distinguished, all New Guinea MN (his Group C) and New
Ireland, eastern New Britain, Buka, Bougainville,
Shortland Islands, New Georgia, and Choiseul (C2), in
spite of the very differentmorphologies involved and
the very differenttreatment of *AN final consonants
in each area. He dates the differentiationof *AN about
2,9940years ago, or perhaps some 500 years earlier, to
3,400 years, i.e. about 1500 B.C. This then leads him to
postulate a date about 650 B.C. for settlement in New
Caledonia; PN languages not later than about the birth
of Christ and the settlementof HawaPi about A.D. 1000.
These later figuresseem too late if radiocarbon datings
of archaeological materials can be accepted (Suggs 1960).
Between 1500 B.C. and 650 B.C. (on these figures) the
AN languages would have differentiatedinto the various present-day subdivisions as they spread through
Melanesia. Milke includes Palau and Chamorro with
IN and combines the rest of MC in his group A(7), in
which AN *y is lost, and *d and *1 kept. He leaves
Nauru and Yap unplaced.
This is a fuller treatmentthan Grace gave in his 1955
article. In his 1959 book, Grace has developed his theme
more fully. He set out to show that "Rotuman, Fijian
and the PN languages have passed through a period of
common historyapart fromall the remaining languages
of the AN family." This means that if Fijian is accounted a MN language, then PN is an offshootof MN,
rather than a sister group. In this he approaches Cowan's position. At the same time it must be remembered
that his "Fijian" is the standard Bauan already discussed
(p. 384) and that there are quite divergent types of languages in other parts of Fiji. He agrees with Dempwolff
that Fijian, Sa'a (Solomon Islands) and PN (as a whole)
belong to a special subgroup of AN which Grace labels
"eastern AN." He puts Rotuman into this group. He
does not face the problem of the unplaced substratum
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

in Rotuman, to which Churchward (1938:81) drew attention.

Dyen (1960: 180) in reviewing this work says of
Grace's conclusion: "It is unfortunate that the author's
hypothesis is not required by the evidence cited and is
therefore only a personal view." He decides finally
against the acceptability of the hypothesis on grounds
that appear to the present writer quite valid. One point
that Dyen makes in the course of his review has bearing
also on the argument presented by Cowan and already
referred to above (p. 388)-the argument from the
different natures of possessive formation in MN (as
represented here by Fijian) and PN, of which Dyen
says: "One cannot help being struck by the great difference there is between the Fijian systemof possessive
classifiersand those of Rotuman and the PN languages.
Because of the resemblance of the Fijian systemto that
of other languages one cannot help feeling that it does
represent an earlier, more complex, stage. To see this
one need only compare the Fijian systemwith that indictated for Kilokaka in the central Solomons (reference is to Ray 1926, 533)." The objection that can be
raised against Grace's argument on these grounds holds
equally well against Cowan's hypothesis, as has been
already indicated.
THE

ORIGINS

OF THE

OCEANIC

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

Austro-Asiatic group (see below). The tendency to look

in the area of southern Vietnam is wrong, he claims,
although the Cham language is still spoken in Cambodia and has definite links with Atjeh in northern
Sumatra (Cowan 1949). The place of origin is rather
to be sought in China, between Formosa and Hainan.
The AN languages of Indo-China, he says, belong to
the IN group, and "they show nothing of the archaism
of MN and the languages of Formosa. They arrived in
Indo-China when the Cham empire was founded and
spread among speakers of Austro-Asiatic languages." So
no mainland origin of *AN in Indo-China is to be
looked for, and the relationship of AN to the AustroAsiatic (AA) Group is one of contact influence only.
Paul K. Benedict (1942) has also gone into the problem. His work rests on a study of Kadai and the various
Thai languages, and a schematisation of this results
in the following picture:

*AN

KADAI

LANGUAGES

From a very early period of linguistic investigation

it has been predominantly held that the Austronesian
peoples originated in Southeast Asia. Fox does not pursue the question that far, but it is hardly likely that his
proto-MN could actually have begun to expand from
the southern Solomons as an absolute startingpoint. He
does say (1947: 59) that "a possible hypothesis (no more)
is that the original speakers of AN were the far-offancestors of the present Polynesians: that the firstgreat
movement of this sea-faringpeople, one of the greatest
peoples in history,was into Indonesia." He hazards a
guess that their original home may have been Micronesia, later overwhelmed by the sea, so that Hawaiki
became really a spirit land. This side of the discussion
is, of course, outside the bounds of possible scientificinvestigation and disagrees incidentally with Sharpe's
(1956) estimate of the navigating capacities of the Polynesians. The only point for consideration here is that
by this theory "even in original IN, word-bases belonging to AN had disappeared" (1947: 58, fn. 1). This is
part of Fox's claim that IN does not represent an early,
but a late form of *AN. Haudricourt's theories (1951),
based on New Caledonia, accord with Fox's in regard to
the position of MN as the most conservative section of
AN, but otherwise theydo not agree.
Aside from this one dissentient suggestion, the only
question raised is the locality of Southeast Asia in which
the Austronesian peoples were firstsettled and the times
and manner of their migration. Questions about their
still earlier affiliationsalso arise: if theywere domiciled
in Southeast Asia, to what other peoples were they related? This question will be discussed brieflyat the end
of this paper.
Haudricourt (1954: 180-83) has presented evidence
suggesting that, although the AN peoples were Asiatic
in origin, their languages do not really link with the
Vol. 3 * No. 4 - October1962

Capell:

Lakwa
(Hainan)

|
Li

Thai

Lati Kelao Hainan Muslims

In his article Benedict actually goes furtherand proposes the following:

(Thai
XKadai

Chinese

/(Indonesian
Proto-Austric Mon-Khmer
\Annamite

Sino-Tibetan(Tibet-Birman
(Karen

?Miao-Yao
This, of course, goes into the possible wider affiliations of AN and will come up for review below. It also
raises difficultyin that it apparently isolates IN from
the total *AN stock.
At the present moment, then, the following theories
of Austronesian movements hold the field, apart from
Fox's more radical suggestions:
1. The peoples moved out from the mainland of
Southeast Asia, splitting into IN, MC, MN, and PN
subgroups, leaving the homeland at differenttimes and
for differentreasons. According to this earlier theory,
the various groups branched offin the directions indicated by the nomenclature. Some have held that the
PN route was northward through Micronesia and
thence to the south again, others that they came along
the north coast of New Guinea (Churchill argued for
the south coast, but quite unconvincingly) and thence
393

throughtheSolomon Islands and theNew Hebrides.

2. A modifiedformof thistheoryholds that the migrationstook place in the New Guinea and Solomon
Island direction,but thatthe Polynesiansdeveloped as
a later offshootof the Melanesians. Thus there is no
radical separation between MN and PN at all; the
latteris a developmentof MN only. The comparison
mightbe made thatEnglishis (apartfromlaterforeign
influences)a developmentof Germanic,and Germanic
in its turna developmentof Indo-European.There is
no such thingas an "English" language familywhich
could be set side by side withSlavic, Italic, etc. This is
the theoryput forwardin various formsby Cowan,
Grace,and others.
3. Haudricourthas markedoffNew Caledonia as a
"criterion"region and suggestedthat MN is the most
conservativebranchof AN. Picturedin that way,AN
would divide (subsequentlyto its separationfromthe
Kadai and AA family,if such a connectiondid exist)
into western(IN, including Madagascar, the Philippines,and westernMicronesia)and eastern.The latter
thensubdividesinto threesubsections:New Caledonia,
Loyalty Islands, and New Hebrides. Through the
Banks' Islands sectionof the New Hebrides a further
division takes place into northernand southernsections, and a third into Rotuman, Fijian, and Polynesian, if Grace's theorybe upheld. Polynesiansubsequently divided afresh into western,outliers, and
easternbranches.There is stillno mentionof MC, but
it is presumablyalso to be regardedas a branchof easternAN whosepositionwithinthe familystillhas to be
decided.
All these positionshave theirweaknesses,of which
the followingmay be mentionedwithouta vote being
castforanyone of themat present:
1. The southernNew Hebrideslanguagesdo not appear to be so late in the scale of development.Their
phoneticconditionsuggestsverystronglythatAN roots
were intactwhen theyreached this area, in that final
consonantsare frequentlyretained.Yet thesewere alreadylostin thesouthernSolomons,while in thenorthern (or western,New Georgiasection)theyhad not only
oftenbeen presentbut had been strengthenedby the
addition of a finalvowel,as has been shown.
2. Schmidt's linkages between the southern Solomons,the centralNew Hebrides,and Fiji cannot thus
easily be pushed aside. His theorymay and does have
its weaknesses,but it is not entirelybaseless.
3. The question of "Pidgin" AN as put forwardby
Ray is not deservingof quite so much scorn as it has
receivedrecently.When MN grammar,forexample,is
consideredin comparisonwith IN, and MN vocabularyin comparisonwith *AN, the word "pidgin" does
quite well describesome of the phenomena.In vocabulary,Grace points out (1959: 22) that "a sampling of
his [Dempwolff's]Proto-Austronesian
vocabularyindicates that almost 60% of the reconstructedwords do
not show cognatesin any of the Easternlanguages." It
is probable thatmanyof thesewordswereneverin the
vocabularyof the Eastern languages at any point in
their history-and the writer'sresearcheshave shown
thetruthof thisstatementlong ago.
A lot dependson how theAustronesianexpansion is
pictured.No scholar would regardit as a determined
394

and purposive migration, but between that and Sharpe's

theoryof more or less haphazard arrivals there are various steps possible. If New Guinea, the Solomons, and
probably the New Hebrides are thought of as inhabited
before the coming of the Austronesians, then it seems
certain that the latter would have been a minoritygroup
in the Pacific area, able to make their way and retain
new settlements because of superior civilisation. It
would seem that they are to be regarded as intermarrying with the- inhabitants of the islands whom they
found already there. When the settlement has been
founded, a situation of contact-cultural and linguistic-has arisen. What is then likely to happen? Some
sort of lingua franca is needed. This is precisely what
has happened in the case of modern Melanesian Pidgin.
Here the vocabulary is almost overwhelmingly English,
but Grace has made it clear that in proto-MN (or the
proto-speech of any other region of the Pacific) the
dominant vocabulary was not that of the invaders. Even
when the language of the incoming people proves victorious, it always loses in the process: again the morphological and syntactic form of Pidgin witnesses to this,
not to mention the phonetic changes undergone by
English words. As it is expressed in Toynbee's Study of
History (one-volume abridgement by D. C. Somervell,
p. 469), "We shall also find that languages, like human
beings, are unable to win victories without paying a
price; and the price a language pays for becoming a
lingua franca is the sacrificeof its native subtleties; for
it is only on the lips of those who have learnt it in infancy that any language is ever spoken with that perfection which is the dower of nature and the despair of
art." Austronesian certainly served as a lingua franca
and certainly paid the usual price, but it paid the price
not once but everywhere it spread, and in a different
way in each area. It seems true that the conquest made
by Austronesian was usually in inverse proportion to
the size of the island on which settlement took place. It
is thereforeon the smaller islands that the greater *AN
content should be found.
The possibilities resulting from the incoming of a
new language seem to be those long ago suggested by
Schrijnen (1921: 86 ff): (1) the newcomers, if of lower
culture, may give up their language as the Germanic
invaders of Romance areas did, although influencing
the original language in so doing; (2) the subjected people may give up their language instead, but there are
usually marked influences from it on the incoming language, even to the extent of its remaining as "substratum"; (3) the two may exist side by side at least for
a significantperiod, as Anglo-Saxon and Norman French
did in England; (4) language mixing may take place
through the simultaneous use of several languages in
one region, as in Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland,
with no decisive victory of one over the other; (5) or in
situation (4) two languages may finallyproduce a third
which is not identical with either. The proportion of
resemblances in each case will vary according to a number of non-linguistic factors. The outstanding question
now is: which of these possibilities has actually- come
about in Melanesia? Or has still some other process
happened? The subject is furtherdiscussed by Wurm
(1954b) on the basis of Schrijnen's tabulation. He decides that "it appears that the evidence . . . allows us to
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

suggest that the present-day Melanesian languages are

modified forms of Malayo-Polynesian adopted by the
speakers of several non-Malayo-Polynesian languages."
This really places MN under Schrijnen's (2). Variations in MN languages as compared with each other
involve such deep-seated features of phonemics and
morphology that theymust be treated as substrata. The
non-MN populations would thus be numerically much
stronger than the incoming AN peoples, though presumably culturally inferior to them.
At the present moment it may safely be said that the
whole position of MN in the AN family is sub judice.
The same statement applies to MC also. This has usually been linked with MN as its closest relative, but in
spite of this Spoehr (1952: 458) writes, "Micronesia and
Polynesia taken as a whole are more closely similar
to each other in the physical shape of their inhabitants,
in language and in culture than either is to Melanesia."
In the same article he writes also, as against Sharp
(1956), who contended that Polynesian voyaging was
accidental rather than purposive, "Skilled navigation is
necessary in both Micronesia and Polynesia; these two
peoples possessed that skill." The linkage of MC and
PN is emphasised in his further statement that "it is
likely that MC and PN were part of the general movement eastwards from Malaysia."
Yet there is more fruitfulwork than theorisingon the
probabilities of developments in the AN languages; the
technique of glottochronology also has been employed
by Grace (1959) in estimating the period of differentiation between the languages considered, and this is of
importance, apart from his general hypothesis, as indicating what time depths may be expected to appear between languages when the method is more fully applied
in the Pacific field. One great difficultyis the sparseness
of material in this field, and it is doubtful how far
glottochronology can be successfully applied in the
present state of knowledge. Elbert was able to apply it
in the analysis of PN just because most of these languages are so much better documented than those further west. In the particular instance of Rotuman, Dyen
(1960) points out in his review of Grace that "the absence of a significant differencein reaction in the last
two pairs (Fijian-Mota and Rotuman-Mota) is not suggestive that Mota was in a differentsubgroup from Fiji
and Rotuman." In any case, the figures suggested by
Grace put the subgroup back some 3,500 to 4,000 years
ago. Much better knowledge is needed of the intermediate stages before confidence in this particular one can
be felt. This period is longer than that generally assigned by archeologists for the period since the Austronesians left the mainland of Asia (see "Present-day
Problems of Oceanic Linguistics," below).
It was said above that doubt may be felt as to whether
glottochronology is yet ready to deal with questions of
time depths in Oceania. Recognition of cognates is the
firststep in such analysis, and in MN languages it presents a problem. Undoubtedly many have been overlooked because the phonetic changes words have undergone in the long period that must be postulated have
not been understood. Fox (1948 b) gives some valuable
leads and warnings-in the recognition of related forms.
Even if some of his suggestions are unacceptable (as
they are), he does show the complexity of the question.
Vol. 3 -No. 4 *October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

Many wordshave come into Oceania as it were "readymade," embodyingold prefixesof *AN origin, and
modifiedby them. This is particularlytrue of * - a
prefixstillproductivein IN (e.g. Sunda as discussedby
Robins 1953), with which Fox deals in detail as nga-.
Many cognatesmaythusremaindisguiseduntil deeper
analysis is carried out, and without clear phonemic
is impossible.Phonemicanalanalysisglottochronology
ysisis needed at thediachroniclevelbeforequestionsof
timedepth can be attackedwith any confidence.
MORE

REMOTE

ORIGINS

OF THE OCEANIC

LANGUAGES

'The question of the wider relationshipsof the Austronesianlanguageshas been takenup bya fewscholars,
including Benedict and Haudricourt, as mentioned
above. While thisis to a degreea problemseparatefrom
thatof the internalrelationshipsof the languages,it is
not entirelywithoutinterest.When one of the groups
of AN languages is given priorityover the othersin
termsof age, the relationshipsof the entirefamilyare
affected.
The whole questionis in a rathervague stateat present. Schmidt(1926: 135) triedto establishan "AustroAsiatic" linguisticgroup, taking in languages as far
west as the Munda-Santali languages in India. This
theoryhas neverfoundacceptanceand therelationship
ofAN to it is not generallyaccepted.Schmidtincluded
in the AA "South-eastAsian Mixed Group" Cham,
Radai, Djarai, Sedang, Raglai. Pittman,however,has
convincinglyshown thatDjarai is AN. Schmidtcalled
the combined macrofamily"Austric" and divided it
intoAustroasiaticand Austronesiansubgroups.Further
work by Conrady (1916) led Schmidtto accept a link
between his Austric and the Indochinese languages,
but in 1926he wrotethat"probablytheTibeto-Chinese
languagesrepresenta mixtureproducedby a combinationof theAltaic languageswitha languageclose to the
AA languages."This, of course,can be neitherproved
nor disprovedat this stage,and is noted here only in
connectionwith attemptsto find the wider relationshipsof AN languages.From the anthropologicalangle
Heine-Geldern(1932) also has writtenon the question
of an "Austro-Asiatic"family.He, howeverdefinitely
rejected any theory that AA and AN represented
branchesof one family,but held that the formerhad
at one stagebeen influencedbythelatter.The earlyAN
movementsextended,he held,intoJapan as well as into
Formosa,thusacceptingtheclaimsmade by Labberton
amongst others (Labberton 1924). Matsumoto (1928)
suggestedthe movementof Austronesiansinto Indonesia took place about 2000 B.C. An earlier group,
Heine-Geldern's"Walzenbeilkultur,"moved out from
China to Japan, Formosa,Philippines,Moluccas, New
Guinea and Melanesia, "the bearersof at least part of
the so-called Papuan languages [here called NAN]
which thus had nothingoriginallyto do with Papua,
above all the NorthernHalmahera languages." These
were in turnfollowedby Austronesiansand finallythe
"rise of the Polynesianculture or at least of its chief
components in the region of Formosa-PhilippinesNorthern Celebes, out of a mixture of the Austronesian

Vierkantbeiland AustroasiaticSchulterbeilkultur;the
395

rise of the MN languagesas well as MN cultures(MN

'bow culture')fromthe mixtureof AN languages and
culturewith the pre-Austronesian
languages ('Papuan
languages') and with the Walzenbeilkultur"(HeineGeldern 1932: 608-9). At thesame timeHeine-Geldern
does not fail to recognisethe theoreticalnatureof this
historicalreconstruction.
The evidencefromarchaeology has been summarisedrecentlyby Suggs (Shapiro
and Suggs1959: 72).
THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEMS OF
OCEANIC LINGUISTICS
Beforeany furtheradvance can be made in Oceanic
studiescertainthingsare needed. They are here listed
in summaryform,withoutdistinctionbetweenAN and
NAN exceptwherenecessary-where
theneed obviously
applies to onlyone. There are thenthreemain typesof
studycalled for:
A. Recordingand publication:
1. Unrecordedlanguages:theseespeciallyNAN.
2. Detail on languages partiallyknown: nearly
all are involved.
3. Collectionof vernacularoral literature.
B. Analysis:
1. Deep analysis of phonemic structures,on a
synchronicbasis, leading to diachronicstudy
later.
2. Comparisonin thesame wayas in B. 1. of phonemic systems.

Comments
By C.

DOUGLAS

CHRETIEN*

[Berkeley,California,U.S.A. 27.2.62]
There is probably no scholar now
working in the field of Oceanic linguisticswhose experienceis broader or
deeper than Capell's. It follows,therefore,thatno otherscholaris capable of
speaking expertlyon the whole of the
reviewarticleto whichthepresentcommentsare appended. Hence I shall limit
myselfto fourtopicsonly,each of sufficient interestand importanceto warrant some attention.
1. It is commonly assumed that
Dempwolffreconstructed
the *AN phonemic systemon the basis of three IN
languages: Tagalog, Toba Batak, and
Javanese. Capell appears to hold this
misconceptionbecause he quotes, with
evident approval, Dyen's conclusion
that these threelanguages are not sufficient for the reconstruction
of all *AN
phonemes in all positions.In point of
fact Dempwolffdid not build *AN on
three languages: his Vergleichende
Lautlehre (1934-38, hereafterreferred
to as VL) is thefruitionof studieswhich
he began before 1920, and which resultedin severalpaperswhichwerepublished prior to his culminatingwork.
396

3. Morphologyof the languages in the lightof

the freshinformationgained.
C. Comparativestudy:
1. Comparative study of the languages in the
lightof lexicostatistics,
(a) each subgroup in
Melanesia, etc.; (b) groupsof subgroups,e.g.
Solomon Islands, New Hebrides.
2. Furtherstudyof the restorationsand reconstructionsproposed by Dempwolff,Dyen,
Haudricourt,and others.
3. Extension of reconstructionto *AN morphologyand possiblysyntax.
4. Detailed comparisonsofNAN languageswith
a view to establishinggroups, families,etc.
both in New Guinea and elsewhere.
5. When the resultsfromall the above appear
to be reasonablysound, (a) studyof internal
relationshipsof the subgroupsof *AN; (b)
studyof the widerkinshipof *AN.
The studyof the internal and wider relationshipsof
NAN are not,of course,involvedwithAN and do not
have to wait fora solutionof thatproblem.
Ethnolinguisticconsiderationsmayprove to be valuable also. Hardly more than hintshave been given in
thisfieldas yet.Links betweenarchaeologyand linguistics have been sought by some investigators,such as
Heine-Geldern(1932); the evidence of kinship terminologyhas been cited (Capell and Lester 1945-46) and
traditionalhistory(Capell and Lester 1941) forwhat it
is still worth(see Suggs 1960a), but the possible links
withanthropologyhave not been developed.

Five of thesewere of greatimportance,

and none of them was based on three
languages only. They are listed in the
subjoined bibliographyunder Dempwolffand the year of publication as indicated below.
In a monographon the *AN labials
/ p b v m /, published in 1920,Dempwolffexamined 350 sets of cognatesin
nineteenlanguagesdistributedover the
AN familyas follows:twelveIN (thesix
of VL plus Ibanag, Chamorro,Sangir,
Makassar,Sunda, and Nias); threeMN
(Fiji, Mota, and Graged); two PN (Samoan and Maori); and two MC (Gilberts and Marshalls). This monograph
was followed,in 1922, by a long paper
which dealt with the alternations of
initial stops with their corresponding
homorganicnasals and of medial stops
withcombinationsof homorganicnasal
plus stop,as thesephenomenaart exemplified in Ngaju Dayak. Here Dempwolffused only one language, but by
means of it he made considerableprogresswiththevexingproblemof nasal or
nasalizedalternants.In 1924-26he published a monograph on the LRD
sounds,in which he employed759 sets
of cognatesand fifty
languages: 35 IN,
eight MN, fourPN, and threeMC. In
addition to the languagesof the earlier
studies,he used the following:

IN: Panay Bisayan, Iluko, Nabaloi, Tontemboan, Bulu,

Holontalo, Bare'e, Bugi, Busang, Maanyan, Utdanum,
Old Javanese,Madura, Minangkabau,Atjeh,Gayo, Mentawei, Old Malagasy, Palau,
Bima, Rotti, Buru, Paulohi,
Nufor.
MN: Pala, Tuna, Sa'a, Motu,Aneitum.
PN: Marquesas, Easter Island.
MC: Ponape.
One IN language previously used,
Ibanag, he omittedfromthisstudy.The
*AN phonemes here considered comprise / d d d' g' 1 - / he also gave a
table of all *AN phonemes,which is
identicalwiththatof VL except forthe
omissionof /' t nt /.
With the LRD studyDempwolffessentially completed his reconstruction
of the *AN phonemic system.That he
was aware of his debt to earlier scholars,particularlyBrandstetter,
therecan
be no doubt; at the same time he revisedand expanded on thebasisofmore
extensive material. His chief interest
up to this point was in reconstructing
*AN. The appearance of Ray's monumentalwork(1926) gave him the incentive to reconstruct*MN; the resultsof
this endeavor appeared in 1927. Here
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

he employed 30 MN languages. How

many of these were additional to the
eight previouslyused is hard to determine because he did not list them,but
theremusthave been at least22. In 1929
he applied the same method to 13 PN
languages and reconstructednot only
*PN but also a vocabularyof 485 *PN
words.
It appears then,fromthe surveyjust
presented,that when Dempwolffcame
to write the VL he had done comparative work in at least 82 AN languages.
I have gone into thismatterin some detail because I wish to destroy,once and
for all, the myththat he reconstructed
*AN on the basis of three languages.
We may appropriatelyinquire how the
mytharose, because in the answer we
finda weaknessof much modernstudy
of AN languages.There are tworeasons
for the myth.In the firstplace, Dempwolff'sVL has some of the featuresof a
tour de force. He sought to find the
minimumnumber of lariguageswhich
would produce the *AN he had already
reconstructed;these he discovered to
be Tagalog, Toba Batak, and Javanese.
Using these,he carefullybuilt up the
structureof *AN in a logical seriesof
stepsas ifhe wereworkingde novo. But
he knew the answer all the time. Of
course, he intended no deception; his
earlier publications were available to
any who would read them.But modern
scholarsapparentlydo not read them,
and herein is the second reason forthe
myth.To thesescholarsDempwolffand
the VL are synonymous.
Yet in the earlier Dempwolffthereis a greatmass of
solidly based comparative work in a
greatmanylanguageswhichis going to
waste.
2. Some dissatisfactionhas been expressed with individual phonemes of
Dempwolff's*AN, and various modifications have been proposed. Dyen has
done more in this direction than anyone else. Most notable is his reorganization of the laryngeals(1953a), of which
Capell says that "his results may be
safelyaccepted,at any rate in outline."
In my view, this statementshould be
taken with some reserve.Dyen's monograph was the subjectof a severelycritical review by Uhlenbeck (1956), and
the seriousobjectionsthereraised have
neverbeen answered.Succeedingscholars, e.g., Grace (1959), have simplyaccepted Dyen's results,as if Uhlenbeck's
criticismwere merelytrivial-whichit
is not. Other papers by Dyen have receivedno evaluativecriticismwhatever,
yet some are veryimportantfor *AN,
especially 1947a, 1947b, 1951, 1953b,
and 1956.It is a weaknessof AN studies
that we do not have enough controversy.We have tended, at least in the
United States,to accept the lateststatement as fact,and to ignore the scholarVol. 3 -No. 4 *October1962

Capell:

ship that has preceded it. An example

will serveto illustratethis.
As Capell says,Dempwolffrefusedto
admit *AN / s /, regardingthe / s / in
various AN languages as developing
from a frontalpalatal plosive / t'
Capell (1943) changed / t' / to / s /
and /k' / to / c / on thegroundthatif
the / t' / and / k' / ever existed,they
would have been completelyunstable
because theyare too close to each other
phonetically.Dyen (1947a) independently made the same changes, but
merelyfor orthographicconvenience;
he specificallystated this, adding that
"no differencein phonological interpretation is implied." Dyen's changes
(including others not specified here)
have been generallyadopted, but it is
seldom clear that other scholarsmake
his reservation.In substituting/ s / for
/ t' /, Capell, Dyen, and the resthave
eitherorthogone back to Brandstetter,
graphically or actually. Dempwolff
knew that Brandstetter had reconstructed/ s /, and he specificallyrejected it for what appeared to him to
be good reasons.His argumentfor/ t' /
is based on the fact that in Tagalog,
Toba Batak, and Javanese all initial
also initial /s /and
stopsand affricates,
(in Javaneseonly)someinitial /w /,are
replaced by nasals under circumstances
which need not detain us here. This
phenomenon he called "prenasalization." Furtherinvestigationshows that
Javanese / w / is replaced by a nasal
only when it represents*AN / b /.
Dempwolff concluded thereforethat
sinceall nasal replacements,except that
for / s /, representedoriginal stops or
the prototypeof / s / must
affricates,
He then furalso be a stop or affricate.
therobservedthatthenasal replacement
is alwayshomorganicin its articulation
whichit replaces
to the stop or affricate
(withinthe limitsof the phonemicsystem of the language concerned). In
Tagalog and Toba Batak thenasal alternant of / s / is / n /; these languages
have only threenasal phonemes / m n
ij /. In Javanese,however,the alternant
is the palatal / fi /, Javanese having
four nasal phonemes / m n fi ij /. He
thattheprototype
concluded,therefore,
phoneme of / s / was a palatal stop or
whichhe representedas / t' /.
affricate
In presentingthisargumentI have gone
a little beyond Dempwolff:he did not
admit affricates
in *AN, but only stops.
With this modificationI have reproduced the argumentof VL 1.39.It is an
interestingargument,more forwhat it
leaves out than what it includes. Already in 1920 Dempwolffknew that in
at least one AN language, Ibanag, the
reflexof / t' / was not / s / but / t /
(see Dempwolff1920, p. 33, no. 109).

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

In 1927 (p. 35) he knew that its reflex

was / t / in Motu, Mekeo, the South
Solomons,and theMarshalls.Yet he did
not use these facts in VL to support
/ t' / as against/ s /. This is an excellent
example of the economy which runs
throughthe entire VL. When he believed thathe had enough evidence for
a point, he stopped. Such an attitude
should appeal to a generationof scholars broughtup, in descriptivelinguistics
at least, on the principle that the descriptionwhichis mosteconomicalis on
But be
that account the mostscientific.
that as it may. Dempwolffhad reasons
forpositing *AN / t' / that cannot be
lightlylaid aside.
3. Capell speaksat somelengthof the
IN bias of Dempwolff's*AN vocabulary, estimatingit to comprise some
2,000 words and quoting Grace's estimate (1959:22) that almost 60% show
no cognatesin MN or PN. The point is
importantenough forus to be precise.
Some yearsago I made a statisticalanalysisof the contentsof Dempwolff'svocabulary for another purpose, from
which I here extractthe relevantdata.
Volume III of VL has 2,213 entries,six
of which (*kuk'am, *laijkaj, *mataj,
*mat'uk,*mana1j,*papah) give no cogto
nates but merely cross-references
otherentries.Subtractingthese,we are
leftwith2,207separateitems,each with
citations of reflexesin from two to
eleven languages. The distributionof
the reflexesover the separatelanguages

is interesting:

IN: Tagalog
Toba Batak
Javanese
Malay
Ngaju Dayak
Hova
MN: Fiji
Sa'a
PN: Tonga
Futuno
Samoa

1125words 51%
59
1299
1446
65
74
1627
53
1170
31
679
461
21
15
335
15
328
14
302
385
17

The percentagesare computedon 2207

as a base. Immediatelywe are strucknot
onlywiththe IN bias, but the SumatraJava emphasis as well (Toba Batak is
spoken in Sumatra and Malay in Sumatraand the adjacent Malacca Peninsula). But we are moreinterestedin MN
and PN as groups. Combining languages and eliminatingduplicationswe
get theseresults:
MN:
PN:

613 words
433

98%
20

The twogroupsare not exclusive:some

wordsare commonto both groups.The
figuresforwordsin MN or PN or both
are these:
397

MN only:
PN only:
both MN and
PN:
Total

329 words 15%

149
7
284
762

13
35%

Thus both Capell's and Grace's estimateswere not too faroff.The IN element in the vocabulary is of course
100% since Dempwolff'spolicy was to
admit only words with a reflexin at
least one of his six IN languages. He
made two exceptions to this rule: *ha
(5)g'av, based on IN Bugi and Ibanag,
as well as MN and PN; and *[t]avu/
matah,based on Sangir,MN and PNthis word is a compound and both of
itselementsare reconstructed
elsewhere
in regularfashion.These twoexceptions
are interestingas suggestingthatDempwolffmighthave extendedhis *AN vocabulary,perhaps a good deal, had he
admittedotherIN languages.
4. Capell touches on the view that
problems of classificationof the AN
languages can be solved by the new
technique known as lexicostatisticsor
To this view I must
glottochronology.
registera vigorousdissent.I have demonstrated mathematically (Chretien
1962) that the fundamentalformulaof
glottochronology
has no mathematical
basis whatever,and consequentlythat
its claim to indicate timedepth is false.
My paper does not touchthebasic postulates or assumptionsof glottochronology, which are three: (1) that a diagnosticvocabularylistcan be or has been
establishedwhich has the propertyof
attrition(or, conversely,of retention)
at a constantrate in time; (2) that,of
two cognate languages, the choice of
wordsforattrition(or retention)in one
is independent of the choice in the
other; and (3) that the rate of attrition
(or retention)is the same forboth languages. These assumptions,as Milke
(1962) pointed out, are both basic and
unproved.Yet the method is attractive
because it promisesquick resultsfroma
small amount of data. For example,
Grace (1959) makes statementsabout
Rotuman and Fijian and theirplace in
MN and PN which are veryimportant
if true,and thesestatementsare apparently based on exactly 100 AN words;
at least that is the number I counted.
On a veryrough estimatethere are at
least4,000wordsin Churchward'sRotuman dictionaryand 4,500 in Capell's
Fijian dictionary.By what scholarly
principle do we neglect all this material? Dyen has recentlypublished an
article describinga large-scaleclassification of perhaps 275 AN languages
based on word listsvaryingfrom150 to
196 items. This paper, or perhaps an
earlier versionof it, was well received
when it was presented to the Tenth
Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu
398

last summer.We are enamoredof these

high-speeddevices, impressedby their
mathematicalgloss(whichmostof us do
not understand),and all too oftenunaware how much theytake forgranted.
There is no substitutefor intensive
work.What we need, besidesmore and
more fieldwork, is a large number of
investigations,
each confinedto a small
number of well-documentedlanguages
in a limitedarea. We need to know the
wordscommonto the area, thosecovering only part of the area, and those
limitedto single languages.Then, such
studiescompleted,we can link areas togetherand graduallybuild up, firstregional classifications,and finally the
over-allscheme.Results will not be attained quickly this way, and for that
reason the procedurewill not be attractive to some people. But the pictureit
will give us will not likelyneed revision.

and those of the Upper Tor River

(much more to the West) was not suggested by the presentwriter,as Capell
puts it, "in spiteof unrelatedlanguages
intervening"(myitalics),but in spiteof
unknown languages intervening. It
would be quite natural if the intervening languages, when studied, should
prove to be related.
Among the Central Highlands languages,the Kapauku or Ekari language
around the Wissel Lakes must be inwell known since
cluded as sufficiently
the publication of Drabbe's grammar
(1952) and Doble's dictionary(1960).
A preliminaryMoni grammarby the
Larsons (1958) may also be mentioned
here.

The AustronesianLanguagesIndonesian Languages

It is highlyimprobablethatthe Cham
language, spoken in Cambodia (and in
By H. K. J. COWAN*
Vietnam!), "has come into the Asian
[Utrecht,Netherlands.21.3.62] mainland via northernSumatra." As I
My commentswill followCapell's di- have pointedout (Cowan 1948,not 1960
as Capell's list of referencessays,and
visionby subjectheadings.
1957c: 73), the Cham language is so
The Non-AustronesianLanguages
closely related to the Achehnese lanAlthough Capell has, in his prelim- guage ofNorthSumatra,thelattershowinary setting,excluded the Australian ing the same strong Mon-Khmer influenceas the former,that the question
languages fromhis Oceanic field,and
hence the term "Non-Austronesian" cannot be judged for one apart from
the other. Now, if Cham should have
(NAN) in Capell's contextcannot cause
any misunderstanding,
undergone this MK influence after
the term "Papuan" is still to be preferred.In the leavingN. Sumatra,theMK influencein
firstplace, namesshould be appropriate Achehneseremainsunexplained,unless
foruse in any contextwithoutcausing one should assume that this language,
confusion-and Australian aboriginal too,leftSumatraforthe continentonly
languages,too, are NAN! In the second to returnto the island again, or that
place, although"Papuan" cannot as yet MK languages were spoken in N. Sube regardedas much more than a cover matra.For thelatterassumptionthereis
term for a group of languages whose hardly any support; and the former
interrelations,if any, are insufficiently would be unnecessarilyand unjustifiknown,thisgroup does show,as Capell
ablycomplicated.The simplestexplanarightlypoints out, certain structural tion is that Cham and Achehnesesplit
featuresof its own which tend to recur on the continent,the latterleaving for
over wide areas. Also "Papuan" is not the island, while the formerremained.
really a geographical term, although See also infra under "The Origins of
Australiansare inclined to thinkso be- the Oceanic Languages."
cause of the name of theirTerritoryof
Papua which really is only the south- Melanesian LanguagesWestNew Guinea
east part-ofthe island of New Guinea.
Recent evidence has shown that the
In fact,the termis ethnologicalrather
than geographical,and as such,thereis
expansion of the AN languages in this
in the factthatsome territory
is much morelimitedthan has
littleinconsistency
of these languages are spoken outside usuallybeen assumed.In fact,theyonly
New Guinea. For the peoples of the occur on the islands off the western
islands around New Guinea wheresuch point of the Vogelkop ("Bird's Head")
and in theGeelvinkBay,on and around
languages are spoken, have at least a
strong"Papuan" strain.If,then,neither the narrow "neck" which connectsthe
"Non-Austronesian"nor "Papuan" can
Vogelkopwiththemain "body" of New
be said to denote in a positive sense a
Guinea, and sporadically in isolated
linguisticallydeterminedunit,the term spots along the north coast (Cowan
"Papuan" has at least the advantageof
1959b).
beingmoreclear cut and meaningful.
The languages of the Vogelkop, for
which Capell quotes Cowan (1953: 47),
Dutch Newl Guinea
did not so much touch the problem of
The link between languages around deciding the relationship of New
Hollandia (near the Australianborder) Guinea AN languagesto IN on the one
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

hand and "MN" on the other,but that

of deciding whethertheywere AN or
NAN withsome AN influence.In 1953,
despite strongsuspicion,there was no
sufficient
basis for classifyingthem as
NAN. However, I (Cowan 1957c: 82,
1959a: 242) have since shown thatthese
Vogelkop languages are certainlyNAN
and are to be linked with the NAN
languages of North Halmahera in East
Indonesia in one linguistic"phylum."
This was done chieflywith the aid of
lexicostatistic
and morphostatistic
methods.
As fortheproblemof classifying
New
Guinea languages that really are AN,
withregardto IN and "MN" (and incidentallyPN), see below.

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

construction may be compared with the

High-Javanese kaguhan saimpeian kareta, "Your Honour's carriage" (lit.
possession (of) Y.H. (the) carriage).
PN ta-/to-contains the definite article
te- (Maori), i.e., a demonstrative element, and therefore is not essentially
different from PN na-/no-, "MN" ne-,
no- < AN anu, "that you know of, that
just mentioned," because this, too, is a
demonstrative element. The a- and
o-vowels, alternating in PN forms, are
articles which also combined with the
"auxiliary." They both occur as such
in "MN" (Fiji) as well. In Samoa,
Maori, etc., they are specialized for use
with personal agents and non-personal
Development of Theories of
(passive or involuntary) situations reAustronesian
spectively, or in the expression of possession as a subjective and an objective
The traditional subdivision of AN
genetive respectively.
into IN, MN, PN, and MC, adhered to
It is difficultto see in all this a basic
by Capell, has been challenged from sessives in the singular number . .. and
different
sidesand on different
grounds, thatotherPN languages show tracesof difference between PN and "MN." In
as Capell's discussionshows.This fact suffixedpossessives,"he is of the opin- my opinion, it is not more than the difference, e.g., between the English posin itselfindicatesa growingdissatisfac- ion that "this type of suffixation. . .
tion and would seemto mean thatsome- seems to be as foreignto PN as it is of sessives my, thy and the German mein,
thing is wrong with the established the essence of MN." Now, apart from dein (the English mine, thine being the
point of view. It is myopinion thatthe the factthatthe so-called"PN outliers" independent forms!); or the differences
old subdivisionis largelygeographically and the traces of suffixedpossessives in complexity of flexion in those two
elsewhere in PN should already raise Germanic languages; or again, their difand/or ethnologicallyconditioned,and
that it lacks a reallylinguisticfounda- doubts,Capell proceedsto illustratehis ferences in gender, etc. Of course there
tion, at least as far as "MN" is con- point by a statementwhich,in myopin- are differences from language to lanion, preciselyproves the contrary."PN
guage, but that is not the point. The
cerned.
I would prefernot to tabulate my languages," Capell states, "form their point is whether the differences are of
such degree as to separate an entire
views in the manner Capell has done
possessiveson the basis of article +
group (Capell's "MN") of AN and align
forthisseemstoo muchlike the "family preposition'of' + suffixed
pronoun ...
tree" theory;rather,the concept of lin- while MN languages base theirs on
it with PN and IN.
It may be interesting and relevant
guistic change through contact is of 'propertynoun' + suffixedpronoun"
eminent significance,as will be seen. (my italics). If, then, the conclusion here to cite what Kern said so long ago
But granting the table as it stands, must be that possessive suffixesare
(I translate from the Dutch): "With re"proto-MN"should at least be replaced found both in "MN" and PN, the gard to the possessives, as in every other
by "(proto-)PN" or "Oceanic" or "East- "methodsemployedand theunderlying respect, Fiji is little else than an archaic
ern" or somethingof the kind. Capell's
concepts," as Capell expresses it, are, Polynesian, and it is even closer to Polyargumentsin favourof the traditional contraryto his view,not essentiallydif- nesian than, e.g., Icelandic to Swedish"
groupings can hardly be regarded as
ferentin the two groups. For instance, (Kern 1886). And again:

convincing.He admits that "in many

instances,however, they fall short of
complete demonstrationin linguistic
termsof division in two subfamiliesas
against older and youngermembersof
one family."But such demonstrationis
precisely the object. To Capell "the
differences
between MN and PN seem
to be cumulativeratherthan absolute,
but sufficient
to supportthe traditional
division. They are not capable of parallel alignment...." All this is very
vague, not verytangible,and not very
convincing.Nor does Capell's recapitulation of argumentsfor the 4 levelsphonology,morphology,syntaxand vocabulary-improve mattersmuch. Capell admitsthaton the phonemiclevel
"none of these phenomena argues decisivelyfor the separation of MN and
PN into different
subfamilies."On the
syntacticlevel he saysthatthisis "more
difficultto discuss, especially as the
Vol. 3 -No. 4 *October1962

typical PN arrangement . .. is not ab-

solutein itselfand is paralleled in parts

of the Indonesian area as well," while
where MN differs,"historical change
could account for it to a large extent"
just as "the changein syntaxas between
Latin and the modern Romance languages ... weakenstheargument."And
on the lexical level it is said that "here
the argumentfrom absence is risky,"
while an appeal to Kahler,whosetheory
he otherwiseregardsas "a moredifficult
propositionto sustainthan Cowan's," is
made for "the possibilityof separating
PN and MN on thislevel."
As to the morphologicallevel, which
would seem to be more promising,special importanceis attached to the expressionof possession.AlthoughCapell
admits that "it is true that a few PN
outliershave suffixedpronouns as pos-

leaving aside forthe momentthe alternating a- and o-vowels,PN (Maori)

ma-/mo-and na-/no-,which according
to Capell are articlesplus "preposition
'of'," are both in formand in use essentiallythe same as "MN" (Fiji) me- and
ne- or no- (Mota no- or ano-), which
Capell calls "propertynouns." The very
factthatall those"auxiliaries,"both in
PN and "MN," are constructedwith
the possessive suffixes,
means that all
wereoriginallynouns or ratherdemonstrativeelementstreatedas nouns. For
their comparisonand etymologyreference should be made to Kern (18861916: 268). Here I will onlypoint to the
fact that the same constructionwith
formallythe same "auxiliary" as PN
and "MN" no-, ano-, is also found in
Celebes (Mak. and Bug. anu-,with suff.
1stp.s. anu-ku,anu-niku,
"thatof mine,
mine"), and even in Sundanese of Java
(anu-na,"thatof his,his"). The typeof

This agreement between the so-called

Melanesian and the Polynesian languages,
in connectionwith all sortsof other facts,
such as the frequent trialis of which only
weak traces are found in Indonesia, prove
that those Eastern languages formone big
division, and not two, over against the
Western,although the languages in the east
of the Indian Archipelago, including Makass. and Bug., show peculiarities which
justifythe view that they form the transition fromthe Westernto the Eastern membersof the family. (Kern 1906: 179).
My position is that in the light of
modern linguistics, the traditional subdivision of the AN language familywhich is, as has been said, probably
largely influenced by geographical and
ethnological concepts-is not quite reliable, if not untenable. A new approach is required and is now being
undertaken from different sides. I do
not say that this will necessarily lead to
but it may. In
a differentclaKssification,

399

the meantimean open mind, unprejudiced by existingconcepts,is necessary.

It seemsappropriatehere to saya few
wordson myattemptto retain Melanesian at least partlyas an independent
division of AN by giving it a different
purport,viz., by limitingthe name to
the New Guinea Melanesian (Ray's
"Melano-Papuan") languages. This
point, already alluded to supra under
"Melanesian Languages, West New
Guinea," is only brieflytouched on by
Capell. But it is essentialfor the question "what is Melanesian?" For, if
"MN" is what Capell thinksit is, then
the New Guinea MN languages do not
agree with his own criteria,a notable
example being the indicationof possession. My conclusions (Cowan 1949-50,
1951-52b)weretheresultof attemptsto
findobjective criteriaof structuralsignificance. Earlier writers had not
agreed, but certain typical departures
fromthe general AN type in the languages of the islands near New Guinea
had at an early date drawn attention.
Now thesedeviations,or some of them,
are also typicalof "Papuan" languages,
a factwhich suggestssubstratuminfluences, either in creating the phenomena, or in maintaining them, if they
mustbe regardedas havingdisappeared
in otherbranchesof AN, or both. Two
of the more importantfeaturesare: (1)
class distinctionsin nouns with their
correspondingsentenceconcordin flexion, etc., and (2) the "inverse" (i.e.
NAN) genetiveconstructionof noun +
noun, and, in conformitywith this,
mostlypreposedpronominalpossessives
and some suffixedones as more or less
obsolete remnants in certain cases.
There are other featuresof lesser importanceforwhichreferenceis made to
Cowan, 1949-50, 1951-52b, and still
otherswhich occur only in part of the
languages,suchas, in the GeelvinkBay,
the change of the initial phoneme of
verbal stemsaccording to the number
of the prefixedsubject,and of nouns of
relationshipand parts of the body accordingto the numberof the prefixed
possessive. Since according to Capell
(1940: 62), classificationis not a feature
of his "MN" while suffixedpronominal
possessivesare,he mustadmitthatthere
is disagreementhere. The reason may
be, and in myopinion probablyis, that
Capell's "MN" does not really depart
so muchfromthegeneralAN, morespecially the PN, type, while these New
Guinea MN languagesdo.
For the latter languages, special importance is to be attached to the "inverse" genetive construction(inverse,
thatis, fromthe AN point of view), because it is a rathersurprisingstructural
feature, radically differentfrom the
normalAN type,as will be clear if it is
realized that a compound like English
400

"eye-water"would mean "tears"instead cluding the Philippines and North

of "well, spring,source" as it would in
Celebes, but is fullyproductivestill in
general AN (IN as well as PN), while Achehnese and Cham (Cowan 1948:
"water-eye"would mean "well, spring" 477). Incidentally,this is one of the
instead of "tears." Also, this feature points in favourof the theorythatAN
allows a veryexact delimitationin all
and Mon-Khmer languages are redirections,gives a criterionfor distin- motelyrelated,for the same infixwith
guishinglanguages both fromIN and
the same functionis very common in
PN, and providesa solutionforthe dif- MK also, and the contactexplanation,
ficultyof classificationof theseAN lan- possible perhaps for Achehnese and
guagesof New Guinea whichhave been Cham, would seem impossiblefor the
called by such meaningless terms as
Philippines and North Celebes. For a
"Austronesian-Papuan mixed lan- detailed discussion of this and other
guages" (Schmidt) or "Melano-Pap- points in the same connection see
uan" (Ray). The boundaries for these Cowan 1948, and, for a lexicostatistic
languages, to which the writerwould count,see 1957c: 74.
If, then, at least one group of AN
restrict the term "Melanesian," is
marked to the west by the so-called speaking emigrants passed through
"line of Brandes" in East Indonesia, southernIndo-China, it is certain that
and to the east and north by its ex- at least one other group left the contension,the "line of Friederici"to east tinentfromthe north,and traveledvia
of New Guinea and including part of Formosa, the Philippines and North
New Britain. Again, for details, see Celebes. The questionofwhetheror not
theIN languagesof Borneo derivefrom
Cowan 1949-50,1951-52b.
yet a thirdgroup (Kern 1915: 300) or
The Originsof the Oceanic Languages. fromthe two just mentioned,is not inIt may be said that there is wide cluded here forwant of space. But the
agreementon the Asian mainland ori- so-called"MN" languagesas well as PN
gin of the AN languages. But I am un- and Micronesiandoubtlessderive from
the northerngroup rather than from
aware of a "tendencyto look in thearea
of southern Vietnam" in particular. thesouthern(Kern 1915: 300), although
Friederici(1913: 172), as supplemented sometimesremarkablecorrespondences
by Kern in his review of Friederici's betweenthe groupsappear whichwarn
work (Kern 1915: 299-300), distin- us against too much black and white
guished a southern and a northern thinking.Thus, forinstance,thewidely
group of AN speaking emigrantsfrom knownPN word tabu and relatedforms
the continent,while Kern even distin- seems to be totallyunknown in Indoguisheda middle one. If southernViet- nesia, but recurs in Cham in Indonam has drawn special attention,it is China in the formtabun, "tabou, interbecause it can hardlybe denied that at diction religieuse." In the islands
least one group must have passed around New Guinea, and on the New
throughthat part of Asia to reach Ma- Guinea mainland, branches of this
laya and Sumatra, and because this group met with peoples speakifigengroup included the ancestorsof the im- tirely differentlanguages, viz. "Papportant peoples of Sumatra and Java. uan." Where theysettledpermanently
As has already been brieflyindicated, among the original inhabitants,types
(supra "Indonesian Languages" and the of languagedeveloped througha period
references there), the strong Mon- of greater or lesser bilingualism in
Khmerinfluencein the Achehneselan- which eitherthe native structuraltype
guage of North Sumatra can only be ultimately prevailed, though with a
on thisassump- more or less noticeable AN adstratum,
explained satisfactorily
tion. If the AN languages of Indo- or from which the new language
China, such as Cham, "shownothingof emergedwith a more or less considerthe archaismof MN and the languages able "Papuan" (NAN) substratum.It is
of Formosa,"thismay be readilyattrib- thelattertypeto whichI have proposed
uted to the contactswith languages of to restrict the term "Melanesian."
different
type,Mon-Khmerand Vietna- Those emigrantswho did not settle
mese. What may happen in such cases passed on eastwardand must have inis sufficiently
illustratedby English as troduced PN (including probably
comparedwiththe otherGermaniclan- Capell's "MN") languages into the Paguages and by South AfricanDutch as cificOcean.
compared with European Dutch. Still,
some archaic tracesshould be expected, By WILLIAM DAVENPORT*
[New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. 15.3.62]
and, in fact,do exist.Thus, to mention
Now that classificationsof Oceanic
onlyone example(forothers,see Cowan
1948, 1957c), the substantialinfix-an- languagesare well underwayin several
(not to be confusedwiththe IN passive quartersand ethnologicalinterestin the
infix -in-, which does not occur in Pacific and Malaysian regions is probably greaterthan ever before,Capell's
Achehnese and Chain), has only left a
fewobsolete tracesin IN languages,in- article is of particularvalue to a large
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

number of people. The advantages of

consideringNAN and AN languagestogether,as he has done, are veryclear.
However usefulNAN as a classification
may be forstudyingAN, certainlyit is
to be hoped that this "wastebasket"
categorysoon may be made more precise.With informationon thelanguages
of theinteriorof New Guinea becoming
increasinglyavailable, this,too, may be
possible beforeverylong.
myinterests
Being an anthropologist,
in the problemssurveyedby Capell are,
naturally,more in the results of the
classificationthan in the mechanicsof
and criteria for establishingrelationships and subgroupings.However,even
with more definitesubgroupingsand a
clearerpictureof thehistoricalrelationships among them,we will not be able
to saymuchmorethanis knownalready
about theprehistoricmovementsofpeoples and culturesin Oceania. A knowledge of the family trees of AN and
NAN languagesand the mostprobable
areas of their differentiationfrom
proto-languagescan only impose reasonable limitson thosewho spin migration and diffusionaltheories on the
basis of ethnographic distributions
reconstrucalone. Convincinghfistorical
tion in Oceania must await large-scale
archaeological work-only just now
underway in Polynesia and not even
commencedin Melanesia-detailed genetic workon the domesticatedplants,
and some kind of breakthroughin the
studyof human geneticswhichwill assist in solving the riddle of Oceanic
races.Obviously,all thisis not going to
be accomplishedin thisgeneration,but
even if it were,the movementsof people and culturescould probablynot be
reconstructedany better than it has
with, say, the prehistoricIndo-Europeans or the Athapaskans.
Among the most crucial linguistic
and historical questions today is the
probable geographiclocation of *AN,
and Capell's summaryof severalpoints
of view regardingthis is most rewarding. It is importantto note that Dyen
(1962), by using lexicostatisticalmethods, has recentlypointed to an axis in
Melanesia along which lies the most
linguisticdiversity.Assumingthat this
as measuredin sucha manner,
diversity,
is a functionof time, then this area
seemsto be the one fromwhichall AN
languageshave spread.This is veryclose
to Fox's (1947) *MN = *AN and, of
course, stands in direct opposition to
the long-acceptedassumptionthat AN
spread out fromthe Malaysian region.
It is interestingto consider these surprisingfindingsof Dyen's alongsidetwo
of the most plausible and well-known
of the Polynesian migration theories.
On the assumption that MN and IN
were differentiated
before PN, Buck's
Vol. 3 No. 4 October1962

Capell:

micronesia stepping-stone(1944)
theorywould sugthrough-Micronesia
gestPN, and possiblyMC as well, to be
closer to some IN language(s) than to
any MN language(s).This has not been
demonstratedby anyone, and it is denied by Grace (1959) whose arguments
route
support an up-from-down-under
such as that accepted by Suggs (1960b:
226). Ecclecticslike Linton (1955: 17780) admit to both possibilities, but
Dyen's data supportneitherand further
suggestthatPN and MC mighthave differentiatedindependently from each
other and from *AN in the heartland
of Melanesia. Capell seems to favor
somethingof this sort for PN at least
byhis defenseof theOutliersas colonies
left behind in an eastwardmovement,
althoughmostPolynesianistswould insist the Outliers represent peoples
swept furtherwestwardfrom some of
the westernPolynesianislands.
Perhaps the greatest service I can
render this discussionis to shed some
lighton the fewlanguagesof the Melanesian area with which I have some
familiarity.These are the languages of
the Santa Cruz Group where I did
ethnographicfieldworkin 1958-60 and
to whichCapell has made severalreferences. This small group of islands, located 90 miles northof the Banks and
Torres Islands and 200 mileseast of the
nearestSolomons,is somewhatunique
in the ratherlarge number of dialects
spoken bya relativelysmallpopulation.
The PN language referredto by Capell
as Pilheni (Pileni) is actuallyspoken in
the Duff Islands (Wilson Islands or
Taumako) and in some of the Reef
(Swallow) Islands about 60 miles to the
southwest.These are the western islands of the Reefsand are locallycalled
the Outer Reef Islands. They are
Matema (45 speakers),Nupani and its
satelliteNalogo (147 speakers),Nukapu
(61 speakers),Pileni (134 speakers)and
Nifiloli (Nifilole; 102 speakers). This
PN language has two dialects in which
/h/and /f/in one are replaced by /s/
and /h/in the other.The h-fdialect is
spokenon Pileni, Nukapu, and Nifiloli,
and the s-h dialect is to be found on
Matema and Nupani. Should someone
reporta PN dialect spoken on the volcano Tinakula whichis located nearby,
thisis certainto be Nupani, forpeople
of thattinyatoll go thereannuallyand,
volcanic activitypermitting,maintain
a village site on its bleak shores.Both
dialectsare spokenin the singlevillage,
Tahua, of the buff Islands (220 speakers). Before the entire population of
this small chain was consolidated into
one community,the s-h dialect was
spoken by the people of Aua (Treasurer's Is.) and the h-fdialect was used

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

by thepeople of Taumako (DisappointmentIs.) fivemilessoutheastofAua. All

PN speakersof the Reef and Duff Islands believe theyoriginatedon Taumako and spread out from there. Although there are mythslinking their
pagan deities with Sikaiana (Sikayana
or Stewart'sIs.) and Luangiua (Ontong
Java or Lord Howe Is.) to thenorthwest
of them,thereare no suchlinkageswith
Tikopia and Anuta, the closest PN
speakersto theeast.They have no myths
or beliefs of a Savaiki (Hawaiki), nor
have they traditionsof their ancestors
having migrated into this area from
elsewhere.On the subjectof traditions,
the mythicalcharacterof Tangaloa is
known here only to a few personsand
does not figureas importantlyin their
mythsas do other figures.In the nonPN part of the Reef Islands (see below)
however, Tangaloa is widely known
and was worshipped as an important
deitywho is also called Ibe Tema, "The
Old Man of Taumako." The colorful
Polynesian character Lata (Rata or
Laka) is sortof an internationalculture
hero throughoutthe entireSanta Cruz
Group.
In the Main Reef Islands, those appearing (albeit incorrectly) on the
charts as Fenualoa, Lomlom, Banga
Netepa, and Banga Ndeni, an entirely
differentlanguage is spoken by about
3,100people livingin 20 villages.There
appears to be littleor no dialect variation in this language, and it is clearly
related to the dialects of Santa Cruz
Island (Ndeni) just 20 miles to the
south. Following Codrington(1885: 6)
and Ray (1926b: 447-53), Capell has applied the name of the PN-speakingisland Nifiloli to this non-PN language.
This is an understandablemistake,but
it should be corrected.It was at Nifiloli
that the firstmissionaryof the Melanesian Mission was permittedto establish
a school in the Santa Cruz Group in
1878. Althoughthiswas a PN-speaking
communitythen,to it weredrawna few
Reef Island-speakersas well, and the
samplesof this latterlanguage used by
Codringtonand Ray wereobviouslyobtained from informantsencountered
therewithoutthe realization that they
were eitherbilingualsor foreignto the
place. Not long afterits establishment,
the missionschool at Nifilolihad to be
abandoned because of depopulation
and disaffectionof the local people.
The school was moved to the north
coastof Santa Cruz Island, and not long
after this, both the islands of Nifiloli
and Nukapu were abandoned, the people going to live on Pileni. Only in the
last generationhave these two islands
been resettled,and this was done by
Pileni people, descendantsof the origi401

nal occupants.This is whythe threeislands, Nukapu, Pileni, and Nifiloli,

share the same dialect at this time,but
this seems to have been true even before. Rather than calling the language
of the Main Reef Islands, Nifiloli, it
would be betterto name it Reef IslandSanta Cruz (RI-SC).
Santa Cruz Island, fromwhich the
whole group takes its European name,
can be said to have threelanguages,but
this needs some clarification.The most
extensiveof these languages is spoken
throughout 26 villages distributed
along the entire northand west coasts
as well as along a portion of the south
coast as far east as the bay and village
marked Nea on the charts. Speakers
numberabout 2,004,and the language
contains no less than ten distinctdialects, including those listed by Ray
(1926b: 447) as Nelua and Te Motu
(Trevanion Is.). The dialectrecordedby
Codrington (1885: 39-52, 53-251 passim) may be that of Nelua, site of the
firstmission school on the island and
immediate successor to the original
school established on Nifiloli. The
Nelua district has been completely
abandoned for many years now, its
speakers dispersed through other districts and dialects along the north
coast. Informantssay the formerNelua
dialect was closest to that used in the
presentdistrictof Neo on Temotui(Te
Motu or Trevanion Is.), an islet just
offthe northwestcornerof Santa Cruz
Island. At least threeother dialects of
thislanguage have ceased to be used in
the past twentyyears,although there
are a few individuals living in the
denselypopulated area around Graciosa
Bay who mayknowthemstill.The most
appropriate name for this, the largest
dialect group of Santa Cruz Island,
Cruz (NWwould be North-West-Santa

A thirdlanguage with 171 speakersis

a single dialect spoken in the two remaining villages of the island located
along the easternportion of the south
coast.The obviousname forthisdialect
is South-East-Santa
Cruz (SE-SC).
Codrington (1885: 16) found Santa
Cruz to be "exceptional" when compared with the other MN languages
with which he worked; Elbert (1958:
verbal communication)has questioned
its relationshipto AN; Fox (1958: 204)
considersSC to be NAN; and Wurm
(according to Capell above and also
verballyto thiswriter)has classifiedRISC as NAN. This would seem to settle
thestatusof SC withrespectto AN and
negates Grace's (1955) hesitantplacing
of it in his tentativesubgroupingsof
"Eastern Malayo-Polynesian," which,
accordingto Dyen (1962), doesn't exist
anyway.On the basis of the temporary
NAN category,SC is its most easterly
representative,
and while it has not as
yetbeen relatedto any otherlanguages,
correspondences
witha numberof items
on Greenberg's unpublished list of
"Indo-PacificEtymologies"do seem encouraging.The lexicostatisticrelationshipsamongSC languages,accordingto
the 200-word Swadesh list, are summarized below. Proportions represent

probable cognates.

NW1-SC
(Banuia dialect)
NW'

NW2
SC
SE

AR
AB
AT

.17
-

.16
.18
-

.16
.27
.31

It can be seen thataccordingto these

proportionsof sharedlexicon, the Utupuan languages as a group seem to be
verylittlecloserto Mota (MT) than to
Arosi(AR), althoughtheyare geographically much closer to the former,and
the relationship of AR to MT is of
roughlythe same order of magnitude.
To each other the Utupuan languages
have variable relationships; the most
distantpair,Aba (AB) and Atago (AT),
is of the same order of separation as
MT and AR which are geographically
farremoved,and the closestpair,Atago
(AT) and Apako (AP), correspondto
the two mergedvillages.
On Vanikoro Island, 20 miles south
of Utupua, a single language is now
spoken by its 125 inhabitantswho live
in fivehamletsand villages.Informants
say that the language now spoken over
the whole island was formerly
confined
to the northeastpart of themain island
and the off-lying
islet Tevai, site of
the main village today. Formerly,two

NW2-SC
SC-SC
SE-SC
(Nea dialect) (Noole dialect)
.69
.59
.55
_
.68
.53

Forty-fivemiles southeast of Santa

Cruz Island lies Utupua, where three
languages were spoken beforedepopulation caused the abandonment of all
but twovillages.Two of theselanguages
SC).
are still viable and are spoken in the
A second language of 341 speakersis two remaining settlements.The local
used in the threevillagesof Cape Men- names for thesevillages are Aba (Nimdafia, located near the central part of bau on the charts; 119 persons) and
the south coast of Santa Cruz Island, Apako (Asimboa on the charts;53 perand their offshootvillage on the islet sons). The thirdlanguage, firstspoken
of TemotfiNoi (Lord Howe Is., but not in thevillage of Atago (Tanabili on the
the Ontong Java-Lord Howe Is. men- charts),survivesonly with a few speaktionedabove) just to theeast. There are ers who now live in and speak the lanonly minor dialect differenceswithin guage of Apako. The Utupuan lanthissmall group,and the most suitable guage describedby Ray (1926b: 461-69)
name for it would be South-Central- is clearlyidentifiableas Apako, and this
Santa Cruz (SC-SC). NW-SC and SC-SC is furthersubstantiatedby the factthat
actually form a single, multi-dialect he mentionsthe village of "Asibuo" in
speech community,whose extremedia- his text.Anotherfragmentary
word list
lects are not mutuallyintelligible,and
he also uses, but which was collected
thus, are mentioned here as two lan- earlierby someone else and mentioned
guages instead of one. For example, as coming from"Tupua," seems to be
speakersof the four Graciosa Bay dia- Atago. The classificationof these lanlects of NW-SC cannot understand guages as AN is justified.Lexical comSC-SC speakers,yet each of these,with parisonsof all threeUtupuan languages
somediffculty,
can conversewithspeak- with each otherand with Mota, Banks
ers of districtdialects located between Islands and Arosi, San Cristoval(Solothem.
mons) by means of the 200-wordSwa402

desh list yields the followingproportionsof probable cognates:

AP
AR
AB
AT
.20
MT
.19
.20
.22

.56
-

RI-SC
.28
.24

.25
.27

otherpartially-intelligible
dialectswere
spokenin the southeasternand western
parts of the main island, but these are
now extinct.Unfortunately,
I was not
able to get completelexical listsduring
mybriefstayon Vanikoro.Presumably,
the dialect described by Ray (1926b:
455-61) is one of theextinctdialects,for
veryfew of the lexical items he gives
correspondto the fewI managed to record. Informants claimed that the
nearly-extinct
Atago language of Utupua was "veryclose" to Vanikoro dialects, but this cannot be substantiated
by the lexical listsin hand. In any case,
there seems to be no reason to doubt
Ray's inclusion of Vanikoro in MN.
Even withonly one Vanikoro language
thisbringsthe total to nine languages,
belongingto PN, MN, and NAN stocks,
spoken in the Santa Cruz Group by a
populationof less than7,000persons.
By

ISIDORE DYEN*

[New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. 16.3.62]

Capell's interestingreview of the
stateof Malayopolynesianstudiesis extensiveand thoroughin manyrespects,
but understandablycan not be expected
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

to please all. Some of the attitudesare

reminiscentof theoreticalviews abandoned by the foremostcomparatistsof
the late nineteenthand earlytwentieth
centuries.At the same time,views presentedat theTenth PacificScienceCongresswere apparentlyreceived too late
to be entered.
The need for accurately described
Oceanic languageswill be withus fora
long time. The large number of languages constitutesa monumental task
in description.In fact,theOceanistsare
racingwithdeath-the death of manyof
these numerous languages spoken by
verysmall communities.As the opportunitiesand advantagesof communicating withspeakersof languagesof wider
range increase for such groups, these
groups can be expected to begin to
diminish.
There is, nevertheless,an important
considerationwhich directsus to consider the internal classificationof the
Malayopolynesian languages even beforefinishingthe descriptionof all the
members. Aside from improving our
understandingof the development of
these languages, a classificationcan
functionto indicate the relativelymore
diverselanguages and thus suggestprioritiesin researchprograms.
What concernsus in subgroupingis
the evidence that bears on the degree
of relationshipbetween each tripletof
related languages.If, forany threelanguages of a family,we can specifythat
(1) theyare equally related or (2) two
are morecloselyrelatedwitheach other
than with a third, then a family-tree
diagramcan be drawn.
The evidence that bears on the distinction between these two arrangements is essentiallynot differentfrom
thatby whichthe determinationof the
relationshipbetweenlanguagesis made.
Evidence of genetic relationship between languages in principle takes the
formof (approximately)systematically
correspondingmorph sequences. Sometimes a few of these, like suppletive
morphs and even less irregularalternants and/orcollectionsof functionally
centralmorphs(affixes,
pronouns,relational words [prepositions, conjuncto make a convinctions]) are sufficient
ing argument against the probability
that the observed systematically
correspondingmorphsequencescould be due
to a combinationof chance and borrow-

ing.

However,a determinationthat three

languages are probably about equally
related to each other or two are probably more closelyrelated to each other
than to a thirdcan be made on thebasis
of a selected list of basic vocabulary.
The use of such a procedure has the
advantages (1) of requiring consideration of relativelysmall amounts of inVol. 3 -No. 4 - October1962

Capell:

formationthat can be relativelyeasily

acquired, (2) of makingit possible that
large partsof the processingof the materialcan be turnedoverto non-experts,
and (3) of avoiding decisions based on
controversialfinepoints.
In weighingevidence it is important
to keep relevance in mind. For example, the retentionof an archaic feature
does not make one language older than
the languagescoordinatelyrelatedto it.
If coordinatelanguagesare simplyvarying developmentsof the same original
in
language, therecan be no difference
age unlessobservationsare takenat different times. Thus, if Futuna-Aniwa
is Polynesian,it cannot be older than
another Polynesian language; it can
only be more closely related to some
Polynesianlanguages than to othersor
equally related to all. The same applies
to Sikayana.
One of the powerful conceptions
pressed by Meillet was the presistence
of a language as a unique entity.His
postulate was: There are no mixed lan-

guages. If languages do not mix, then

each language representsa continuous
unique historicaldevelopment.In its
earlierperiods,thisdevelopmentis perhaps identicalwith thatof the development of one or more of the languages. For such collectionsof unique
developmentswithpartlyidenticaleardiagram is
lier periods, the family-tree
commonlyused. However, once it is a
distinct entity,a language can never
lose thisdistinctness;if it does not persist as an entity,it simply disappears
entirely,by losing all of its speakers.A
paraphrase of Meillet's dogma is as

follows: Once a language is discrete, it

is always discrete.

In thisview certaincaveatsare in order. The firstis thatdialectsof the same

language are not discreteand are thereas
forenot subjectto thesame strictures
different
languages.The second is that
elementsof one language can be borrowedby another,but not to the extent
of concealing the relationshipof the
borrower.Finally, that if less than all
of the material of languages is examined, to thatextenterrorscan be made
in determiningrelationships;these errors can be correctedby a more thorough study,providedthatthe necessary
materialbecomes available.
To the extent that the absolute natureof the principlethatlanguages do
not mix is ignored,it becomesless possible to classifylanguagesgenetically.If
languagesmix, thenany numberof differentcrossesbecome possible and genetic classificationbecomes a matterof
whim-or at best a result obtained by
simple counting.Under thiscondition,
a different
basis of classificationwould

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

be moreinteresting.
Just as a language is discrete, the
membershipof a subgroup is discrete;
each of the languagesof a familywhich
has morethanone coordinatesubgroup
belongs to one and only one of the
coordinate subgroups.The coordinate
subgroupsare non-overlappingand exhaustive.The reason forthisis thatcoordinate subgroups representco-existing languages. Since languages are
discrete and non-combinative,dual
membershipin coordinatesubgroupsis
logicallyimpossible.This is not to say,
of course,that thereare not conditions
in which doubt is the better part of
decision.
It is, thus,impossibleto say that the
traditionalclassification
of MN and PN
as coordinateis "valid" and, at the same
time, to say (parenthetically)that "the
natureof the relationshipsbetweenthe
two, and among the subgroupswithin
each are still left undefined;" for the
classificationitself specifies precisely
these relationships.Nor is it possible
for contemporaneoussubgroups to be
in the relationof motherand daughter,
no matterhow this figureof speech is
employed; theycannot be "related to
each other as Sanskritand the modern
Aryan language of India." Sanskritis
contemporaneous with the modern
Indic languages only in the mouthsof
thosewho use it as a second language.
Sanskritas a language of firstspeakers
literallybecame the modern Indic languages; the similarityto the motherdaughterrelationshipis illusoryin that
it appears possible to say that Sanskrit
"gave birth" to the "daughter" languages. But, in fact, Sanskrit never
ceased to exist,nor did the "daughter"
languagehave an inceptionexceptto be
distinguishedfromsomeotherdaughter
language.
A betterbiological analogy is offered
by the principle of binary fissionby
which unicellular animals reproduce.
For the "daughter" animals are both
continuationsof the original cell; on
the other hand, theyare not the same
as the original cell. If we call the original cell the "mother"and the new cells
resultingfrombinaryfission"daughter"
cells,thenwe have a moreexact analogy
with the way in which languages appear to multiply.The analogy will operate better,however,if it is kept in
mind that(1) plural ratherthan binary
fissionis not uncommon in language
"reproduction,"presumablybecause of
our inability to distinguishthe order
of "simultaneous" splits; and (2) the
time it takes for a cell to reproduceis
normallyalmost infinitesimalin relation to the timeit takes fora language
to become two or more languages.
403

Similarly,the possible relations between MN and PN are not (1) subfamiliesor (2) motherand daughter,as
implied by Capell, but rather (1) coordinatesubgroups,(2) PN a memberof
a subgroupMN, (3) PN a memberof a
subgroupotherthan the subgroupMN,
(4) PN coordinate with differentMN
languages,MN not being a subgroupof
Malayopolynesian.It would also be possible forMN to be a memberof PN, but
no one suggeststhis,evidentlybecause
the Polynesianlanguages are so similar
to each other that intuitivelyno subgroup is conceivable that contains a
non-Polynesianlanguage and less than
all of thePolynesianlanguages.
If then thereare two MN languages
whose differencefromeach other is as
greatas theirrespectivedifferences
from
any Polynesianlanguage,PN cannot be
coordinate with MN. In that case (1)
PN is subordinateeither to MN or to
some other subgroup of Malayopolynesian, or (2) MVNis not a subgroup
containing the two MVNlanguages coordinate with PN.
Only Kahler proposesthatPN should
be linked directlywith IN. If so, it
seemsat firstglancemorelikelythatthis
should be with IN as a whole, for in
general the IN languages appear to be
lessdifferent
fromeach otherthan from
Polynesian. But we may ask whether
there are not MN languages that are
just as differentfrom IN as PN, and
perhapsjust as close. If Fiji is as distant
fromand as similarto IN as Polynesian
languages,it is morelikelythatPN and
Fiji are coordinatewitheach otherand
IN, or thatPN is to be subgroupedwith
Fiji, as Grace maintains. We shall,
rule out possibility3, though,
therefore,
to be sure,we have not investigatedall
of its variants;but then,no othervariant has been suggested.
Possibility2 differsfrompossibility4
essentiallyin regard to the nature of
MN. If MN is in fact a subgroup coordinatewith IN, then the second possibilitymightappear morelikely,otherwise the fourth.But Loukotka has proposed "the languagesof New Caledonia
and the Loyalty Islands, as well as
Aneityumin the southernNew Hebrides,as "NAN." If one does not agree
with this propositionbut, on the contrary,assertsthat these languages are
Malayopolynesian,it neverthelessfollows that the great differencebetween
these languages and all other Malayopolynesian languages has been recognized by inspection.For of these languages Capell mustsay:

regarded the Loyalty Island languages as

occurred.There are alreadyreportsthat
especially troublesome to place. Ray . . .
some native speakers of Melanesian
was of the same opinion. Structurally,
Pidgin are now to be found. In that
however, as well as in a portion of the
event,the historyof Melanesian Pidgin
vocabulary, they are AN. A better case
mightbe made out forregardingthe Tanna
would more or less exactly represent
languages as NAN, but even Loukotka does
the imagined origin of the various
not do this. A subdivision of "Semi-AN"
Melanesian languages.
appears to be called for.

But if pidginizationof Malayopolynesian or of a particular Malayopolynesian language is to explain the diversityof the Melanesian languages,it
mustbe coupled withan explanationof
the lack of similaritybetween the languages themselves.The theoryof pidginizationwould require forits effectiveness that at some period a more or less
uniform Malayopolynesian language
spread throughthe islandsand over the
large sections.This can be called the
period of uniformity.In order to explain the present diversityof the languages, this uniformlanguage must be
allowed to diversify.
One should distinguishthis pidginization theory from Ray's theory (at
least as it is expressed in 1926a: 25).
Ray's theoryexplains the diversityin
the Melanesian area by positingan invasionof Malayopolynesianswhoserelativelyuniformlanguage is stillreflected
in the factthatmanywordsin the basic
vocabulariesof the different
languages
are cognate.It was clearlyRay's intention to implythatthe diversitywas due
to the Papuan substratumto the Malayopolynesianinvasion; linguisticsupport forsuch a substratum,
however,is
not based on cognate words. Consequently,Ray's hypothesisturnsout to
be an explanation of the fact that in
Melanesia we find Malayopolynesian
languages spoken by people whose
physicaltype is differentfromthat of
the Indonesians. There are strongreasons againstexplaininglinguisticdifferences by hypothesesregardingthe origin of physicaltypes.
The pidginization hypothesis performsthe same functionas Ray's. It has
the disadvantageof committingits supreason to consider seriously the possiporter to an ancient Melanesian combilitythatMN is not a subgroupof MP,
munication systemwhose extent and
but merelya geographicaldesignation. densitywould have to be greaterthan
The only possible escape appears to be
ancient Rome's. As under Ray's hytheexplanationof thegreatdiversityof pothesis, the present diversitywould
MN languages as due to pidginization. have to be explained as the natural diThe hypothesisofpidginizationis un- versificationof an originallyuniform
tenable. It takes Melanesian Pidgin language, here regarded as a pidgin.
English as its model. In Melanesian Unless the hypothetical pidgin was
Pidgin, the language of a culturally more or less uniformit could not perdominant group has been reshaped at form its assigned function of a comleastpartlyto agreewiththesyntaxand
mon language. Unless the uniformlanphonology of a dominated group or guage became diverse, the hypothesis
groups, and is indeed currentin the cannot explain the presentstate of afsame area in which a pidginizationof fairs.
Malayopolynesianis supposed to have
All these languages diverge very widely
One cannot escape the feeling that
from the AN, but do contain an AN elethe proposal of the pidginization hyI
ment sufficiently
large to justify grouping
Duplicated Report submitted in Tripothesisarisesfromtheassumptionthat
them with those languages. They have
InstitutionalPacific Program entitledProof a pidgin proceeds
been sources of difficultyto all classifiers visional Genetic Tables of the Austrone- the diversification
of Oceanic languages, and Codrington . . .
sian Languages.
morerapidlythan thatof a non-pidgin.
404

It is impossibleto solve the problem

presentedby theLoyaltyand New Caledonia languages by settingup a subdivision of "Semi-AN," except to the
extent that this becomes a pigeon-hole
forlanguages thathave not been classified.A language is either Malayopolynesian or it is not. It cannot be halfMalayopolynesian.
These various authoritiesseem,however, to be agreed that the languages
in the New Caledonia area are among
the most divergentof the Malayopolynesian languages. If they are included
in the MN subgroup, the subgroup
must be regarded as containing languageswhichdiffer(genetically)among
themselvesmore than some MN languages differfromnon-MN languages.
This is a classificatorycontradiction
whichis painfuland unnecessary.If the
position of the New Caledonia area
(NCA) languages could be maintained,
then the consequence would inevitably
be that all of the non-NCA languages
would appear to constitutea subgroup
thatwas coordinatewith the NCA languages, if not constitutinga subgroup
withone of them.
This, in effect,was the conclusion I
reached in 19601 independentlyon the
basis of a pilot lexicostatisticalclassification of the Malayopolynesian languages. Since then the introductionof
additional languages,particularlyfrom
eastern New Guinea and New Britain
has suggestedthat the area of the most
diverse languages, though clearly in
Melanesia and easternNew Guinea, is
more likely to be located in the New
Britainarea thanin NCA.
In either case, there appears to be

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

This is an assumption,for there is no

evidenceby whichwe could distinguish
of a pidgin fromthat
the diversification
of a non-pidgin.The changesof a language fromstage a to stage b are completelydescribablein termsof its state
at stagea withoutreferenceto any stage
prior to a. It would thereforeappear
thatthe factthata language originated
as a pidgin would provide no reasonable explanation for the fact that diversitybetween some Melanesian languages is as great as the diversity
between those Melanesian languages
and non-Melanesianlanguages. Hence,
even if the original uniformlanguage,
which is hypotheticallya pidgin, were
not a pidgin, the same course of development would be expected. It thus
turnsout that the necessityof positing
thatthe uniformlanguage was a pidgin
arises fromthe hypothesisthat the origin of Malayopolynesian is from the
Asian mainland.
It is, however,a necessaryinference
from the facts that the Malayopolynesians stem from the mainland? Althoughman in the Pacificperhapsnecessarilystemsfromthe mainland, there
is no reason at this time to conclude
that the spread of Malayopolynesian
speakers in the islands was identical
with the comingof man to the islands,
even thoughthismightbe trueforparticularislands,as in Polynesia.In view
of currentevidence,it is not at all inconceivable that the Malayopolynesians were in Melanesia before they
reached Surnatra,i.e. if theyoriginated
in the Melanesian area.
A Melanesian origin of the Malayopolynesians explains immediatelythe
great diversityof languages in Melanesia. It agrees that the fact-well
known-that the languages of Western
Indonesia and most,if not all, of the
languages in the Philippines constitute
a single group.
It is now implied that Polynesiawas
settledultimatelyfromMelanesia. But
where then was the Polynesian homeland? There appears to be good reason
to place it in the east. The outliers
would then constituteseparate migrations from the large continuous complex formedby Western and Eastern
Polynesian together. My own work
agrees with Elbert's in implyingthat
Eastern Polynesian, Western Polynesian, and Kapingamarangiare coordinate with each other.To thisset must,
however,be added Nukuoro. There is,
of course, the possibilitythat one or
more of the outliersin Melanesia (e.g.
Mele-Fila, New Hebrides Futuna) do
not belong to Western Polynesian (as
Tikopia, Rennell, Ongtong Java do,
and probablyalso Pileni) and theywill
then increasethe numberof independent membersof the Polynesian group.
Vol. 3 *No. I *October1962

Capell:

Provided, however,that none of these

constitutea coordinateof all of the rest
of the Polynesianstaken togetherand
no two (or more) of these outlierscan
be regarded as constitutinga continuity, the conclusion appears inevitable
thatthevariousoutliershave come from
the east.
The precedingdiscussionimpliesthat
the othersconstitutemigrationsat different periods. Kapingamarangi and
Nukuoro apparentlywere settledabout
the time when Western and Eastern
Polynesian had perhaps barely begun
to diverge.The validityof thishypothesis could be affectedonlybydiscovering
outliers coordinate with Eastern and
Westerntaken as a unit.
Finally, I feel that Leonard Bloomfield'sTagalog Texts withGrammatical
Analysis should be mentioned in the
bibliography.
By

SAMUEL

H.

ELBERT*

[Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 12.3.62]

My remarkswill be confinedin general to the linguisticposition of the
Polynesian Outlier languages. Capell
suggeststhat some of the Outliers may
be colonies leftbehind duringthe eastward movementof the Polynesiansand
are therefore
older than eitherthewestern or easternPN languages.One argumentthathe offersis thatMele-Fila and
Mae distinguish/1/and /r/phonemes,
a distinctionthatI suggestedin 1953 as
PPN. In that paper I was not considering the Outliers,but noted quite a few
examples in Polynesia proper of zero
in Tongan correspondingto /1/ in
Samoan, /1/ or /r/ in EPN, /r/ in
Trukese,/r/or /dr/in Fijian, and /d/
and /d/in Dempwolff's
reconstructions.
For this correspondence I suggested
PPN /r/.(Examples include words for
after,branch, lake or water, leaf, lobster, torch, two.) The Mele-Fila and
Mae reflexesin such correspondences
as are available to me are all /r/.Some
of the Mele-Fila wordswith /1/are obvious borrowings(as lotu, "Christian
religion") or are non-Polynesian (as
tonlake, "because"). An l/r phonemic
distinctiondoes existin theselanguages,
as Capell pointsout, but thedistinction
does not correspondwith the suggested
PPN l/r distinctionand probably developed after the languages had separated fromotherPN speech.
One of the interestingaspectsof the
Outlier languages is that some of them
(including Mele-Fila) have acquired
phonemes without correspondencesin
Polynesia proper,or in any earlier reconstructionsthus far posited. I have
described the Kapingamarangiphonemic distinctionof aspiratedversusunaspiratedstopsand voiced versusvoice-

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

less liquids, and the phonemeswritten

/gh/ and /1/in Rennellese. My field
notes indicate Pileni contrastssimilar
to those in Kapingamarangi,and /ni/
in Uvean in the LoyaltyIslands.
Study of such phonemic expansions
may shed light on the nature of bilingualism. In the Outliers in the New
Hebrides, Loyalty, and Reef Islands,
bilingualsare numerous,as is race mixture. Has language change been faster
here? Or otherwisestated: is the incidence of borrowingso large as to unvalidate glottochronologicalcomparisons?
If the New Hebrides Outliersare indeed pre-Polynesian,as suggested by
Capell, one mightexpect themto share
phonologicaland grammaticalelements
with the languagesmostcloselyrelated
to Polynesian,and show lexicostatistic
I am not now in a position to
affinities.
commenton grammar,but will briefly
discuss phonology and lexicostatistics.
Grace has indicated(1959) thatFijian
and Rotuman are the languages most
closelyrelatedto Polynesian,and Goodenough (1961) argues that the Nakanai
languages of New Britain are even
closerthan is Rotuman to Grace's New
Hebrides-Banks subgroup of Eastern
Malayopolynesian. These Melanesian
languages differfromPolynesian by a
contrastof voiced prenasalized versus
voicelessoral stops that reflectsan earlier contrast.That thisdistinctionis not
maintained in the Outliers mitigates
against an ancient statusfor them.
Even harder on a pre-Polynesian
theoryis that the Outliers share the
of Samoan vis-'a-vis
Tonsimplifications
gan (and, sporadically, Uvean, East
Futunan, and Rennellese), especially
the lack of reflexeson PPN /h/ and
/'/ (tai versus tahi "ocean," ua versus
'uha "rain,"fiaversusfiha"how many"),
as well as the l/r distinctionalready
mentioned.
Preliminarylexicostatisticalcomparisons of the 164 Mele-Fila basic words
available in Honolulu have been made,
using an adaptation of the technique
recentlyproposed by Grace (1961b, a
notable methodologicaladvance), and
much of his data. (It is hoped that future writerswill, like Grace, publish
their data.) I am indebted to Clayton
Carlson and Fred Kalani Meinecke for
assistance in the computations.MeleFila percentagesof sharedwordsfollow,
each percentage being the average of
four percentages obtained by use of
Grace's fourmethodsof computations:
Samoan 43; Tongan 40; Fijian 26;
Rotuman24; Sa'a 22.
It is apparentthatlexicostatistic
computationsconfirmthe findingsbased on
phonology.Mele-Filais somewhatcloser
405

to Samoan than to Tongan, and is

widely separated fromthe Melanesian
languages under review.
As previously stated, east to west
backward migrations are posited by
Goodenough for the Nakanai of New
Britain. Goodenough strengthenshis
case by citingAndrewSharp's theoryof
accidentalsettlements,
and suggeststhat
such movements,abetted by winds and
currents,have been a continuingprocess, of which the Polynesian Outliers
are a manifestation
much laterthan the
backwardmovementsof theancestorsof
the Nakanai. Still later manifestations
are today'scastaways.
The Outliers are not the result of a
single or of merelyseveral migrations.
Each Outlier has its own history,the
unravellingof which is complicatedby
some intercommunicationwith other
Outliers, as well as with Melanesian
languages.
May these comments end with a
cheerfulnote.Descriptivetechniquesin
the Pacifichave recentlybeen advanced
by Biggs' Maori study (1961). In comparative work, too, the Still Ocean is
still no more. Since the preparationof
Capell's paper, otherimportantarticles
have appeared or I understandare to
appear by Goodenough, Milke, Grace,
and Dyen, attesting,indeed, to a new
vitalityin Oceanic studies.
By WARD H. GOODENOUGH*
[Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. 3.3.62]
As Capell's paper reveals all too
clearly,there has been a great deal of
speculation and too little systematic
workto date in Oceanic linguisticstudy.
The great majority of languages are
inadequatelydescribedor not described
at all. Only a fewdescriptionsapproach
the standardsof modern linguisticscience. More systematicefforts
to exploit
available materialshave often suffered
fromquestionableassumptionsor methodologies.
Amongthequestionableassumptions,
two deserve mention here. One, more
prevalentamong older workersthan it
is today, is that dark-skinnedMelanesians are and have always been culturallymore backwardthan the lighter
skinned peoples of Polynesia, Indonesia, and thePhilippines,and thatany
past contact there may have been between them involved a technologically
and sociologicallymore primitivepeople becomingmore or less acculturated
to a superior civilization. The other
equally questionable assumptionis that
everything in Oceania

came out of

Southeast Asia (or South China) with

nothinggoing back. To be sure, New

Guinea, Australia, and the larger islands of Melanesia were originally peopled from Southeast Asia, but initial
settlement occurred long before the
406

emergence of the AN (Austronesian) in MC languages,wheretheyremainin

phonemiccontrastwith both the labial
languages as a distinct family. Once
theseareas weresettled,thereis no rea- and velar phonemes.On theotherhand
son why they could not have become cognates fromIN languages show that
therethe labio-velarsfell togetherwith
centers of cultural development or a
the labial series,so thatDempwolffhad
source of movementwestwardinto Inno basis for reconstructing
them apart
donesia and Southeast Asia as well as
furthereastwardinto the outer Pacific. fromthe labials forPIN. In manyother
Indeed, the possibilitiesthat sugarcane Melanesian languages, this labio-velar
series has, as in IN, merged with the
was originallydomesticatedin the New
Guinea area raisesthequestionwhether labial series; in many othersit is prethe so-calledSoutheastAsiaticneolithic served,at least in part.
Ray (1926a), ignoring the MC lantraditionmay have had its origins in
northernMelanesia. Archaeologicalevi- guages, making the questionable assumptionsalreadynoted,and takingIN
dence fromSoutheastAsia and Oceania
showsnothingas yetthatwould contra- and PN as his point of reference,prodict this possibility.Whereverwe have posed to explain the problemsraised by
evidence, it appears that a mesolithic MN languages on the grounds either
culturewas abruptlyreplaced by a well that they resulted from a widespread
developed neolithic culture with adze pidginization of IN-PN languages by
typesreminiscentof adze formsfound NAN (Non-Austronesian)
speakers,who
in Oceania. Since the geographicaldis- impartedto thesepidginsmanyfeatures
tributionof theseneolithicculturesco- of theirformerNAN languages,or that
incides largelywith the distributionof theyresulted froma heavy borrowing
of IN-PN vocabularyinto what still reAN (or possibly a sub-familyof AN)
mained essentially NAN languages.
languages, the dual problems of AN
This is the positionfollowedby Capell,
and neolithic origins appear to be
closelyrelated. The archaeologicalevi- who dismissesHaudricourt's work, asto draw firm serting that labio-velars are phonetic
dence is too fragmentary
conclusions as yet. The point is that phenomenaalien to AN. But thereason
archaeologicallythereis no supportfor they appear alien is because he takes
the idea of a one-wayflowof peoples, IN-PN phonetic patternsas his standcultures,and languagesfromSoutheast ard forAN. He even goes so far as to
Asia eastwards,but thereare shredsof question theAN statusof both MC and
other evidence consistentwith the hy- MN languages,in spiteof thesolid work
west- on Trukese by Dyen (1949).
pothesisof a major counter-flow
Capell's argumentis contradictedby
wardsfromOceania.
The aforementionedquestionable as- the evidence from the PN languages
sumptionshave made it seem appropri- themselves.Overlooked by Dempwolff
ate to take the languages of Indonesia and everyoneelse is thepresenceof cogand the Philippines,as did Dempwolff nates in Fiji and PN showing that in
(1934-38), as a startingpoint forrecon- these languages the labio-velarsof MN
structing PAN (proto-Austronesian.) and MC mergedwiththe labials before
Actually,Dempwolffwas cautious, re- the vowels i (which shiftedto u), u, o,
constructing PIN (proto-Indonesian) but beforethevowelsa and e in mostof
and thenusinghis reconstruction
to see the dialects on Viti Levu, there is a
how well it accounted fora pair of PN
series of labio-velarskw, Ngw, Nw in
(Polynesian) languages and a pair of phonemiccontrastwiththe seriesk,Ng,
N (I am using N for the velar nasal).
MN (Melanesian) languages. His PIN
seemed to accountforthingsfairlywell, The labio-velarshave mergedwith the
and he concluded that his PIN could velar consonants(or what has become
also be taken as PAN. Had he applied
of them) in Vanua Levu and in the
to his PN and MN languages the same Mbau dialect,whichhas become stand"inductive" method he applied to the ard Fijian. In the dialectsin whichthey
IN languages,he would have had rea- occur,moreover,theyare foundin only
son to question this conclusion. And
a fewwords,in some fewerthan others,
had he selected a pair of MC (Micro- and appear to be on the way out, being
nesian) languages and a wider sample replaced by the competingformswith
of MN languages,he would have surely velar consonants(Schiutz,
personal comdiscoveredthat his PIN could not be
munication). They must, nevertheless,
equated withPAN.
be reconstructedfor proto-Fijian. All
To illustrate,Haudricourt(1951) has the Polynesian languages show exactly
demonstratedthat there are phoneme the same patternof correspondencesas
correspondencesin the MN languages do the Vanua Levu and Mbau dialects
of Northern New Caledonia (NNC)
of Fijian, with the addition that Ng
that require the reconstructionof a
has fallentogetherwithk. Thus, I have
labijo-velar series of consonants for been able to establish the following
proto-NNC. He observes that these table of contrastingcorrespondences
for
PNNC phonemescorrespondregularly Nandrongaa-Fiji (Na: Biggs 1953a),
with certainvelarized labial phonemes Mbau-Fiji (Mb; Capell 1941), Tonga
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

(To; Churchward 1959), Maori (Ma;

Williams 1957),Truk (Tr; Elbert 1947;
Dyen 1949), Gilberts (Gb; Bingham
1908), Sa'a (Sa; Ivens 1918), and Rotuma (Ro; Churchward1940):
Na
v
Labials
mb
m
kw/k
Labio-velars
(beforea, e) Ngw/Ng
Nw/N
k
Velars
Ng
N

Mb
v
mb
m
k
Ng
N
k
Ng
N

To
f
p
m
k
k
N
k
k
N

I cannotgive all the evidencehere.The

followingexamplesofsomeof thelabiovelar correspondences
will have to illustrate(the evidenceis poorestregarding
Na kw):
Na mbekwa,Mb mbeka,To peka "fruitbat," Ma pekapeka "bat."
Mb kai "bivalve," Tk pweej "pearl
shell,"pweji-ker"coconut-grater"
(lit.
"grateshell").
To kala "to be unavailing,unable," Ma
kara "old person," Tk pwaca-pwac
"wrinkled, loose, slack," Gb bwara
"loose, untied" (kara "old person" is
one ofmanyPN loans),Sa pwara "old
(of persons)," Ro par-para "weak,
limp,exhausted."
Na Ngwara, Mb Ngara "hold, cave,"
Tk pwara-n"(vulgar) her genital triangle."
Na Ngwele,Mb Ngele "earth,"To kele
"mud, dirt (as sediment),"Ma kere
"clay,earth,"Tk ppwyn,Gb bwon(i)
"soil, dirt."
Mb Ngaci "old (of yams),"To Nesi-no
"yam from previous season's crop,"
Sa mwadi-na"its old yamfromwhich
the new has grown,"Ro masi "kind
of yam."
Na sei-Nwane "boy," Mb, To, Ma taNane, Tk mwaan, Gb mwaane, Sa
mwane,"man, male;" Mb Nane "sibling of opposite sex," To tuo-Na'ane
"brother(of woman)," Tk mwddni-n
"her brother,"Gb mwanne "sibling
of opposite sex."
To uNa "take shelter"Tk jimwa-n,Gb
umwa-na"his house."
No substratumtheorycan account for
thesecorrespondences.We mustreconstructlabio-velarsfor PAN, and if this
is contraryto our preconceptionsabout
PAN phonology,then our preconceptionshave been wrong.
Capell's argumentthatthebulk of reconstructedPAN vocabularyis foundin
IN languages with only a limited portion of it appearing in MN, MC, and
PN languages,furtherinvolvesthe falVol. 3 -No. 4 - October1962

Capell:

lacy of usingIN as the yardstick.There

is a common vocabulary in MN, MC,
and PN languages thatis not preserved
Ma
wh
p
m
k
k
N
k
k
N

Tk
f
p
m
pw
pw
mw
k/O
0
N

Gb
0
b
m
bw
bw
mw
k
0
N

Sa
h
p
m
pw
pw
mw
"
k
N

Ro
h
p
m
p
p
m
"
k
N

in IN, but thishas been ignoredin reconstructionsof PAN. Within MC languagesalone, thereis,of course,a broad
base of common vocabulary,much of
which is peculiar to MC. If we took
PMC as equivalent to PAN it would
similarlyappear that only a small portion of PAN vocabularywas preserved
in IN, PN, and MN.
We mustconclude thatthe pidginization theoryof MN languages restson
wrongassumptionsand faultymethodology.Indeed, we Oceanists,manyof us
unfamiliarwiththe methodologicallessons learned fromIndo-European studies, have tended to repeat the mistakes of early Indo-Europeanists,who
wronglyassumed for a time that they
could use Sanskritas the yardstickfor
proto-Indo-European.
This bringsme to the general problem of method. The analogy Capell
draws between comparativelinguistics
and comparativeanatomy,invokingLe
Gros Clark's dictum about "total morphologicalpatterns,"is misleading.The
comparativemethod is concernedwith
overall patterns; Capell places structural or grammaticalpatternahead of
phonological pattern,whereas the experience of Indo-Europeanistsis that
phonological patterningis a more reliable criterionof genetic relationship.
Grammaticalstructuralsimilarities,in
the absence of other clues, are suggestiveof possiblegeneticrelationship,but
theydo not demonstrateit. We would
not classifymodernEnglish and Classical Latin or Greek togetheras typologically similar in grammaticalstructure. Relationships as determinedby
grammaticaltypologyoftenfail to correspond with relationships as determined by the establishedcomparative
method, which independent evidence,
when available, invariablyhas shownto
be the more reliable indicator of genetic relationship. The comparative
method holds that two languages are
geneticallyrelated when it is possible

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

to set up valid formulaeof phoneme

correspondenceso thatwhen applied to
the morphsof one language theyproduce similar morphsof closelysimilar
meaning in the other language in sufficientquantityto precludechance.The
table of correspondencesgiven above is
an example of such a formulaby which
the morphs of one language can be
mapped into themorphsof another.To
do this requires correspondence formulae for all of the phonemesof each
language, involving a "total morphological pattern"of a high orderof complexityindeed.
It sometimeshappens, of course,that
two languages, when compared, show
not one but two complementary
setsof
sound correspondences,often revealed
by the presenceof "doublets" in one of
the languages,e.g. the English doublets
borough and burg, both cognate with
German Burg, and English yard and
garden, both cognate with German
Garten. Double series of correspondences, reinforcedby occasional doublets, are strongevidence that the language exhibiting them has borrowed
a portionof itsvocabularyat some time
from another related language, which
may or may not be the language with
which it is being compared. The socalled basic vocabulary, dealing with
everydaymattersof the sort that children learn early in life in the context
of domesticaffairs,tends to be less disturbedbythecontactsituationsproducing loan words (compare,for example,
the Germanic content of English vocabularywith its Norman French content). It is usually possible, therefore,
to inferwhich of the two correspondence series representsthe more recent
borrowing.Often the phonological evidence itselfhelps to make thisclear.
Population movements in Oceania
seem to have contributedto complex
patternsof borrowingamong AN languagesas well as betweenAN and NAN
languages. The results of borrowing
must be carefully assessed when attemptingto determinethe position of
a language in a familyor sub-family.
The recent workof Grace (1959) illustrates the problem well. Grace notes
that Rotuman contains two setsof correspondenceswithPN languages,buthe
does not systematically
explore thematter. He properlyobservesthat in comparison with other languages, the correspondingphonomesin Rotuman and
WesternPolynesianare such thatmany
loanwordsfromWesternPolynesianin
Rotuman would be indistinguishable
fromolder Rotuman formswhichwere
not borrowed from Polynesian. Only
forsomephonemesis therea detectable
difference,
produlcingtwo sets of corre407

The Rotuman example illustrates appears to be Fijian. (7) The exactposione of the major failingsof compara- tion of Rotuman has been incorrectly
assessedand needs to be reassessed.(8)
tivestudyin Oceanic linguisticsto date:
We need a lot of competentlinguistic
workwith close attentionto detail just
Rotuma I
Rotuma II
Samoa
Tonga
Fiji
about everywhere.
f
f
h
v
f
t
f
t
t
t/s
By GEORGE W. GRACE*
t
t
t/s
t
nd
[Carbondale,Illinois, U.S.A. 22.2.62]
r
1
1
1
1
It is appropriate that this article
r
r
r
1
1
shouldhave been writtenby Capell. His
ff
0
0
~~0
firsthandexperience with and knowlk
k
k
edge of languages throughoutOceania
k
k
k
Ng
is unsurpassed.That I find myselfin
disagreementon a number of points,
large and small, reflectsabove all the
Rotuman words that show correspond- the lack of detailed comparisonsand
withineach of the sub- rudimentarystate of descriptiveand
ences distinctiveof set I forone of their reconstructions
phonemesdo not showcorrespondences groupings of closely related AN lan- comparativelinguisticsin the area. I
distinctiveof set II foranotherof their guages. We have tended to show how will not attemptto commenton all of
phonemes,the crucial test of the fact specificlanguagesrelate to Dempwolff's the points of disagreement,but rather
that we are actuallydealing with com- PAN, but we have not workedout the will confinemyselfto briefremarkson
withinlocal groupings. a fewgeneral topics.
one
correspondences
plementarysetsof correspondences,
Firstof all, I should commenton my
ofwhichrepresentsborrowing.Anycog- Only by doing the latter,however,can
nate wordsthatdo not have phonemes we discoverthe loanwords,resolve the own position as regards Austronesian
linguistic classification.It is perhaps
problems posed by "doublets," and
in sets I and II for a
that are different
given correspondenceobviouslycannot systematicallycompile the evidence inevitable that I feel that certain of
Capell's referencesto my work might
be assignedto eithervocabularygroup. fromwhich inferencesabout Oceanic
From thosethatcan be assigned,we in- linguisticrelationshipsand prehistoric give a misleadingimpressionof my objectives and conclusions. Rather than
movementscan be cogentlydrawn.
fer that the amount of borrowingin
Finally, no discussionof the present reviewthe latterhere,I will simplyreRotuman was sizable, that it is reprefer the reader to the brief summary
sented by the portion of vocabulary status of Oceanic linguistics can be
with distinctiveset II correspondences, complete withoutmention of the pre- given in Grace 1961a. With regard to
results,I would like
and that it came froma West Polyne- liminaryresultsof Dyen's (1962) mas- mylexicostatistical
sian source.Presumablythe ambiguous sive lexicostatisticalsurveyof AN lan- to explain that I have not intended to
portion of the Rotuman vocabulary guages. Although it does not provide suggest that the time depths which I
contains a proportional number of conclusiveevidence as to how AN lan- offered represent actual divergence
loanwords from Polynesian, but we guagesclusterinto subgroups(too much times.I hope I have made this clearer
have no way of sortingthem out from phonologicalworkremainsto be done), in Grace 1961b (especiallyp. 2 and pp.
Only one of the words Dyen's workindicatestwothingsclearly. 5-7) than in the earlierstudy.I also renon-borrowings.
vocabulary One is that the evidence on which our main unconvinced that my lexicostaGrace selectsas representing
idea ofPAN has been constructedcomes tisticalresultsdo not tend to support
innovations shared by Rotuman and
froma faultysample of AN languages, my subgroupinghypothesis(see Grace
Polynesian is demonstrablynot a PN
morerepresentative
of a widelydistrib- 1961b, pp. 7-8).
loan, and thereis evidencethatthisone
withinAN than of AN
Capell devotesa greatdeal of space to
(Ro 'efe "belly") has in fact a wider uted sub-family
the problemof linguisticrelationships.
distribution(Dyen 1960). Thus, none of as a whole. The other is that the MN
Grace's vocabulary evidence supports languages are not a single division of This is appropriatebecause such problemshave alwayshad a prominentplace
his hypothesisthat Rotuman belongs AN but containa numberof major AN
withFijian and Polynesianin a special divisionswhich may well be as old as in the literatureand because of their
any anywhere.The MN languages can great importancein reconstructing
the
subdivisionof an easternbranchof AN
languages. Furthermore,lexicostatisti- no longerbe theunwantedstepchildren culturehistoryof the Pacific.However
of Austronesianstudies,but are of cru- it is apparent from Capell's detailed
cal comparisonsbetweenRotuman and
have
Polynesian must be suspect unless the cial importanceforthe adequate recon- summarythatvariousinvestigators
reached quite differentconclusions. I
large number of demonstrable Poly- structionof PAN.
can
nesian loans in Rotuman has been alWhat then are the conclusions that believe thatsome of the differences
lowed for. The phonological evidence I drawfromthecurrentstateof Oceanic be tracedto distinctconceptionsof the
of linguisticclasregardingthe labio-velarsshown above linguistics?(1) The traditionaldivision objectivesand strategy
also separates Rotuman sharply from of AN languagesinto IN, MN, MC, and sification.For thiskind of problem the
term "classification"is perhaps inapFijian and Polynesian. On the other PN is geneticallymisleading. (2) The
hand, Grace's thesisregardingthe lat- role of Melanesia in the historyof the propriate.
It is true that the problemsof deterter two languages is reinforcedby the Austronesianlanguages appears to be
phonological evidence.There is even a
centraland ancient,not peripheraland
miningwhichlanguagesare relatedand
possibility that phonologically proto- recent.(3) The pidginizationtheoryof in determiningthe familytree which
Polynesian will prove to be derivable MN languages is demonstrablyunten- best representsthe relativeclosenessof
froma dialect of Old Fijian, but such a
able. (4) A sound reconstruction
ofPAN
relationshipsamong languages are usuconclusionmustwait forcompletionof must give as much weight to the MN
ally referredto as problemsof "classithe comparativestudies of Fijian dia- and MC languagesas it does to the IN.
fication."However,a ratherspecialkind
lectsbyMilnerand Schiitz,now in proc- (5) A-labio-velarseries must be recon- of classificationis involved. In most
types of classification,individuals are
ess. There are, moreover, still some structedforPAN. (6) Polynesianis not
overlooked featuresof PN phonology a major division(exceptgeographically) assigned to the same class on the basis
of theAN languages;its nearestrelative of sharedattributes.However, two lanthat need furtherexamination.
spondences with occasional doublets.
The following,based on Churchward's
dictionary(1940), will illustrate.

408

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

guages could conceivablyshare no attribute beyond those general features

sharedbyall languagesand stillbe legitimately assigned to the same genetic
grouping.On the otherhand, a genetic
linguisticclassificationis subject to its
own special requirements;it must undertaketo explain thepresenceand distributionof at least a significantproportion of a particularset of phenomena, and the explanation must be in
historicalterms.What we are concerned
with is constructinga model representing the historicalrelationshipsamong
thelanguagesinvolved.The bestmodel
is the one which most successfullyaccounts for the distributionof all relevant linguisticfeaturesamong all relevant languages.It constitutesin factan
explanatory hypothesisrather than a
classification
in the usual acceptationof
the term.If the objective whichI have
describedis accepted,thestrategy
which
we followmust be appropriate to it. I
believe that one importantcorollaryis
thatin our presentstageof methodological advance, it will be impossible to
prescribea discoveryprocedure.
If I am right,our hope for progress
in determininglinguisticrelationships
mustdepend on two kinds of developments. First, we need to know more
about the processesof linguisticchange
and linguisticdifferentiation,
and secondly, we need a more consistentapplication of that knowledge which is
alreadyavailable. There are some indications that the languages of Oceania
might contribute significantlyto a
better theoryof linguisticchange and
differentiation.
Capell has mentioned the pidginization hypothesisof the origin of the
Melanesian languages. Although I feel
that that hypothesisis unfortunate,it
did arise in response to certain phenomena which appear to require explanation. First of all, there are those
facts which have led some to the assumptionthatsome of theAustronesian
languagesofMelanesia are moreAustronesian than others.To reject this particular interpretationof the factsdoes
not dispose of the factsthemselves.The
factis thatthereare manylanguagesin
Melanesia which show many recognizable cognates with most Austronesian
languages everywhere,while there are
otherlanguageswhich are generallyaccepted as Austronesianbut whichshow
very few recognizable cognates with
otherAustronesianlanguages.The languages of the lattercategoryconstitute
one of themostchallengingproblemsin
Oceanic linguistics today, and one
which mightconceivablyhave broader
theoretical implications. Various explanations of the problematicquality
of theselanguageshave been proposed.
It has been suggestedthat theyare the
Vol. 3 *No. 4* October1962

Capell:

product of contact between Austronesian and non-Austronesianlanguages

and contain,in fact,onlya limitedAustronesianSprachgut. It has been suggested that a betterknowledge of the
historical phonology of the relevant
languages is required beforewe can be
certain just what and how great the
problem is. Finally it has been suggested that the problematiclanguages
may be more remotelyrelated to the
better established Austronesian languages than we had supposed. (This
last suggestionwould appear to imply
the followingpicture: One grouping,
for which we might choose to reserve
the name "Austronesian,"would probably exclude many of the problematic
languages. However, some or all of
them would be included in a larger
family,of whichAustronesian,or whatever it should be called, would be a
subgroup.)
A second factwhichrequiresfurther
clarificationis what has been seen as an
overall simplificationof the Austronesian languages in Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia as compared with
thoseof the westernAustronesianarea.
The numerous phoneme mergers,the
generalloss of finalconsonants,and the
reduction of consonant clusterswhich
characterize Dempwolff's proto-Melanesian and proto-Polynesianmight be
interpretedas phonological simplification. Moreover,it would seem to be a
fair statementthat the morphological
structureof theAustronesianlanguages
of Melanesia and Micronesia is, as a
generalrule, simplerthan thatof those
in Indonesia, and that the morphological structureof the Polynesian languages is simpler still. Although it
would be too much to say that these
facts demand explanation, they could
easilybe regardedas tendingto support
the pidginizationhypothesis.
A furtherpoint which tends to support the pidginizationhypothesisis the
fact that the speakersof Austronesian
languages in differentareas are physThis factseemsto
icallyquite different.
require the conclusion that at least a
part of the spread of the Austronesian
languages came about throughthe acquisition of theselanguagesby populations which did not originally speak
them. These of course are the circumstancesunderwhichthepidginizationis
presumedto have occurred.It appears
to me that any serious possibilitythat
the pidginizationhypothesisis correct
or even partiallycorrectis a matterof
basic theoreticalinterestto historical
linguisticsand indeed to any discipline
whichis concernedwiththereconstruction of culturehistory.
I said above thatI regardthepidgini-

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

zation hypothesisas unfortunate.There

are 2 immediatereasons for this.First,
I cannot conceive of the eventspostulated by the hypothesisin its present
form having resulted in the present
linguisticsituation.Secondly,I believe
that the hypothesisin its presentform
leads to researchwhich,if the hypothesis is not correct,would not reveal that
factand would not facilitatethe formulation of a betterhypothesis.The pidginization hypothesisas it now stands
assumesthatgroupsof people fromdifferentparts of Indonesia, and hence
speaking different Indonesian languages, settled in differentparts of
Melanesia, and at theseplaces encountered speakersof different
non-Austronesian languages. In many of these
places pidgin languages resulted from
thecontactbetweentheparticularIndonesian language and theparticularnonAustronesianlanguagewhichhappened
to meetthere.I findit hard to overcome
a convictionthat the contact between
one Indonesian and one non-Austronesian language would have led to very
differentresults from the contact betweenanotherIndonesian language and
a quite different
non-Austronesian
language. However, proponents of the
pidginization hypothesisacknowledge
a tendencyto uniformity
in the "Indonesian" vocabulary found in Melanesian languagesas well as a phonological
and morphological similarityamong
Melanesian languagesin general as opposed to Indonesian languages. Dempwolff'swork, of course, also tends to
confirmthis relative phonological uniformity.If such diverse ingredientsas
postulatedby the pidginizationhypothesis actuallydid lead to suchuniformity,
that resultmust be attributableto factorsin the pidginizationprocess itself.
If this were the case, the discoveryof
these factorsshould be of basic theoreticalinterest.
Another reason why I am skeptical
of the pidginization hypothesisin its
present formis the failure of investigators so far to show any connection
between the presumed "non-Austronesian" vocabularyof the Austronesian
languages in Melanesia and known
Papuan languages. One would suppose
thatsomewheretherewould be founda
survivingPapuan language which had
been closely related to the since discarded Papuan language which had
supplied the bulk of the vocabularyfor
one of the Melanesian languages.Thus,
somewherewe should finda Melanesian
language and a Papuan language which
shared the bulk of theirnon-basicvocabulary. Such a pair of languages, if
theycould be produced,would constitute a powerfullconfirmationof the
409

pidginization hypothesis.So far they

,BELEP
have not been produced.
AlthoughI cannot believe that pidginization has played the role which
N
/
/
thisparticularhypothesisascribesto it,
I cannot be equally certainthat it has
played no role at all. (I do findit hard
to conceive of any role for it which
?
(LVEA
/
~~~ATOLL
would conflictwiththe assumptionthat
/ X
<~~~~~~~~most of the Austronesianlanguages of
Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia
derive froma common proto-language
having the general characteristicsof
Dempwolff's
"proto-Melanesian").What
I want to emphasize is the theoretical
~ -~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YJ~~~MARE
~~~NEW
-N
EW
importanceof a thoroughinvestigation
of the facts.
Apart from these specificproblems,
thereare moregeneralgroundsforurging increasedattentionto the languages
of Oceania. In termsof numbers,a sigC
DKUNIE
KN
0
20
nificantproportionof the world'ssam30miles
tO
l
ple of languages is found there. Most
of the languages are still spoken today.
However,it is impossibleto judge how
long thismay continue to be true.UnThe Milke classification
does not take archipelago (See map). There are also
fortunately,none of the languages in account of parallel variations:the pho- some inaccuraciesconcerningJaraiand
the area can be expected ever to have neme R = y can disappear in different the "muslims" (of Hainan). They are
any political importance.Accordingly, timesin each archipelagoor island.
Cham dialects, having nothing to do
theyhave been neglected.
The application of glottochronology with Kadai. (See Schema I.)
to the Oceanic languagesis certainlyinThe Thai-Malaycomparativeworkof
By ANDRE G. HAUDRICOURT*
accurate(althoughI do not denyitspos- Wulff(1942) and Benedict (1941 and
[Paris. 7.3.62]
sible value in continentalareas). For ex- 1942) is not up to date. We know now
My positionon New Caledonia is not ample, in New Caledonia the rate of thatthe Sek language whichretainsthe
as absolute as Capell believes. I have change is very differentin the north final 1 (confused with the final n in
said (1951: 145) "perhapsit is necessary and the south. Classical comparative other Kadai languages)-Malay bu.lu
to suppose a labio-velarin AN" but the grammaris possible in the north,but in
"hair-feather"-doesnot resembleThai
totalityof my paper was on the exist- the south, the presenceof the Loyalty -khon, dai hun-but Sek pul, Caolan
ence of parallel variations.It is clear archipelagomeans deviations,irregular phon, Nung-An phiin, Chuang-dioi
thatthecase maybe thatthelabio-velars changes,and abnormalities,such as m>
pun. Formosanlanguagesare more usecan appear separately in New Cale- n: mati> net,"dead," mata> (wa)nece ful than Malay for comparative purdonia and New Hebrides,while in the "'eyes,"' which is why these languages poses. Formosan kumai, tsumai "bear"
Solomon Islands this is debatable. But have been considered NAN. I believe is found in Kadai. Thai mi< hm-,
if there was no labio-velar in AN, it that thesedifferences
are only accelera- Chuang moi<hm, Mak mui<?m, Sui
would be necessaryto reconstructan- tionsof phoneticchange,caused bywar ?mi, Tong mee< ?m (initials reconother relevant featureto explain how and piracyin the neighborhoodof the structedby tone). Finally,Sek "fat,oil"
these labio-velars originate. The submal refutes Benedict's assumption:
strateexplanation,however,is a pseudo
'Trivial language of Mare. (See Dubois,
Thai man, Malay minyak.
explanation.
Ms).
By K. J. HOLLYMAN*
[Auckland,New Zealand. 5.3.62]
SiNOTIIBETAN
Mtao-Yao
My commentson Capell's wide-rangAUSTROASIAN
KADAI-AUSTRONESIAN
ing surveycan bestbe restrictedto what
I
AN
Mun
Phong
Wa
I feel is its weakestpoint: its appeal to
Lati
Lame
ia
DI C L-a
Kto
Khasi
MU6ng
the theoriesof Ray which,in myview,
I N
ietnamese Kelao
Riaong
Efyia
have had an unfortunateinfluenceon
TnKmIN
Tulao
aaug
hmu-Teng
Pala
S
M
uIC
mrrL MC
~~~~~~Mulao
Mak
Chauin
much work in the Austronesianfield
__
MO
So-Kul
Philippinan
and have hamperedprogress.
Bona
MN
|Sk
1. Perhaps theoutstandingshortcomBoloven
NA
I
ing in Ray's use of the extensivemateT
PN
ooln Ce/ Moloti
Sedang
e an
rials he gatheredlies in his failure to
___
Bahnor
ngP U o
understandthe processesof reconstrucSame
ay.E
ISLANDERSAomShan
tion and the nature of the geneticrelaof
Pear
s AnHSKhamHt Khun L
tionshipin language.This was not mere
WhiteThay
ChamMao~~~uo
obtuseness on Ray's part, but essenIn.a.
4mus L
Nicobarese
Lao
Khmer
Jaragl eglaa
~~Siames
K
mer
tiallythe resultof the period in which
-~~~~~~~~~Rad
he
worked and of the work done. Ray
Madagascar
makesspecificreferenceto thewild and
ISLANDERS
______
ID ofHAINAN
unscientific
vocabularycomparisonsadSCHEMA I
vanced by Curr,Fraser,and Mathew to
410

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

link the Australianlanguages with,respectively,African,Oceanic-DravidianAryan,and Malay-Semitic;and by MacDonald, Hill-Tout, and Tregear to link
the Oceanic group with, respectively,
Semitic,Amerindian and Aryan. The
result of Ray's well-foundedrejection
of thesecomparisonswas a strongtendency to rely on what he called "structural" similaritiesin establishinggeneticrelationship(Ray 1907: 507):
The languageof the Micronesianwho
says,Ia ito-m?orIa ato-m?(Who(is)namethy),uses exactlythe same formulaof
wordsas theLoyaltyIslanderwhosays,Id
id--m?and we mayregardthemas related
to one another,just as the SolomonIslanderwhoasks,A-hei na aha-mu? is speaking a languageakin to thatof the Fijian
whoasks,0 d'ei na yad'a mu? (Person-who
name-thy).
The relationshiphere is in factshown,
not by the "formula,"but by the corresponding phonemes, meaning and
functionof the individualspeech-units,
reconstructed
as *azan "name," *(s)a(y)
i(h) "who," etc. The "structural"correspondenceis secondary.If we take the
oftenquoted equation of Latin est:sunt
and Germanist: sind,we have a bundle
of correspondences: phonemic, morphemic,semantic,each of whichis confirmedby other examples. This same
set of correspondencesis valid when we
replace that equation with German er
ist: sie sind, French il est: ils sont, de-

spite the "structural" change. Traditional comparativismfor genetic purposes is not purelylexical and phonetic,
as Ray thought.Moreover,experience
has shown us that workingfromstructural parallels can lead to nonsensical
conclusions. Trubetzskoy worked out
six grammaticalfeatureswhich could
be consideredcharacteristic
of theIndoEuropean languages as a family.Benveniste 1952-53 has shown that if we
attempt to apply these as criteria of
genetic relationship,we must classify
Takelma as Indo-European. On a similar basis, as Greenberg (1953) has
noted, Chinese would be Sudanic, and
Old French would be Hamitic. And
what dazzling vistas of hypothesis
would be opened up by the parallel of

French nous deux Jean and Maori

maaua ko Hone! Even in the classification of sub-families,

greatcare must be
taken with structuralcriteria such as
preposition or posyosition of possessives.Rumanian is still a Romance language even though it postpones the
articlewhile otherRomance languages
prepose it and Latin did neither.
2. The crucial genetic problem has,
of course,been in the NAN fieldwhere
acceptable correspondenceshave been
difficult
to establish.Capell agrees that
littleworkhas in factbeen done. Much
of what was done, in Ray's timein parVol. 3 *No. 4 *October1962

Capell:

ticular, was scientificallynaive. Even

the untrainedeye will see resemblances
between Sanskrit d(u)va, Greek dyo,
Latin duo, English two. But it requires
more than this to establishArmenian
erku- as a member of the same series
(Meillet 1925). We have a long way to
go yet before we reach this degree of
sophisticationin our reconstructions.
Wurm (1960a and 1961e) has now successfullyestablishedthe genetic groupingsof the New Guinea Highlands languages on the basis of a lexicostatistic
study.This should be followedup by a
detailed analysisof thecorrespondences
along traditional lines. Proceeding in
this way will enable us to avoid the
hastyjudgmentsof which Ray was at
timescapable. An example is his classificationof Bilua and Baniata as "Papuan" on the basis of a few structural
features and a tiny vocabulary (Ray
1928). The larger wordlistspublished
by Lanyon-Orgill(1953) show around
25% of AN words,possiblymore.Only
detailed studies, based on more and
better information,will answer the
question of where these languages are
to be classified.Wherever Ray's basis
of judgment was insufficient,
and ours
little or no better,we should refrain
fromconclusions.Whereour knowledge
is greater,and adequate, we should if
necessaryabandon Ray's views. Capell
appears unwilling to do this at times;
for example, concerningthe Loyalties
languages, where the correspondences
shownby Lenormand (1952b) are quite
sufficient
to counterthe impressionsof
Ray and Codrington.For NAN comparisons,we should also heed the lessonsof relationshipworkin otherareas.
Difficultiesin some ways similar have
been experiencedwith,forexample,the
Bantu languages. Here the languages
have been grouped into zones on the
basis of prefixtypesand phonetic features,with the relationshipof zone to
zone counting more than overall pattern.And we should perhaps consider
the possibilitiesof a situationlike that
which Benveniste envisages for the
Indo-Europeanistsof the distantfuture,

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

for whom "the membershipof these

languages in a genetic familycould be
definable only in historical terms for
each of them,and no longerin termsof
relationsbetweenthem."
3. In the AN fielditself,Ray's most
misleading heritage is his notion of
"IN pidgin" in Melanesia. We may
consider this idea from both angles,
"IN" and "pidgin."
a. Capell is in myviewwrongin suggestingthat by "IN" Ray meant AN.
In the main, as he himselfexplained
(Ray 1926a: 3), he meant Common-IN
and, at best, the limited amount of
"Malayopolynesian" (with MN almost
whollyexcluded) whichwas established
at the time. This IN basis was unfortunately continued in considerable
measureby Dempwolff,who also relied
on an insufficient
numberof languages.
The shortcomingsof such a method
have been well demonstratedby Fox,
Dyen, and Reizenstein. In comparing
languages for the purpose of establishing relationships,we cannot prejudge
the issue of what is and what is not a
"criterion" language: we can, as a
method of work, choose certain languages as such, but thisgives them no
final status of superiority.All related
languagesmustin factbegin withequal
status,since it is only throughestablishing the similaritiesthat we are able to
isolate thedifferences.
Haudricourt'sreconstructionof a seriesof complex consonantsin AN is an example of classical
relationshipmethod,and maybe parallelled in almost all language families.
In reconstructing
proto-Algonquian,
for
example,Bloomfieldinferredalongside
*ck, *sk, *xk, *hk, *nk, a *Ck which
was required by an abnormal correspondence in two languagesonly. This
*Ckwas subsequentlyconfirmedby a
formfound in a dialect of a thirdlanguage. Haudricourt's *i)gb was originally required by NC correspondences,
but its reconstructionalongside Dempwolff's*b fittedinto a pattern found
everywhereexcept, apparently,in IN.
Confirmationof the *jgb: *b difference, and of the nature of the recon*

IN: Malay
Tagalog
Hova
MN: Fiji
Sa'a
NC(1)
NC(2)
MC: Truk
Gilberts
PN: Samoa
Maori

OCEANIC

gb-

b
b
v
mb
p
mb, mbw
ng, ngw
pw
p
p
p

b-

b
b
v

v
h
v
p
f
b, 0
f
wh
411

structionfor *ijgb came fromvarious

New Hebrides languages; forexample,
Nguna: gbw:v; Raga: kmbw:v. The NC

because of practical difficulties,no

doubt, for there are among the Australianlanguages some which are typologically related not only to those of
New Guinea but to the NAN languages
of the Indonesian area as well (e.g., in
Portuguese Timor).
The NAN languageshave oftenbeen
classifiedon a structuralbasis. These
languages in other respectsbear little
resemblance to each other, as Capell
points out. Althoughthistypeof classificationis a sound method,some structural featuresare, in my opinion, less
essential than others: among the
former,I find the phonetic criterion
according to which the admission or
non-admission of final consonants
would be significant.Another is the
occurrenceof noun classes,which has
often been used as a criterionin the
classificationof the Australian languages (even the number of classes in
each language has been used as a basis).
Since, however,the structureof these
languages, in respect to these classes,
may recall the Bantu languages-with
which no immediatehistoricalconnection is probable-this criterion is of
doubtful value. But it is interesting
that noun classificationand a complex
verbal systemin the NAN languages
seem to be interdependent.The same
may be said of the word order-subject,
object, verb-which is characteristicof
the New Guinea languages, although
the real criterionmustbe the choice of
prepositionsor postpositionsas well as
cases such as n-ogu,r-ogu("I go," "you
go") in the Kiwai language of Papua.
On the otherhand, I do not see the
importanceof glottochronology
in this
connection,to which Capell often refers; at the same time,he aptly points
out thatglottochronology
does not seem
to covercasesof structure.
Furthermore,
he statesthat "the general principleof
determiningrelationship... by which
the main emphasisis laid on the comparison of vocabularies... whereasthe
morphologicalstructureis regardedas a
criterion of secondary importance is

and MG evidencecannot be rejectedas

"marginal," as Capell suggests,since
this is an a priori view which contradicts the evidence not only of Haudricourt'sown work,but also of the basic
principles of relationshipcomparisons
and of the evidence given by Lenormand (1952a). The alternativeexplanation advanced by Reizenstein(1960) on
the basis of Fox's (1948b) work would
not materiallyaffectthis point, even if
ultimatelyproved.
b. The idea of MN as a pidgin language is closely related to the effects,
just discussed,of the prior elaboration
of Common-IN,and to migrationtheoriescurrentin Ray's timebut of no concern to the linguist.There is, however,
a point of principle at issue: do all
languages in diversifyinggo through
a pidgin stage?There is nothingto indicate this.A wide range of social and
linguisticfactorsdecide the fateof what
Haugen (1956) calls a "colonising"language. We do not need to go further
than the factthata colonisinglanguage
in being adopted by non-nativespeakersundergoesa processof changewhich,
we can
given the necessaryinformation,
reconstruct.If we had only the various
formsof Creole French fromwhich to
reconstructa lost NorthernFrench (cf.
Hall 1953), it is doubtful whetherwe
could inferthe centralrounded vowels
which in fact would have existed; but
almost any other overseas French dialect other than a creole would give us
this information.The lessons of MN,
whichsuggesta morecomplexAN phonemic systemthan does IN, do not appear to me to approximateto those of
the pidgins and creoles available for
study. Rejection of the "pidgin" idea
does not, however,lead us in any way
to deny the existencein Melanesia or
anywhereelse of a pre-AN people or
peoples speakingNAN languages.The
comparativemethod will discover this
for us by isolating the differencesbesimply not applicable to the . . . comtween MN and the restof AN.
4. Many of Ray's workingprinciples, parison of non-Melanesianlanguages."
The establishmentof a regular corthus, run counter to the lessons and
methodsavailable fromreconstruction respondenceof soundsis as yeta debatworkin otherfields.The standardproc- able point even for Austronesian. I
esses of workingout relationshiphave would question,forinstance,the equanot yet been given a full trial in the tion of Visayan sobbu and Polynesian
hifo, ifo (of which the primitiveform
AN field. They must be used, and
b-eforetheyare is given as *sambaw); it further
shown to be ineffective
seems doubtful to me that the prefix
abandoned in favourof others.
in Tango (south-Santo)ve-tama, "faBy NILS M. HOLMER*
ther's sister," representsAustronesian
[Lund, Sweden. 17.3.621
*binay,"woman" (would it not be possible to see some specializedfunctionof
Capell's Oceanic Linguistics Today
is, I believe, the most exhaustive acthe Melanesian prefixvei-,etc., as in
count I have seen. It extends to the Fijian veitamani"father-and-son
relalanguagesof thePacific,withthe excep- tionship,"veitau"be friendstogether,"
tion of thoseofAustraliaand Tasmania
along with Malay berlakior bersuami
412

"married," of a woman?). Neither does

it seem correct to compare the firstsyllable of Tongan kitautolu with the first
syllable of Samoan sitdtou, "we." Capell's criticism and modifications (1943)
of Dempwolff's reconstruction of the
primitive consonants in Austronesian
is, of course, absolutely justified.
The genealogical diagrams must be
taken as a very schematical representation of actual facts, as they take no account of the continuous evolution
within the different branches of the
Austronesian languages (IN, MN, MC,
PN). Capell's theory that the Melanesian vocabulary is to some extent derived from older stages of Western Indonesian (Borneo, Central Celebes, the
Philippines) is palpable and seems to
me worth every consideration, and if
Haudricourt has said that MN is the
most conservative branch of AN, he has
stated something that can be visualized.
As a matter of fact, the older stages
even of Indonesian may survive in
areas which are no longer to be characterized as "Indonesian."
In classification, certain elementary
facts are unfortunately often forgotten
or disregarded. A language has no beginning whereas it may have an end),
although an individual word or form
may have (it should be understood in
this connection that the beginning of a
word or a form occurs when a certain
meaning or function has been labeled
to it). The age of a morpheme is, however, even in this sense, a vague concept, although less vague than the idea
of the age of a language.
By HANS KXHLER*
[Hamburg, Germany. 14.3.62]
1. I prefer to begin my comments
with pointing out that Dempwolff's
Original Austronesian (*AN) is no "reconstruction" or "restoration" of an
earlier original language. For a reconstruction presumes that such a language
was really spoken at some time. *AN
never was a "linguistic reality," and
Dempwolff himself always considered
it as a "system of reference" only. The
*AN morphemes constructed by Dempwolff are, as it were, formulas to unite
the differentphonetic forms of etymologically identical morphemes in the individual languages. Therefore, Dempwolff (1925: 21) wrote:
The purelyinductivemethodwhichenumeratescoalescentwordsby means of often
very long series claims much place and
burdens the facultyof remembranceof the
reader. Therefore,in order to representthe
word equations, an artificeis used: out of
a small number of Indonesian languages
which show as little as possible sound decay, the results which were gained by the
inductive method are clad in short formulas (the L sound, the RL sound, etc.), projected in the form of sound symbols (as
letters1, .1,etc.) into an originallanguage,
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

and then deductively stated; the correspondences to the sound symbols of the
original language are really found in the
other Austronesian individual languages.
Dempwolff here expressly speaks of
"projection into an original language,"
of "formulas" and of "sound symbols."
It is explained, too, that Dempwolff
chose g' in place of d' (or j) as a symbol.
Dempwolff himself (1934: 55) gave the
following argument:
. . .for these, too, a special consonant
must be constructedfor the original language.... Its place of articulation is supposed to be palatal with preponderantparticipation of the back of the tongue, first
of all merely because there is no other
place in the sound systemof original Indonesian left,so that it is to be writtenas
OIN g'.
2. The uncertainty concerning the
free variation of the (initial and medial)
nasal clusters in *AN surely is, as Capell writes, "one of the most difficult
points about Dempwolff's system." But
I cannot follow Capell's view that it
"seems unlikely that simple and prenasalised forms already existed in free
variation in the parent language."
When Capell (under "Morphology")
correctly argues the lack of an *AN
morphology with the words: "It may
prove that there were regional types of
morphology within IN, and that each
of these is represented in differentparts
of modern Melanesia and even Polynesia," he apparently accepts differences
in the structure (morphology) of the IN
languages, which, if starting from a
"parent language," presuppose a (later)
differentiation into separate groups. It
seems to me that the acceptance of this
opinion does not make unlikely the
possibility of free variation of simple
and "prenasalised" forms,but even suggests it.
I think it is almost impossible to
prove unambiguously in which cases
one or the other variant of the plosives
is to be postulated for *AN. The findings in IN languages and the phonological analysis of other AN languages in
my opinion, force the assumption upon
the investigator that for *AN such variants have indeed to be constructed.
There are hardly any AN morphemes
which do not show the simple plosives
in part of the IN languages and the
"prenasalised" plosives in another part.
A phenomenon similar to the free variation of medial "prenasalised" plosives
is to be found with the prenasalisation
of'verbs. Some IN languages prenasalise
verbs while neighbouring and closely
related languages may use the same
verbs without prenasalisation, and vice
versa. For this apparent arbitrariness
there has not yet been found a satisfactory explanation. As there are no
historical linguistic documents for the
AN languages (with the exception of

Vol. 3 -No. 4* October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

Javaneseand, in a veryrestrictedmeas- (Celebes) sa'kad "a copper knob for a

ure, Malay), the solution of theseprob- holystaff"and kila'ub "a pit dug byanilems is renderedextremelydifficult.
mals in the earth" corresponds to
In this connection,I wish to point saka'nd and kila'umb in the Sondardiaout thattheoccurrenceofinitialand/or lect. In the language of the Kendayan
medial nasal clustersin the same word Dayaks (Borneo), pusand "navel" coris a means of dialect differentiation
in
responds to *AN put'ag'. Other lanmany IN as well as in MN languages, guages in which that occurs are unforexample,as is well known,initially known, so that there is no need to
in Fijian and its dialects where they consider such final clusterswhen conoccur regularly,and medially in the structingnew *AN wordsor rectifying
Lakon dialect (on the island of Sima- existingones.
lur), where -mb-and -nd-are regularly
I agreewithCapell concerningHaudfoundinsteadof -b-and -d-in the Tapa
ricourt'ssuggestionto add "compound
dialect.
consonantsand clusters"to *AN. I, too,
The analysisof the problemis aggra- see no need for considering sounds
vated, too, by certain other factors: which are shared by a small group of
from examples from some IN lan- MN languagesonly,when constructing
guages,it is evidentthatby assimilation *AN words, particularlyas intensive
of thenasal in a nasal + plosive cluster, researchremains to be done to detera duplicated tenuisor media may come mine whetheror not theyare secondary
into existence,and that these may, by sounds or sounds belonging to a NAN
reduction,become a simple tenuis or stratum.If such sounds were to be inmedia. As is well known,writtenampu cluded in *AN, then, I think,special
"to take on the lap," anti?-anti?7
"ear sound correspondencesin certain IN
hangers,"and a?7kup"mate" in Tobalanguageswould have to be considered,
batak (Sumatra) are spoken as: appu,
too; forinstance,in Iloko, *AN a results
and akkup; *AN ma/baoyat in duplication of the followingconsoatti?-atti?7,
"heavy"> Letti mperta= pperta; *AN
nant *AN lapat' "to be free" > Iloko
pandan "Pandanus palm" > Sikka leppas "to finish");or *AN v-, -v-has,
(Flores) paddai7;Endeh munde "grape- in some IN languages,"compound confruit"> Sikka(Flores)mude(< *mudde). sonants"as correspondences(*AN valu'
There are IN languages, however,in "eight" > Chamorro gwalo, and *AN
whicha plosiveassimilatesitselfto a fol- duva' "two" > Chamorrohugwa,Bakalowingnasal. This is not rare,forexam- tan (Borneo) dugwo; Berawan (Borneo)
ple, in Letti where lidna = linna "to dapwe, and Long Kiput (Borneo)
accompany" and lodna = lonna "rat- defwe).
Haudricourt'ssuppositionthat"comtan" (Jonker1932: 26). A step further
may be the reductionof the duplicated plex soundswould tend to be simplified
to the simple nasal, as, for example, ratherthan developed" is not valid for
Endeh munde "grape-fruit"
> Rotti all AN languagesit seems.In Timorese,
mune (< *munne). The operation of for example, the correspondingword
such factorsis, in myopinion,hardlyto for*AN 'at'u' "dog" is asu which,howbe verifiedor to be excluded with cer- ever,spokenalone, is oftenpronounced
taintyif one has to decide whethersim- asug. Where an affixmorphemeis connected with an initial vowel for inple or "prenasalised"plosivesare to be
stance,-es "number one"), -u becomes
postulatedfor the *AN.
-gw-, that is, asgwes "one, a dog"
Another task for comparative AN
linguisticresearchis to trace the causes (Jonker1932: 35, note 1). This view is,
of the medial nasal clustersas Demp- in my opinion, hardly in accord with
wolffdid rather successfullywith the the findingsin Palau (MC); there,for
example, eums "moss" and rasm "neeNgaju-Dayak (1922-23).
dle" correspond to *AN lumut and
As Dempwolffwrote,IN languagesin
"to fart"
generaldo not possessinitial nasal clus- d'a-yumand IN *k/um/antut
and IN *mina/kantut
ters. However, sporadically these are
"farted"> Palau
x/em/oldand mle/xold.It maybe seen
found in some West IN languages and
especially frequentlyin East IN lan- thatin Timoreseand in Palau, complex
guages, as, for example, in Kambera, sounds are secondary.Would it then
Bima, and Rotti and its dialects. In- not be necessary,too, to constructdiphthongsin closed syllablesfor*AN since
deed, they are mostlysecondary,as I
have demonstratedin myown research simple vowels are diphthongized in
somelanguagesof Borneo (forexample,
(1952-55: 142-43).
It is a rule thatin IN languagesthere *AN lat7it "heaven" > Long Gelat
are no finalnasal clusters,but neverthe- laait, and *AN pulut "gluten" > Long
less, there are a few languages where Kiput pulaut)?
3. An *AN morphologywas not yet
theymay be found-provided that the
in dilctionariesare writtenbecause, as Capell supposes ("it
Phloneticrecordilngs
trustworthy;
forexample,Tontemboan may prove that there were regionlal
413

possession,
too,goesbacktoMN influences,
as I mentionedabove.As faras I see, in
PN dialectsthereareno peculiarities
which
wouldmakeprobabletheirderivation
from
MN languages.Therefore,
my conviction
thatthe PN dialectsare IN languagesremainsunaltered.(On pp. 647-50and 655
I have drawnon comparisonswith MN
languages,too.)

in the final
languages,such uniformity
consonantas is found in IN languages
can hardlybe expected.It seems to me
that the fact that in IN "vocalic" languages, concerning the so-called thematic consonants,we findthe same peculiaritiesas in MN, is another argument against this theory.(As is known,
I then extendedthe purelylinguistic the use of "supportingvowels" is to be
analysis to some linguistic-ethnological found in IN as well as in some MN
comparisonsand got the same result languages.)
(Kahler 1954-55).
b) If MN really is "the most conI am not able to see why my classi- servative branch of AN" one should
ficationof Polynesian as part of Indo- suppose,I presume,that thatwould be
nesian is difficultto sustain from the seen not only phonologicallybut at the
geographical as well as from the lin- morphemicand morphologiclevels,too.
guisticangle. For example, the voyages But this is not at all so. For the whole
of the Polynesiansover the seas have affixsystemof the MN languagesshows
shown that great distancesare no hin- (witha fewexceptions)non-productive
drance to thespreadingof languages.Is
elementswhichin IN languagesmostly
the close linguisticrelationof the Mala- are (still) productive.This suggests,I
gasy language to Maanjan in Borneo think,as far as AN languages are con(rather than to Philippine languages, cerned,thataffixes
are moreresistantin
as Capell supposes;see Dahl 1951) to be
the centralterritory
than in peripheric
explained in an easier manner?Up to territories.
Accordingly,I regardIN as
thepresent,I have not founda convinc- the central and MN as the peripheric
ing argumentagainst my theory.The
territory.
theoriesanalysedbyCapell do not princ) If MN had been the centre,then
cipallytouch therelationsof PN to IN.
it would have to be expected that the
Accordingly,it is evident that I do
languages in the territorieseast and
not agree withCowan's theoryas to the west of MN would show far-reaching
The following quotation (Kahler
"purelylinguisticsimilarityof MN and
correspondences in word-stock and
1950: 657) is to demonstrate that in
PN" whereas I completely follow structurewith thosein MN. But thatis
earlier research I did not bypass the
MN languages: ". . . In the word-stock Capell's argumentsagainst it. The sub- not the case, as Capell, too, has shown.
group "Rotuman, Fijian and the PN
of the PN dialects there are, besides
languages" establishedby Grace would By PETER A. LANYON-ORGILL*
numerous original *AN words, many
be
acceptable frommytheoryprovided
[Victoria,B. C., Canada. 22.2.62]
words which are to be verified in indithat
a
such
resulted
not
One
subgroup
may
prequery Capell's opening revidual IN languages only, or, as far as
ponderantly from some sound corre- mark that the Tasmanian languages
I know, are to be met in MN languages
spondences and a few morphologic "form a distinct field of study," but
and (1950: 658):
only...."
arguments,but fromthe comparisonof otherwisehis general premisesforman
Now, too, the relationship of the Polythe total structure.It is hardlypossible acceptable statement of the present
nesian dialects with Melanesian languages
to imagine the degree of complication stateof our knowledge.
has to be mentioned. As Schmidt has
concerningthe migrationsand the muHe uses theterm"Non-Austronesian"
shown, the languages of the southernSolomon Islands shared, in the easternpart of
tual influencesin Oceania connected (NAN) in preferenceto Papuan, but
MN, the inner development with the PN
with them. Single correspondencesbe- this is a clumsyname and not satisfaclanguages for the longest time. But I cantween PN and MN languages do not tory; the term"Papuan" is no longer
not follow Schmidt's furtherdeduction if
he says: "They (the languages of the south- refutemy theorythat the PN dialects confined to the languages of a nonern Solomon Islands) formthe transitionto
are IN languagesin theirstructureand
Austronesian type found in New
those(the PN dialects),and theyalso belong
theirgrammaticalmeans of expression. Guinea, but representsa type of lanto that last group of the MN languages
In my opinion the followingpoints guage of a standard patternquite diffrom which the PN ones came forth too,
are not compatiblewithFox's and with ferent from Austronesian and apparand thereforethe latter ones are to be repart of Haudricourt'stheories:
garded as a branch of the MN languages."
ently with widely divergentforms.I
There are too many correspondencesbea) How can it be explained thatfrom find the term "Papuan" less likely to
tween the PN dialects and IN languages
MN languages which partly are "vo- lead to confusionthan NAN and see
which cannot be pointed out in MN lancalic" languages or from their mor- little point in introducingyet another
guages. In my opirnion,the common linguistic stock of both these linguistic terri- phemes which are shortenedconsider- name fora group of languages (or pertoriesmerelyproves that the MN languages
ably,IN languagesdeveloped whichare haps even severalgroups)whichremain
of the Southern Solomon Islands as well
mostly"consonantic,"and which show unclassified.
as the PN dialects originatefromthe same
one certainfinalconsonantwhichis esCapell's surveyof theNAN languages
parts of Indonesia. Their speakers have,
presumably,emigrated from Indonesia by
sentiallythe same throughoutIN? Is it of New Guinea provides the best genthe same routes and at the same time. The
really possible to derive, for example, eral statementof the situationto date;
inhabitants of the Southern Solomon Ison those of New Britain his classificalands then absorbed much of the linguistic tasik (*AN tat'ik) fromErakortas "sea;"
*AN lajay fromNguna lae, Havannah
tionis lessreliable-Taulil and Tumuip
material of the other Melanesians, while
the Polynesiansassumed littleor no foreign Harbour lai "sail"; or *AN bu'ah from are basically Austronesian languages
materials. But I do not dispute that some
with a Papuan element, as I have
Nguna, Sesake wa, Havannah Harboui
particularsindicate a contactwith MN lanua "fruit"? The correspondencesto
pointed out in the Introductionto my
guages. There is such a manifestation,to a
*AN dlaSay "to hear" in threeMN lan- Raluana Dictionary.I might mention
certain degree, in word-stock.Perhaps the
distinctionbetween the "active-subjective" guages,mentionedby Capell, also show
that Capell's plea for a comparative
and the "passive-objective" expression of
veryclearlythat,proceedingfromMN
studyof the NAN languagresof the istypes of morphology within IN"), of the
structural diversity of the IN linguistic
groups. These essential differences are
found, as is known, in almost all parts
of their morphology. Therefore, it is
not surprising, as far as the structure
of the PN dialects is concerned, that I
arrived at the following results (195255: 144) which I wish to quote here in
full, supplementary to Capell's excerpt:
They (the PN dialects) have raised to a
norm what nowadays is only to be found
in the same manner in individual IN languages. But that means, too, that theymay
not be deduced froma definiteIN language
or language group whichnow meet (though
the Celebes-Philippine group particularly
sharesmuch with the PN dialects),but that
PN findsits material, to the present state
of the IN languages, fromvarious parts of
the archipelago. In myopinion, one cannot
say in which degree peculiarities of Indonesian individual languages,whichin Polynesian are norms,were spread furtherthan
they are today at the time of the migration(s) of the future Polynesians, or
whether they even were common features
of the IN languages. The peculiaritiesfind
their parallels partly in Celebes, and, to a
lesserextent,in Philippine and Borneo languages, moreover in those of the eastern
part of Indonesia. In East IN languages,
the PN dialects, above all, have the petrifyingof affixesin common.

414

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

lands east of New Guinea is being answered in my projected Historical

Grammar of Raluana, which is intended to be more all-embracingthan
its titlewould suggest.Capell's general
outline of the AN languages is a fair
statementof the facts,althoughnaturally one would cavil at manypoints of
detail.
We mustbe gratefulto Capell forhis
referenceto the work of Dempwolffin
laying the foundationsof Uraustrone-

sisch; it is not quite true, however, to

state that Dempwolffignored the Micronesian,forin conversationsand correspondence he expounded the view
that it representeda fourthbranch of
AN, lyingbetweenMN and PN. Capell
appears to accept Dyen's suggestedreformsof Dempwolff'sphonemicpattern
of *AN, but I feel that we cannot be
quite so dogmaticon this matteruntil
much more comparative research has
been done.
Capell's statementof the need forthe
furtherstudy of the IN languages of
Hainan and the mainland ignoresthe
fact that a verylarge corpus of scholarly research has been done by the
Chinese, although unfortunatelylittle
of it is generallyavailable as yet.
It is most important to stress the
criticismof Dempwolff'sapproach to a
reconstructionof *AN from the IN
viewpoint alone; the ability to reconstruct*AN formsespeciallyfromMN
rootshas hardlybeen attemptedas yet,
but there is indeed a much larger
common-MNand common-PNvocabulary,withoutmodernIN parallels,than
Capell would seem to imply.
On Cowan's suggestionthatMN may
be thoughtof as a branchof PN, or an
equal partnerto it, a comparativestudy
of the MN languages suggestsrather
that they should be subdivided into
several more or less autonomous
groups, just as the PN has been subdivided into threemajor divisions; by
treatingthe vast complexof "MN" languages in smallersections,we are more
likely to arrive at a final solution to
the greaterproblem of the Pacific migrations and their relative chronological occurrence.Capell's analysisof the
basic differences
between MN and PN
formsa mostvaluable basis forfurther
researchinto points of detail.
In the section on MN, I feel that
Capell has not paid sufficient
attention
to the whole problem of the stratification of these languages: there is considerable material for researchin this
field, especially in the languages of
New Caledonia and the southernNew
Hebrides, where the classificationon a
stratificational
basis would solve many
related problems.
Finally, we must be thankfulto Capell fordrawingattentionto thenumerVol. 3 *No. I October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

ous fields of research; firstand foremost,the publicationof thevast corpus

of manuscriptmaterial is a prime desideratum, and perhaps CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY mightprovidea fewpages
in a futureissue to indicatewherethese
collectionsof data may be found; secondly,the compilationof extensivedictionaries and grammars of key languages; and thirdly,the application of
lexicostatisticsand glottochronology
in
everylanguage wherethe available mabasis for an
terialsprovide a sufficient
adequate sample. When these objects
have been pursued,we maysee Oceanic
linguisticsset on a firmbasis forfuture
research.

2. Ro-Keai, Bara
3. Foraba
4. Kutubu
According to the lexicostatistical
studieson the relationshipof the NAN
languagesof westernPapua and southeast West Irian, the Kiwai group has
some connections with the Tirio,
Gaima, Girara, Gogodara, and Adiba
languages.But as I indicatedabove, my
studiesare not complete.
As a supplementto my study (Loukotka 1957: 59), the NAN language of
New Ireland is indeed Paranas, with
three special dialects: Kul, Naiyama,
and Letatan. To the semi-AN group,
very little known languages of south
westernNew Britain,it is necessaryto
By CESTMIR LOUKOTKA*
add a new language from the north
[Prague. 2.27.62] coast,E. Susulu. From unpublishedmaA considerable impediment to the terials of Prof. Friederici.)
The late Georg Friederici collected
study of NAN languages is the great
number of languages and dialects in in 1908 a great mass of linguisticmateNew Guinea, and, even more, the in- rial-more than 200 languages and dialects-from Micronesia, New Guinea,
sufficient
knowledge of grammarsand
vocabularies.Most of thenotesare brief AdmiraltyIslands, New Ireland, New
vocabularies only, a great handicap Britain,and the Solomon Islands. This
especially for lexicostatisticalstudies. material was, in the course of World
Many sourcesare hardlyobtainable for War II, studiedby the late Prof.Theodor Kluge and myself.Kluge published
a European student.
The present writer has attempted the numerals only in a now scarce
several lexicostatisticalstudies which mimeographedbook (Kluge 1938), and
are as yet not terminatedand are un- I have used a few vocabularies for my
published.Some preliminary
resultsfol- lexical studies.Only a verylittlepart of
low:
thismaterialwas used by Friedericifor
his study(Friederici1912),witha great
Binandere or Orokaiwa group:
1. Tsia, Yema, Mawai
part remainingunpublished. Afterhis
2. Giumu, Aru, Davera, Tahari
death, the unpublished material was
lost, to the great damage of compara3. Binandere, Berepo, Aiga, Amara
tive studies. I have now only a list of
4. Waseda, Yoda
the languages and dialects of the
5. Totora, Baruga, Adaua, Musa,
Friedericicollection.
Gewaduru
6. Maisin
MILKE*
By WILHELM
Dimuga group:
West
[Soest/
1. Maneao, Kwatewa,Pue, Galeva
Falen, Germany.8.3.62]
I wish to begin my commentwith
2. Jimajima,Dimuga, Nawp, Udama
some general remarks.
3. Liba, Paiwa, Bagoi
to what
4. Tevi, Pumani
Capell's paper again testifies
I have called his "astonishingerudition
5. Gwoiden, Makiara, Gwoira
and extraordinary
Mailu group:
productivity"(lVflke
1961:176). It also showsthat he has re1. Neme, Buari, Okaudi, Doriaidi,
Oiwa, Moikoidi
tained the theoreticalorientationseen
2. Dibogi, Bori
in previous publications. While I am
unable to share mostof his convictions
3. Kororo
4. Saroa, Bauwaki, Yabura, Avini
-for reasons to be statedbelow-I sin5. Keveri, Domu, Merani, Monoma, cerelyregretthatCapell has marredthe
expositionof his views by an awkward
Morawa
6. Lauuna
organization,leading to numerousrepe7. Dedele, Domara, Mailu, Burumai, titions,disruptions,and contradictions.
The titleof the articleis a misnomer
Magi, Nemea, Magori, Lauwa
8. Binahari, O'oku
and should -be altered to "Historical
Linguisticsof Oceania Today." Capell
Karima group:
does not discussany of the few contri1. Karima
butions to structurallinguisticsfrom
2. Barika
his geographical area (e.g. Uhlenbeck
3. Kibiri
4. Dugeme
1949,Lenormand 1952a).
Sesa group:
The chapteron Indonesia is far too
shortto do justice to the bulkycontri1. Sesa, Ibukaira
415

butionsof (mostly)Dutch scholarsdealing with Indonesian languages. Obviously it is intended only as "background material" for the subsequent
discussionof Austronesianlanguagesof
Oceania. The readershould consultthe
excellent "Bibliographical Series" edited by the Koninklijk Instituut voor
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (e.g.
Voorhoeve 1955,Uhlenbeck and Cense
1958) fora correctevaluationof studies
on Indonesian languages.
Austronesian Linguistics

Whereas the uninitiated could get

the impressionfromCapell's paper that
there is an almost endless variation of
opinion about the classification
and historical interpretationof the Austronesian languages of Oceania, in reality
thereare only two major schools. The
firsttakes its origin from Kern and
Dempwolffand is representedtodayby
e.g. Cowan, Dyen, Goodenough,Grace,
Haudricourt, Hollyman, Lenormand,
and Milke. It holds that the languages
of Melanesia, Micronesia (Palau and
Chamorro excluded), and Polynesia
forma sub-groupwithin the Austronesian familyand are derivedfroma common proto-language,termedby Dempwolff"Ur-Melanesisch,"but preferably
called "proto-Oceanic." The second
school stemsfromRay, and among its
presentmembersare Capell, his associate, Wurm, Chretien, and possibly
Spoehr. It denies the firstschools ideas
and seeks to derive different
languages
within Melanesia, Micronesia, and
Polynesia fromdifferent
parts of Indo-

nesia.

Neitherof the twobasic positionscan

be proved or disprovedby a priori reasoning.Therefore,I will point out the
factual evidence which makes me believe that the firstposition is rightand
the second (Capell's) is wrong.
1. All languages of the Oceanic subgroup have merged certain PAN phonemes, while no Indonesian language
shows this same merger(Capell errsin
ascribingthe mergerof 1 and 1 to the
PO stage). Dempwolff'sreconstruction
of UMN (PO) phonemes is not to be
taken as finalor complete,as is evident
from Haudricourt (1951) and Milke
(1961). But the distinctionbetweenthe
"Oceanic" and the "Indonesian" subgroups emergeseven more sharplyby
the suggestedcorrectionsand amplifications.

2. Besides the regular sound-shifts,

the Oceanic group shareswhat remain
today unexplained phonemic irregularities. Examples are: PAN *(dd)u-yi
> PO *suyi "bone, thorn,"PAN *paD'
am "shut the eyes" > P0 *moze "to
sleep."
3. The question of vocabularyinnovations of the Oceanic sub-group is
416

conceptions do exist concerning the

termsused by Dempwolffand the conclusions he reached. If the air is to be
cleared fora freshconsiderationof the
problem along the lines suggestedby
Milke, it seems necessaryfirstof all to
discuss Dempwolff'sexplicit and implicit opinions on this subject. These
can be found on pages 140-94 of the
second volume of the Vergleichende
Lautlehre, the all-importantpages being, in myopinion, pp. 165 and 191-4.
Brieflythe argumentis as follows:
1. The collectivephonemesof protoIndonesian have reflexesin Fijian and
Sa'a (with three exceptions). On the
otherhand, the collectivephonemesof
Fijian and Sa'a can be traced back to
proto-Indonesian with exceptions in
Sa'a whichare specificallyascribedto a
Papuan substratum. Therefore, the
share that these Melanesian languages
have (received)of the proto-Indonesian
vocabulary is establishedas Austronesian. Moreover,Fijian although Melanesian (my italics) and Sa'a although
Melanesian (myitalics) may be utilised
to verifyor to correct certain provisional reconstructionsof proto-Indonesian phonemes as well as to reconstruct additional lexemes of the
proto-Indonesianvocabulary(pp. 1413 and 160-1)
2. Certain reflexesof proto-Indonesian phonemes (specified by Dempwolff) are characteristicof all Melanesian languages which he has
investigated.Since those reflexes do
not occur in any Indonesian languages
known to him, he considers them to
be sufficient(even without an investigationof theirgrammaticalrelations)
to comprehend Melanesian languages
(zusammenzufassen)as a homogeneous
linguisticgroupwhichsplitofffromthe
Indonesian (languages) before the latter developed into the distinct languages of today, (a group) which has
spread throughoutits present-daylinguistic areas in the Pacific and only
then split up into distinct languages
(p. 165).
3. The concordance (observed) in
certain important phonemic coalescences (Lautunifizierungen) permits
one to ascribe a special phonemic sysBy G. B. MILNER*
tem to the Melanesian share of the
[London. 11.3.62] Indonesian vocabulary, (a phonemic
In an article published in the Zeit- system)which can be deduced from
schriftfur Ethnologie which probably that of proto-Indonesian,namely the
appeared too late for Capell to take proto-Melanesianphonemicsystem(pp.
cognizance of it in his review, Milke
165-6).
4. There are no separate Polynesian
states (p. 168) that the term protoMelanesian (Urmelanesisch) used by languages but only dialects of a homoDempwolff has been misunderstood geneous language which one can call
and that he proposes to replace it by proto-Polynesian(p. 167). The collecproto-Oceanic (Proto-Ozeanisch). He
tive phonemes of proto-Polynesian
does not,however,discussthenatureof have reflexesin Tongan, Samoan, and
the misunderstanding.
Futunian (with three exceptions). On
I agree with Milke that certainmis- theotherhand, thecollectivephonemes
hinted at by Capell. Some work has
been done by Fox, Haudricourt,Milke,
and Capell, but much more is to be
done. While Fox' estimationof eightto
ten thousandwordsis veryexaggerated,
I expect the special Oceanic vocabulary
to be of nearlythe same magnitudeas
thatsharedwiththe Indonesian group.
4. As is evident from Capell's description,the languages of the Oceanic
group share certain grammaticalfeatures not usually found in Indonesia.
Prominentamong them is the distinction between two classes of nouns,
alienable and inalienable, the former
construedwithpossessivepronouns,the
latter with possessivesuffixes.
Whereas
the Polynesian languages show only
relics of possessivesuffixes,they have
retained the distinctionof two classes
of nouns, differentiating
them by possessive pronouns in -a- respectively-o(Elbert 1957).
It seemsa remarkablefactthatCapell
masters all the evidence indicated
above and neverthelessrefusesto accept the obvious consequences. His
case recalls that of Tycho Brahe who,
after assembling all the facts which
finallydisprovedthe Ptolemaic conception of the universe,neverthelessfelt
unable to accept the Copernican revolution.
Suggestions for future lines of research will varywith the basic conceptions of theirauthor. I would propose
that students of Oceani~c languages
cease leeringat Indonesian phenomena
and reconstructthe phonology, morphology, and vocabulary of protoOceanic by a thoroughcomparisonof
the languagesof Melanesia, Micronesia,
and Polynesia.A usefulpreliminaryto
this task would be short-rangereconstructionsfor regional groups. Some
work in this area has been done for
Polynesia, New Caledonia, (Haudricourt 1948, 1951,with furtherwork in
progress), and the Nakanai group
(Goodenough 1961). Two othergroups
offerpromisingpossibilities:the Micronesian group sensu stricto(Marshall Islands, Ponape, Truk, Central and
SouthwesternCaroline Islands) and the
SouthernSolomon Islands.

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

of Tongan, Samoan, and Futunian can

be traced back to proto-Indonesian.
Therefore,the share that these three
Polynesian dialects have (received) of
the proto-Indonesianvocabularyis established as Austronesian. Moreover,
Tongan, Samoan, and Futunian, althoughPolynesian (my italics),may be
utilised to verify or correct certain
provisional reconstructionsof protoIndonesian phonemes as well as to reconstruct additional lexemes of the
proto-Indonesianvocabulary(pp. 1879).

5. In all the Polynesian dialects investigated,a specifiednumber of characteristicreflexesof proto-Indonesian

phonemeshas been established(p. 191).
This far-reachingconcordance makes
one recogniseon the one hand Polynesian dialectsas a special branchof Austronesian,and on the other hand, it
allows one to ascribea common protoPolynesian phonemic system to the
Polynesianshare of the Indonesian vocabulary(pp. 191-2).
6. A comparisonbetween the protoMelanesian and the Proto-Polynesian
phonemic systemsreveals a specified
number of identical reflexesof protoIndonesian phonemes (p. 192). Polynesian dialects are distinguishedfrom
Melanesian languages by the still further developmentof phonemic coalescencesand by the loss of two phonemes
(p. 193).
7. On strictlylinguisticgrounds,one
is forcedto the conclusionthat the two
groups could only have arrived at a
far-reachingconcordance in their development of proto-Indonesian phonemes through having originally belonged to the linguistic stock of a
homogeneous people ("Es drangt sich
bei rein linguistischerBetrachtungder
Schluss auf, dass die beiden Gruppen
nur dadurch zu einer weitgehendiibereinstimmendenEntwicklungder Laute
des UIN. gekommen sind, dass sie
urspriinglichzum Sprachguteines einheitlichenVolkesgehorten;"p. 193).
A close analysis of the text reveals
that Dempwolffuses almost identical
wordsand sentencesto describethe relationship between Polynesian and
proto-Indonesian and that between
Melanesian and proto-Indonesian.In
the above summary,an efforthas been
made to keep as closelyas possible to
the German original,using bracketsto
indicate wordsadded in order to make
the literal translationclearer.
At thispoint (p. 193,paragraph159c)
occurs the curious medico-ethnological
digressionwhich seems almost to have
been added as an after thought and
which contrastsmarkedlywith the rest
of the work. It seeks to reconcile the
contradictionbetweenthe factthatthe
racial characteristics
of Polynesiansand
Vol. 3 *No. 4* October1962

Capell:

Melanesians are sharplycontrastedand

his own conclusionthatboth the Melanesian and the Polynesian phonemic
systemsbelonged originallyto the linguisticstockof a homogeneouspeople.
It seems clear that in the opinion of
Dempwolff,Polynesian dialects, as he
calls them, do not have a completely
independenthistoryfromthatof Melanesian languages,but that theyshare a
commondevelopmentfor at least part
of their history,Polynesian being a
later development from "Urmelanesisch" (pp. 192-3, paragraph 159 a-b).
That is to say:
a. Melanesian languages are to be
regardedas linguistichybridswhichare
Austronesianonly to the extent that
they have been influencedby Austronesian-speakingpopulations which are
now extinctor have moved elsewhere.
It is to be noted that Dempwolffdoes
not use the termMischsprachebut his
mentionof a Papuan substratumin the
case of Sa'a (p. 160) and his use of the
term"although" on pages 142 and 160
(obwohl melanesisch),seem to indicate
that he did not regardMelanesian languages as being Austronesian in the
same sense as Indonesian languages.
b. Polynesian "dialects" have themselves been influencedby non-Austronesian elements in the period during
which proto-Polynesianwas in contact
with proto-Melanesian(second half of
page 193).
seems that Dempwolff's
It, therefore,
term "Urmelanesisch" is ambiguous.
On the one hand, he seemsto use it to
refer to a type of phonemic system
which is markedlydifferentfromthat
of proto-Indonesianbut which antedates the separatedevelopmentof Polynesian (i.e. it subsumes both Melanesian and Polynesian). On the other
hand, it is used to designate protoMelanesian, being in this case the reconstructed"parent" of contemporary
Melanesian phonemic systems,distinct
fromproto-Polynesianas it can be established after the isolation of the
latterfromthe compositegroup.
For that reason, Milke's new hypothesisand his use of the termprotoOceanic (as opposed to Dempwolff's
proto-Melanesian, 162) appear to be
justified.
With referenceto Capell's article,it
would seem, therefore,that of the two
diagramsgivenin the introductory
passage to his reviewof AustronesianLanguages (General Approach), the first
one does not correspondto the opinion
of Dempwolffas givenin the Vergleichende Lautlehre, while the second diagram which sums up an opinion ascribed (as I think, erroneously) to
Grace, gives a truer interpretationof

LINGUISTICS

OCEANIC

TODAY

Dempwolff's view, with the proviso

that it should be elaborated as follows:
Uraustronesisch

Urindonesisch

Urmelanesisch (I)a

Urrnelanesisch (II)
By

STANLEY

Urpolynesisch

NEWMAN*

[Albuquerque, N. M., U.S.A. 13.3.62]

Commenting as a general linguist

who is an outsider to the specialtyof
Oceanic languages, I found Capell's
presentationhighlyinformative.However,thereare two pointsin the discussion whichpuzzledme and about which
I would like to raise questions:
1 Near the beginningof his review
Capell lists four structural features
found in many non-Austronesianlanguages of Oceania. It is not clear what
these very broad morphological similaritiesare meant to suggest.Are they
intendedas evidenceof possiblegenetic
relationships,of a substratum,of influencefromAustronesianlanguages?
2 In the sectionheaded "Polynesian
Languages" and again under the heading "Lexicostatistics and Austronesian," the attempt is made to match
lexicostatisticdating with archaeologically determineddates of settlement.
The dates establishedby lexicostatistic
procedures,as Capell himselfstates,are
dates of linguisticdivergence.Archaeological dating,on theotherhand,refers
to the times in which certain cultural
manifestationsappeared in an area.
The lexicostatisticfactthatlanguage X
probablysplitfromY in 1000 B. c. need
not necessarilybe connected with the
archaeological fact that the area in
whichX is now spokenshowsitsearliest
indicationsof human cultureat a probable date of 1000 B.C. The speakersof
X may have lived for centuriesor millenia in a region distant from their
presentlocation; the area in whichX is
now spoken mayhave been firstsettled
by speakers of Z. Does Capell simply
assume the connection,or is thereevidence of linguisticand cultural continuityin the areas to whichhe refers?
By

CARL

A.

SCHMITZ*

[Basel, Switzerland. 2.3.62]

I am not a linguist and, therefore,

cannot commenton the pure linguistic
a It is this grouping
which Milke proposes to call proto-Oceanic.

417

problems of Capell's paper. However, could stimulatethe linguiststo concenthispaper also containsa discussionof trateon certainproblems,the solution
the problems of subgroupingand the of which may lead to betterhistorical
historyof Oceanic languages and peo- reconstructions.
Capell emphasizesthis
ples. A reliable historyof all the large necessity several times, and I think
and small language groups in the Pa- everybodyagrees with him so far. On
cificwould indeed be a great help for the otherside, it mustof course be adhistoricreconstruction
in thisarea. The
mittedthat these "anthropologicalcerpluralityof working-hypotheses,
which tainties"are not always certain. They,
are discussed today by linguists,may too, need correctivestimuli from the
appear more irritatingto the culture- linguisticside.
historianthan to the linguist.But there
There is one undeniable fact with
are a number of questions and com- which we could start our discussion.
mentsfromthe historicalpoint of view Melanesian and Polynesian dialects,
whichhave somebearingon the evalua- both belonging to the Austronesian
tion of recentlinguisticresultsand the family,are spoken by human groups
organization of furtherlinguistic re- of differentrace types. The negroid
search work. In my comment,I shall (melanid) Melanesians cannot be conformulatethosewhichappear mostim- nected geneticallywith the polynesid
portant to me.
Polynesians.I do not have to cite all
"No seriousreconstruction
is possible the authorities,and for the sake of
which does not involve assumptions brevity,I cite only Hocart (1923). As
about subgroupings."(Grace 1961) Lin- far as I know thereis only one historiguists,as well as scholars of any dis- cal working-hypothesis
which correcipline, will have to ask themselvesif sponds to this fact with an acceptable
theirmethodsof classificationresultin degree of plausibility.The best develgroupingswhichpermittherecognition opment of this argumentis found in
of historical development. "What we Speiser (1946). Some of his ideas, howmust in fact seek to discover is the ever, were discussed earlier by Graebpattern of historical relations which ner (1909). These ideas have nothing
would produce the known facts with to do with the "Kulturkreise,"which
the greatestprobability."(Grace 1961). was given up later anyhow. Anyone
It is possiblethatcertainlinguistic(and
who reads the older publications of
other) methods of classifyingcultural culture-historicalresearch should be
phenomena, which in themselveshave well aware of thisdifference.
have been developed quite logically,
Speiser'sideas may be summarizedas
lead to groupingswhich do not permit follows,leaving out Australiaand New
such insights into historical develop- Guinea for the moment. The Austroment. The particulargroups or units, nesian-speakingpeoples came into the
whichare the resultsof these methods, Pacificin two large groups (or waves):
are not the outcome of some historical a southern and early group migrated
developmentbut have been definedby along the north coast of New Guinea,
the methodI shall not discussthe ques- proceeded to Melanesia, and wentfrom
tion as to whetheror not thereis any there to Polynesia. The northernand
sense in such classification.
later section migrateddirectlyvia MiThe historicalconclusions,however, cronesia to Polynesia. However, the
which have been drawn from the lin- southern section met a non-Austroneguistic evidence represent statements sian population in New Guinea and
whose contentgoes farbeyond the lim- Northwest-Melanesia.
This pre-Austroits of pure linguisticresearch(e.g. the nesian substratum,
whoselanguage is as
question of the origin and migration yet not exactlyknown, belonged to a
routesof the Polynesians,etc.). Here a
people of the negroid (melanid) race.
furtherquestion is introduced. Can
Culture-historical
evidence permitsthe
linguistic research alone produce re- assumptionthat here we have a single
sultswhich permitsuch statements?"If basic pre-Austronesianculture. (This
we did not know theracial and cultural statementdoes not exclude other predistributionin Oceania almostany an- Austronesian cultures in the interior
swer might be given to the situation of New Guinea.) The blendingof these
found in the Melanesian languages. two cultures-southern Austronesians
It is the anthropological certainties and Pre-Austronesians-resultedin a
which point up this problem for the mixed culture,in which the Austronelinguist" (Kroeber 1941). Indeed, al- sian language typeand thenegroidrace
ready a rough sketchof what is known type dominated. Therefore Speiser
of cultural and archaeologicalfactsin called this mixed culture austroPolynesia and Melanesia must lead to melanid. (The term itself had been
questionswhichcannot be answeredby used by earlier writers.)AfterSpeiser,
some of the linguisticworking-hypoth- this austro-melanidculture developed
eses under discussiontoday. It may be
in NorthernNew Guinea and Northuseful to have a look at these "anthro- west-Melanesia. From there, it mipological certainties" because they gratedto the southernislands of Mela418

nesia, which up to that time had been

uninhabited.The old cultural stratum
in southernMelanesia, therefore,is of
the austro-melanid type. A furthern
extension of this austro-melanid culture in southern Melanesia occurred
withits migrationvia Fiji to Polynesia,
which was also uninhabited at this
time. This early austro-melanidphase
in Polynesia,then,was alteredagain by
the entranceof the northernAustronesians,who never touchedMelanesia. In
contrastto this developmentin Polynesia, the austro-melanidsituation in
southernMelanesia remained basically
unaltered, aside from the endogenous
change. Along the northcoast of New
Guinea and in northwestMelanesia,
there occurred a further exogenous
change.Speiserspeakshere of a youngIndonesian influence, which never
reached Polynesia. One may correlate
this young-Indonesian influence of

Speiser-cum

grano

salis-with

the

bronze age influenceof the archaeologists.

This working-hypothesis
of Speiser
was not used much by non-Germanspeakinganthropologists.
I will listjust
a fewof the more importantworksand
papers which carriedon the basic concept of Speiser (Buehler 1946-49, 1961;
Schlesier1958; Schmitz1961). Without
hesitation,one can admit that some
of Speiser'sargumentsare open to criticism. This, however, does not mean
that his basic concept was wrong.The
firsttask,the logical resultof his arguments,was to tryto develop a better
definitionof the two constituents
of the
austro-melanidmixed culture. Speiser
worked constantlywith distributional
evidence of sometimesbadly defined
elements and complexes in Melanesia
and Polynesia. Criticismled to speculation as to whetheror not a more intensiveanalysiscarried out in a small,
well definedarea would lead to better
results.This has been triedby Schmitz
(1960) in NortheasternNew Guinea.
His results,too, are not yet satisfying
and should be considered only as a
furtherstep in the same direction.The
outlines of the two constituentsof the
austro-melanidmixed culture (his cultures B and C) came out somewhat
clearer than Speiser's,with I may add,
the argumentsbetterorganized. Naturally, an intensive linguistic analysis
had to be left aside for the moment.
This is not theplace to delve into the
detailsof thisresearch.But a wordmay
be said about the correlationbetween
the culture-historical
working-hypothesis and recentarchaeologicalresults.In
the beginning, Speiser accepted the
ideas of Heine-Geldern (1932, 1937,
1945). He considered that the roundaxe (Walzenbeil) belonged to his preAustronesiannegroid people, and the
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

quadrangular axe (Vierkantbeil)without grip musthave belonged originally

to the southern Austronesians. The
quadrangular axe with convex back
and grip,then,musthave been brought
by the northernAustronesians.I may
point out in thiscontextthatverysimilar ideas had been expressedby Beyer
(1948) and much earlier by Dixon
(1930). Again, one will find similar
ideas in a review article by Golson
(1959), in which he summarizedand
analysed the recent resultsof archaeological research in the Pacific area.
Speiser's basic concept explains with
some degreeof plausibility(1) the continuum of quadrangular axes without
grip fromwesternPolynesiato Melanesia and NorthernNew Guinea up to
Southeast Asia, (2) the lack of quadrangular axes with convex back and
with grip in Melanesia and western
Polynesia, and (3) the existence of
round axes and quadrangular axes
withoutgrip in early layersof excavations in Eastern and marginal Poly-

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

do not belong to the Melanesian-Polynesian continuum?And further,it is

possible thatthe recentPolynesiandialects contain elements which are not
Austronesianat all?
To elaborate on these questions: (a)
Since there is an austro-melanidcontinuum between Melanesia and Polynesia, the possibilityexiststhat recent
Polynesiandialects contain elementsof
constituentof this
the pre-Austronesian
"austro-melanid language." For this
question, see points 6 and 7. (b) The
northerncultural continuum between
Micronesia and Polynesia, pre-Austronesian elements,are not under discussion. However, one may thinkhere of
elementswhich
othernon-Austronesian
could be linked with non-Austronesian
languages in Southeast Asia or South
China. Finally,(c) it is possible thatthe
carriersof thisnortherncontinuumdid
belong linguisticallyto the Austronesian family.But their dialects are to
The Melanesian-Polynesiancontinuum be derivedfromAustronesianlanguage
nesia.
In the culture-historical
conception, groups, which in Southeast Asia and
It is upon this background that I
shall formulatesome precise questions theaustro-melanidphase of Polynesian eastern Indonesia underwenta develfromthat
and commentsconcerningthelinguistic historyis an extension of the same opment completelydifferent
phase in southernMelanesia. The dis- which the dialectsof the southernAusproblem.
covery of a linguistic continuum be- tronesiansexperienced in North New
Terminology
tween Melanesian and Polynesian dia- Guinea and northwestMelanesia. Here
I propose to use the termsMelane- lects and the proof that a certain attention must be invited to the resians and Polynesiansonly within the complex of elementsin the Polynesian searchby Kahler (1952-55). The differdialectsis to be derivedfromthe Mela- ences pointed out by ethnologistsand
geographical limits of Melanesia and
nesian dialects was to be expected. In
Polynesia.It is only therethat theyare
achaeologistsmust be taken into conpeople of the culture (including lan- this regard it seems that the resultsof siderationby linguists.Are the methods
theresearchby Grace (1959) confirmthe which have been applied by linguists
guage) which has developed locally as
a result of mixture and endogeneous culture-historical
concept.
capable of showingif these differences
change. Outside of Polynesia proper,
exist on the language level? Is it posone should speak of Polynesians only The problemof the "outliers"
sible, to put it verysimple, that Grace
I thinkthatthe mostimportantstate- is using a differentbody of evidence
in the case of definitely
recentre-immigrants(i.e. Kapimarangi). But Melane- ment in Capell's paper is the remark with the same Polynesiandialects from
sians and Polynesianshave never lived thatthe languagesof some of the Mela- KdIhler?
nesian outliersare not to be connected
in Southeast Asia or Indonesia. A
The language of the pre-Austronesian
scrupulous considerationof this prop- with recent Polynesian dialects, but
osition would make furtherdiscussion should be regarded as an earlier form constituent
Culture-historicalresearch has indimuch easier. Since we have to consider of Austronesian.Capell offersthe asthe recent cultural situation in Mela- sumptionthat theyrepresentremnants cated that this pre-Austronesianconnesia and Polynesiaas theresultofmix- of an early Austronesian migration stituent probably consisted of one
ture, it is not permissibleto use the throughMelanesia. This argumentcor- single basic culture,disregardinglocal
with the variationsfor the moment.This would
same name for the result and its con- responds without difficulties
culture-historicalconcept. It is, in a
mean that in northernNew Guinea
stituents.
way, a furtherconfirmation.Further and northwesternMelanesia a large
Place of origin of the austro-melanid detailed research-workby linguists as
languages
part of the non-Austronesian
culture
well as by anthropologistsis, of course, belonged to one commonphylum.This
It is to be doubted that-as Speiser necessary.
question is, of course,entirelyopen, as
said-the austro-melanidculturedevelup to now not enough material has
The "northernAustronesians"
oped only along the northerncoast of
been available. I may,however,call atNew Guinea and in northwestern
The culture-historicaland archaeo- tention to the researchcarried out by
Melanesia. The ethnographicaland archaeo- logical evidenceseemsto be quite clear. Wurm (1960b).
logical elements of both constituents There is a culturalcontinuumbetween
If severallinguistsstatethattheycancan be found in an almost equal dis- Polynesia and Micronesia and South- not discover any non-Austronesian
east Asia which does not touch New
tributionup to easternIndonesia and
components in Melanesian dialects,
some parts of SoutheastAsia. We have Guinea and Melanesia. This, however, thenone again mustask if thelinguistic
to assume that the austro-melanidcul- raises very difficultquestions for the methodsused hithertoare able to show
turedeveloped along thewhole contact- linguists,which I can only present.Is
whetheror not sucha non-Austronesian
zone of these two basic cultures.This
it possible, then, that the recent Poly- component exists. Speaking as a nonmeans that in SoutheastAsia and east- nesian dialects contain elementswhich linguist,I wishto remarkthata method
Vol. 3 -No. 4 October1962

ern Indoneisa, the austro-melanidculture was a neolithic phase. This neolithicphase has been changed again by
later developments(i.e. bronze age, Indian influences,Islam, intra-Indonesian
change,etc.).
The entire range of the austromelanid mixed culture reached from
SoutheastAsia to Polynesia (including
New Zealand), leaving out the Micronesian province. I am of the opinion
that the melanesoid elements in the
recent Micronesian culture go back to
a later driftfromnorthwesternMelanesia. But this may be left to further
research.Within thiswide distribution,
the austro-melanid culture remained
intact only in southernMelanesia (disregardingthe engenous change for the
moment),but in all the otherprovinces
of Oceania. the austro-melanidculture
must have belonged, as a neolithic
phase, to prehistory.

419

b) The linguistic elements of the

southern continuum (Melanesia-Polynesia) alone come into consideration
because theybelong to an older phase
of development.
c) We are justifiedin the assumption
that the Austronesianlanguages along
the entire contact-zonewith the preAustronesian culture (round-axe-cultureof the archaeologists)have been influenced by the latter. This contactzone extended at least from eastern
Indonesia to northwesternMelanesia.
d) In easternIndonesia the austromelanid situation was changed by
newer developments.
e) The southernMelanesian islands
were invaded fromthe verybeginning
by a culture and language of the
austro-melanidtype.
f) The critical area where one may
seek the oldest formof Austronesianis
northeasternNew Guinea, the Bismarck-Archipelago
including Bougainunder like circumstances,the longer ville.
the time the greater the divergence"
g) These arguments,which are a
(Swadesh 1959). The italics are mine belogical consequence of the culturecause I think this refers to the difficult historical concept, coincide to a high
point in question. If the circumstances
degree with the resultsGrace has preare not alike, if therefore the differen- sented from the linguistic viewpoint.
tiation of the recent dialects goes back
"There are no good linguisticgrounds
to mixing with an unknown substraforassumingthatanyof the islandseast
tum, then the applicability of the
of Bougainville were occupied in premethod has its limits. In this connecAustronesiantimes"(Grace 1961). Since
tion, one must emphasize the argument
Grace was only concerned with the
of Haudricourt that the Austronesian
problem of Austronesian languages,
dialects in Melanesia underwent some
this statementdoes not contain any
changes effectedby a non-Austronesian
consideration of a non-Austronesian
substratum. This theory has been held
element in the same languages. The
from the very beginning by a certain
migrationof the austro-melanid culgroup of linguists. Capell is at present
ture into the southernMelanesian isone of their strongest representatives.
lands certainlydid not take place in
I cannot but state that from the cultureone greatwave but mustbe understood
historical and archaeological points of
as a more or less continuousmovement
view, the ideas and arguments preof small groups (i.e. boat-crews).This
sented by Capell meet the situation
means,however,thattheremay be diasomewhat more appropriately. All these
lects in southernMelanesia and even
doubts and arguments have an effecton
Fiji which contain more pre-Austronethe reliability and meaning of a reconsian elementsthan do otherdialectson
structed basic Austronesian (Ur-Austrothe same islands. There is no single
nesisch).
compact language of the austromelanid culturepossible,but rather,a
The problem of a basic-Austronesian
wide range of variations within the
Summarizing all the arguments
limitsset by the two basic constituents,
sketched above, it seems permissible to
with,one mustadd, a dominanceof the
question whether or not the basic AusAustronesian component. This probtronesian language reconstructed by
lem can only be solved if furtherreDempwolff (1934-38) and other linsearch concentratesupon the points
guists really represents Austronesian.
below.
I leave this for the linguists to decide.
h) In the critical area, pointed out
But it seems to me that the cultureunder section f, attentionmust be dihistorical and archaeological situation
directed towards the pre-Austronesian
in Melanesia and Polynesia gives other
elements.This bringsresearchwiththe
clues to the oldest form of Austronesian
languages of eastern and northeastern
speech.
New Guinea into the foreground.Only
a) The linguistic elements of the
afterwe have succeeded in recognising
northern continuum (Micronesia-Polythe big language families and phyla,
nesia) must be ruled out because they
whose distribution coincides roughly
belong in any case to a younger phase
with the distributionof the main eleof development.
ments and comp]exes of the "roundwhich limits itself to a comparison of
words and sounds of only 200 or 400
items is not capable of solving this problem, regardless of whether it uses ten
or a hundred such lists. This multiplication of the proofs cannot overcome
the basic limitation. Research of this
kind is preliminary study of considerable value and help, but it does not yet
permit any historical conclusions.
In view of these facts it seems probable
that researchof this method into the relationshipsof the Melanesian languages will
meet with great difficulties.For here borrowing and creolization appear to be important factors.That means that we will
meet here with problems arising from bilingualism.In this connectionan investigation into the influenceexercised on a language by a substratum may spread light
over the cultural backgroundof theseprocesses. (Anceaux 1953).
The methodological basis about which
I have some doubts, has been formulated by Swadesh: "Time is a variable
related to divergence in the sense that,

420

axe-culture," will linguists have a

firmbasis for the next step. One may
reasonably try to dissect the nonAustronesianelements in the Austronesian dialects of northeasternNew
Guinea and northwesternMelanesia.
Ideally, therewould be a certainset of
elements definitelyAustronesian, of
whichwe could assumewith a high degreeof certaintythatit representedthe
oldest traceableformof Austronesian.I
emphasize again, that there is a continuumof a large number of pre-Austronesian culture-elementsand complexes between northernNew Guinea
and northwestern
Melanesia, extending
into southernMelanesia and fadingtowards Polynesia. It seems to me only
reasonableto hope that thiscontinuum
also showsitselfon the language level.
i) Independentof theseargumentsis
Capell's statementthat the dialects of
some of the Melanesian outliers must
representan older formof Austronesian and cannot be derivedfromrecent
Polynesiandialects.This is, to mymind
at least, another possibility.Both approachesshould ultimatelycomplement
each other.In any case, theywould controleach other.
This commentby a non-linguistattempted to present questions, which
arise if one triesto correlatethe results
of linguisticresearchwith those of culture-historicaland archaeological research. The historyof the Pacific peoples cannot be reconstructedby one
discipline only. There is always one
danger: the methodsof the individual
disciplines,logical as they all are, are
not reliable enough for thereis always
a tendencyto go to the extremepossibilities of the logical axiom. This is a
very human phenomenon, and no
scholar can say that he would always
resistthat temptation.
Historical reconstruction,however,
has to take into consideration all
achievementsof the human group in
question. This means that the methods
of the individual disciplines, dealing
withthedifferent
aspectsof human culture,also mustbe adapted to each other
in a process of constantreciprocalenlightenment.This is a slow process.
Again and again we have to stop, try
to examine all available knowledge,
and discoverthe directionof the next
steps in our research.
By ANDREW SHARP*
[Wellington,New Zealand. 30.1.62]
Capell makes referencesto my alleged views on the characterof prehistoric Pacific voyaging and settlement.
These referencesdo not accord with
my actual views. They show, however,
that Capell, like other contemporary
Pacific prehistorians,has not worked
out clearlyin his own mind the issues
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

involved.Thus Capell refersto "Sharp's

theoryof more or less haphazard arrivals." All initial arrivalson detached
ocean islands were of necessityhaphazard in the sense that no deliberate
navigation to those islands occurred;
deliberate navigation is only possible
when the existenceand location of the
islands to which one is proceedingare
known. The issue, therefore,is not
whether the arrivals were haphazard,
but whether deliberate two-waycontacts developed thereafterwith the
home islands of the discoverers,or
otherislandsat a distance.Capell states
that Spoehr's contention that "skilled
navigation is necessaryin both Micronesia and Polynesia," and "those two
people possessed that skill," is against
my views,whereasI was insistentthat
the Micronesiansand Polynesianswere
skilled navigators. The issue is over
what distancetwo-waynavigationwithout instrumentswas effectiveafterdistant islands were discovered without
deliberatenavigation.
My own view of prehistoricPacific
settlement,based on nautical realities,
is thatveryinfrequentwest-eastvoyages
with the westerliesof summermonths
occasioned the primarysettlementof
the Pacificgroups,and thatmuch more
frequenteast-westvoyageswiththe prevailing winds and currentsoccurred
thereafterboth in inhabited and uninhabited islands. I see nothing in
Capell's survey which conflictswith
this view, and a great deal which suggeststhat it offersthe best explanation
of the linguisticevidence.
Justwhat the proportionof east-west
voyagesfromFiji and Polynesia was to
west-eastvoyagesto Fiji and Polynesia
is anybody'sguess. Mine is that it was
about a thousand to one. The crucial
are whetherand where
issues,therefore,
there is unequivocal evidence of the
derivation of a speech from west to
east ratherthan the other way round.
Capell cites and endorsesDyen's reservations (1960) concerning Grace's
view that Fijian, Rotuman and Polynesian were derived from a protolanguage whichwas isolated fora time
from the other Austronesian speech
areas. Capell does not, however, cite
Hollyman's reservations (1960) concerning Capell's suggestion that Futuna, Aniwa and some of the Reef
Islands in the Melanesian area to the
west of Fiji and Polynesia were a special outlier sub-groupwith linguistic
featureswhich were not the result of
settlementfromEastern Polynesia,but
of colonizationby proto-Polynesian
migrantson theirway to Polynesia.In his
present article, Capell states that the
tradition of derivation from Hawaiki
or equivalent formsof the name was a
Polynesian tradition referringto the
Vol. 3 * No. 4 *October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

guages. There are always disturbing

factors: e.g. borrowing and special
analogic changes. So the differentformulae given by Dempwolffdo not necessarily reflectthe original phoneme
pattern-and surely not the phonetic
shape-of the Primitive Indonesian
Language. A more detailed knowledge
of the historyof theselanguagesis necessary. Although later authors make
correctionsin the formulae given by
Dempwolff,I still have the impression
that theyfollow Dempwolfftoo much
in his general method.
Perhaps I can make this clear by
some examples.There are rathermany
Sanskritloan words in Tagalog, and
we see that a Sanskritr always corresponds to an 1 in the Tagalog cognates:
Tag antala "delay" corresponds to
Sanskritantara "interval"; Tag balata
"vow" to S vrata "vow"; Tag bathala
"God" to S bhattara"God" (I omit the
diacriticalsignsin the Sanskritwords).
This i-feature(= l in Tag corresponding with r in other languages) is supposed to be thefamousrl. The g-feature
(-- g in Tag correspondingwith r in
other languages,is supposed to be r2)
is not representedin the Sanskritloanwords. I studied the spread of the r1
and r2 in the Philippines (details will
be published in Anthropos) and I arrivedat theprobable conclusionthatin
thehistoryof Tag, theg-featureand the
i-featureare the results of the two
soundshifts:r > g and r > 1. The
r > g occurreda ratherlong time before the r > l soundshift.
Take e.g. the following interesting
cognatesin Tag: sugat "to wound" and
sulat "to write."Sugat (<*surat) is an
By EUGENE VERSTRAELEN*
old word in Tag. and underwentthe
[Cebu City,Philippines. 14.2.62] earlysoundshiftr > g. Sulat (<*surat)
In this article Capell showsa broad is a later loanword from Javanese or
and impressiveknowledgein the field Malay, and underwentthe later soundof Oceanic Linguistics.But this paper shift r, > 1. (In Old Javanese surat
we have to study means both "to makescratches"and "to
is not self-sufficient;
manyreferencesin order to be able to write.") Here the g in sugat and the l
evaluate the differentclassifications in sulat surelydo not reflecttwo difmentioned.I do not blame the author ferentphonemes in *AN!
forthis-itwas not his intentionto write
article-but I expressmy By S. A. WURM*
a self-sufficient
[Canberra,Australia. 13.3.62]
regretthatI do not have all thesereferI should like to make a commentto
ences at hand.
I wish to commenton the method Capell's article which, in an indirect
used by Dempwolff.He givesmanyfor- manner,will illustratethe rapidityof
mulae of correspondencesamong some changesin our oftententativeviews in
Indonesian languages. They are very mattersrelating to Oceanic linguistics
usefuland his workis brilliantand ac- when new informationbecomes availcurate. But these formulae are pro- able. Capell quotes me as saying, in
jected in the so-called Primitive In- 1954:
donesian Language. By Primitive
The generalprincipleofdetermining
relationshipbetweenlanguagesbywhichthe
Indonesian Language, he means at
of
least the mother-languageof the lan- mainemphasisis laid on thecomparison
vocabularies
and theestablishing
ofsoundguages compared. But this cannot be
laws,whereasthemorphological
structure
done. We do not have a clear-cutsound- is regardedonlyas a criterion
ofsecondary
is simplynotapplicableto the
shift in the development of the lan- importance,
original home of the Polynesians,
whereasthereis no recordof thistradition outside Eastern Polynesia and
Futuna.
I findmyselfincreasinglyimpressed
withtheviewthatthe Polynesianscame
fromsomewherein Fiji to somewhere
in Tonga. The vasu relationship in
Fiji, which is paralleled in Tonga and
Samoa under the Western Polynesian
equivalent of the same basic word, is
particularlyhard to explain as a borrowing after the Fijians and Polynesians came by separateroutesinto their
read withparislands.I have, therefore,
ticular interestCapell's commentson
the linguistic relationships of Fijian
and Polynesian. I note that, in reference to Grace's hypothesis,Capell says
that Grace's 'Fijian' is standardBauan,
and thatthereare quite divergenttypes
of languages in other parts of Fiji. I
note also that Capell says that the dialects of the Lau Islands (whichare the
nearest part of Fiji to Tonga) agree
with Bauan in general. Capell goes on
to quote with approval Dyen's statement that because of the resemblance
of the Fijian systemof possessiveclassifiersto thatof otherlanguagesbut not
to Polynesian,he feels it representsan
earlier, more complex stage. What I
should like to know from Capell is
whether,grantingthe considerabledifferencesbetween modern Fijian and
modern Tongan, they cannot be explained by divergence after a small
group of Proto-Polynesianswent from
WesternFiji to Eastern Fiji, and then
a small group of those Proto-Polynesians went into Tonga.

421

wider comparison of non-Melanesian languages. It may thereforebe necessary to

apply to these languages, in the firstplace,
the principle of the comparison of structure.
The linguistic situation in New
Guinea as it was known in 1954 made
this statement understandable, since it
appeared unlikely that larger groupings of non-Austronesian languages on
the basis of genetic relationship would
be possible, and the quite far-reaching
structural agreements between basically
apparently unrelated, or almost unrelated, languages invited attempts at
typological classifications, and at establishing language groups on that basis.
The first large-scale deviation from
this was my establishment of the East
New Guinea Highlands Stock on the
basis of lexicostatistical evidence. The
results of this work was firstpresented
in a preliminary form, at the 34th Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement
of Science in Perth, Australia (Wurm
1959). The composition of the stock
(Wurm 1960b, 1961a, 1961b) and percentage figures (Wurm 1961c) were
published later.
The demonstration of the existence
of this large stock of genetically interrelated non-Austronesian New Guinea
languages encouraged a reconsideration
of the views held concerning the group-

ing of suchlanguages,and theestablishment of D. Laycock in 1960 (unpublished) of the Ndu Family which had
been suspectedby Capell when naming
his Maprik Group, gave furtherevidence of the existenceof large groups
of geneticallyinterrelatednon-Austronesian New Guinea languages. Additional work which I did demonstrated
the fact that the East New Guinea
Highlands Stock and a numberof languages adjacent to it constituted a
phylum, and that some kind of a
exlexical-and structural-relationship
isted between this phylum and the
Huon Peninsula Group, the Binandere
Family and the Ndani Family in the
Balim Valley area in Dutch New
Guinea. A. Healey accepts tentatively
the presenceof a large group of interrelated languages in the Telefomin
area in west central Australian New
Guinea, overlappinginto the adjacent
part of Dutch New Guinea (unpublished). G. Larson's workin the central
highlands area of Dutch New Guinea
may well contributeto the establishment of furtherlarge groups of interrelated languages in addition to the
Kapauku-Moni-Woda Group (Larson
1958) and the Ndani Family.
The veryrecentestablishmentof several large groups of interrelatednonAustronesian New Guinea languages by

lexicostatisticalmethods shows that at

learned his earliest approach to the

problems from the writingsof S. H.
Ray, and profitedby many years of
By ARTHUR CAPELL*
friendshipwith him, to observe the
I regardedmyworkas essentiallythat changed approaches that are being
of chroniclingopinions held now or in
made nowadays.
the more or less recent past (since
It is necessaryto say at the startthat
I have never developed confidencein
scientificinvestigationof the Oceanic
languages began), rather than of de- the claimed resultsof glottochronology
ciding the answers to the problems or even thoseof the less ambitiouslexiraised. Could I do the latter,it would costatistics,and so am bound to react
reallybe the accomplishmentforwhich unfavorablyto theoriesbased on them.
the linguisticworld is waiting-and is I may even add that I have welcomed
likelyto wait fora considerableperiod. Chretien's (1962) recent article, "The
In the processof chronicling,however, mathematicalmodels of glottochronolit was inevitable that preferencesand
ogy" (Language 38: 11-37) as well as
theorieswould be expressed.Some of Berglandand Vogt's"On thevalidityof
the scholarswho have commentedon
glottochronology"(CA 3: 115-153) as
what I have writtenascribe to me a
evidence that supports my belief that
dogmatismI would never claim, and
extremecaution must be exercised in
write almost in a tone of self-defense accepting findingsbased on this apthat it was not my purpose to evoke. proach.
We know far too little of the actual
Uncertaintystill engulfsthe studyof
facts concerningnot only the nature Oceanic languages,and thisuncertainty
of the Oceanic languages,but of their is sufficientto explain the opinions,
number and content-in a majorityof oftenverydivergentfrommine,which
cases-to justifyany sort of dogmatism appear amongst the commentators.
about those subjects.It is, in fact,ex- These, incidentally,do not alwaysagree
much less with the
tremely stimulating for one who amongstthemselves,

Reply

422

least in some areas of New Guinea, the

usual procedureforgroupinglanguages
can bring about importantresultsand
theremay be no need to look fornonlexical criteria in firstattemptsat arrivingat preliminarygroupings.However,especiallyin cases of far-reaching
lexical dissimilarity
betweenlanguages,
a comparison of structural features
(Wurm 1961d) and a statisticalmethod
based on such featuresmayyielduseful
results (Capell 1961). A differentline
of studyhas, at the same time,shown
that in groups of interrelated nonAustronesianlanguages,the numberof
communalectsbelieved to be distinct
languages on the basis of lexicostatistical evidence,are not infrequentlyonly
dialects (Wurm and Laycock 1961).
However, the discoveryof such large
groupshas simplifiedthe linguisticpicture of New Guinea only in overshadowing the continued existence of
very numerous non-AustronesianNew
Guinea languageswhich,at the present
state of our meagre knowledge,do not
appear to be geneticallyinterrelated.
Paradoxically,the establishmentof the
large groupsmentiondabove has led to
a veryconsiderableincreasein thenumber of such unrelatedlanguageson the
language map of New Guinea-they
were discoveredas a by-productof the
work attemptingto determinethe size
and extentof the large groups.

statementsI have made in some places.

Part of the uncertaintysprings from
the assumptionthat in historicalmatters linguistics may be autonomous,
needing nothingfromotherdisciplines
such as archaeologyand anthropology.
I shall have cause to commentfurther
on this attitude in a later paragraph.
While it is true that these disciplines
require evidence of quite a different
kind from that of linguistics,it must
also be rememberedthat the peoples
who spoke the languages ancestral to
present day Oceanic languages were
(presumably)real peoples withsocial organisations,religionsand materialcultures. Goodenough's comments stress
this interdisciplinary
relationship,but
they are still largelyspeculative: here
again is an area in which much likelihood may be demonstratedbut dogmatismis out of place.
Some of the comments, however,
which involve historical restorations,
are to me, at least, not acceptable as
hypotheses.I welcomeDyen's statement
fromthe 10th PacificScience Congress
at Honolulu in 1961, although it was
too late for recognitionin this paper
CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

which was finishedbefore that date.

Dyen has taken a position that is very
like thatof Fox, and subjectto thesame such a termas MN should apply. If it
difficulties
as the latter.He decries the could be shown that PN and MN are
ideas of pidginisationand substratum, really two stagesof one language, then
whereas to me these both seem very I would be perfectlyhappy to join
likelyprocessesin theproductionof the withCowan in calling the New Guinea
Oceanic languages. Once the AN ele- MN languages just "Melanesian," alment is abstractedfrom the MN lan- though I would like a term less amguages (using the termin its historical biguous geographically.There is no
sense,and probablyin part geographi- space here to reviewthe morphological
cal, as Cowan says),the remainderis a
characteristics
of New Guinea MN that
far fromhomogeneousvocabularyresi- suggest a real mixture of languages:
due. Why this fact should be held to that was done, at least in part, in my
invalidate the idea of a pre-AN popu- thesis (Capell 1943). Meillet's net was
lation speakinga congeriesof languages not widelyenough spread to justifyhis
I cannot see. In fact,it seemsto suggest generalisation.
that thiswas so. If the NAN languages
In regardto pidginisation,the study
of New Britain and the Solomon Is- of modernPidgin Englishis reallyhelplands, along with Panaras, the sole ful.It is the acceptanceof the language
NAN language survivingin New Ire- of a dominantminorityby a dominated
land, are compared,one findsa group majority,withmodifications
pointingto
of languages bearing littleresemblance a non-Englishsubstratumespeciallyin
to each othereitherin vocabularyor in phoneticsand morphology,and so far
structure.That the same stateof affairs the case is exactly parallel to the deexisted veryprobably in pre-AN Mel- velopmentof, for example, French in
anesia does not seem to be at all an
Gaul. But Dyen speaksof "the original
extraordinarytheory-albeit it is ad- uniformlanguage which is hypothetimittedto be a theory,which is all that cally a pidgin," but in myview at least
the statementsof otherwritersalso are. thatis preciselywhatit is not. It is *AN,
Dyen's suggestionof a sort of popula- spreading in various formsaccording
tion explosion in Melanesia raises far to the date of the movements,as I
more problems than it solves. It does do not accept Dempwolff'stheoryof
not account for the heterogeneoussub- "Ursprachen"for MN, IN and PN. It
stratunthat existsin Melanesia, and it was in preciselythe same position as
is inconceivablethat the islands should English in the Pacific at the present
ever have housed a population suffi- day,and mayeven have spread in much
cientlylarge to spread in all directions, the same way. The difference
is that it
as his theorypresupposes.On the lin- did not make so greatan impressionon
guistic side, there is still the difficulty the original languages as English has
that Fox's theoryhas to face: the ac- done, and there are no doubt good
cretion of consonant endings in IN
reasons for that in the differences
bewords,which are quite beyond expla- tweenthe old situationand the present
nation if theydid not existalready.Fox
one. If a choice is to be made, Ray's
holds that the final consonantswhich hypothesisseems to me preferable.But
are a featureof the IN vocabularywere I would again point out thatI was not
developed after the words left Mel- reallymakinga choice in the paper as I
anesia; Dyen givesno judgementin the originally wrote it, but listing both
case, but still has to explain whether points of view.
he believes theywere part of the origiIn thesematters,Goodenough's comnal MN word (if *AN = *MN, as on
mentsare of especial interest.He does
his theorytheyshould) or whetherhe
takeintoaccountthenon-Mbaudialects
has some otherideas to account forthe (or languages?)of Fiji in his argument
fact that the IN word is of a different for the labio-velarsas elementsof the
phoneticpatternfromtheMN, MC and
original *AN, but it must be rememPN words,which show the final con- bered that Vanua Levu especiallyconsonantsunder certaincircumstancesas
tains a good deal of strangevocabulary
thematic resuscitations.Even a brief which amounts to a substratumof the
glance at the so-called MN languages language there,whilewesternFiji shows
of New Guinea makes one verydoubt- an AN language that divergesnoticeful of Meillet's statementquoted by ably from the eastern dialects and in
Dyen, "There are no mixed languages," some regards agrees more with the
fromwhich he draws what would be
centralSolomons than aywhereelse. If
the rightconclusionif the factreallyis
I seem to him to "question the AN staas claimed: "A language cannot be half tus of both MC and MN languages in
Malayopolynesian." Yet that is pre- spite of the solid work on Trukese by
cisely how the New Guinea MN lan- Dyen (1949)" the appearance does not
guages strikethe student,and that is
alter the fact,forI would be the last to
preciselywhy Cowan wants to regard reject this relationship.However, I do
them as the only languages to which finddifficulty
with it beyond the "funVol. 3 'No. 4 *October1962

Capell:

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

damental" vocabulary,as it is usually

called, and in much of the morphological structure.But, then,what was *AN
morphologically?
We do not know.
I am glad especially to notice that
Goodenoughholds that"thereis a common vocabularyin MN, MC and PN
languages that is not preservedin IN,
but thishas been ignoredin reconstructionsof PAN." Far fromdenyingthis,it
may be recalled that I mentionedit a
numberof timesin myarticle,and drew
attentionto it as far back as my thesis
(Capell 1943: 164-68).Yet I feelthatwe
stilldo not know enough of IN itselfto
claim categoricallythat such words are
entirelymissing.It is still possible, if
they are missing,that theyhave been
lost,or were neverin thatpart of *AN
which became IN. At the same time,
I am not prepared to concur that
morphological agreement (not resemblance, incidentally) is less reliable
than phonemic correspondence, although I fully agree that phonemic
correspondence is a sine qua non of

comparison. Goodenough might have

mentionedthat English morphologyis
predominantly Germanic, and that
Norman-Frenchhas influencedvocabulary chiefly.We are all agreed that we
still need much more detailed comparisons of languages in the Oceanic
field:on that,at least, therecan be no
argument.It will be extremelyinteresting to see Goodenough's final eight
pointsworkedout in detail.
It is interesting to observe how
Dempwolff'swork is being criticizedat
the presentday. Most of the American
writersare using Dempwolffbut revising it, and Dyen in particular has
submittedit to drastic revision,as is
noted especially in Dyen 1953 both a
and b. In his present commentshe is
practically rejecting it, though not
overtly,and at thesame timeseekingto
retain the vocabulary produced by
Dempwolff.
Continental writerssuch as Kahler
are clinging much more closely to
Dempwolff'swork,while Chretienis at
pains to prove that Dempwolffis not
guilty of the charge of workingfrom
too narrow a base. This may in the
long run be true, in the sense that
he published monographs on many
Oceanic languages, but the results of
these are not evident in his Vergleichende Lautlehre, and, hence, he is re-

sponsibleif the wider basis of his work

is not nowadaysappreciated.It will be
noted that Hollyman is amongstthose
who do not recognisethiswider basing
of Dempwolff's work. Although of
course I know of and have used these
other works of Dempwolff,they fall
into the backgroundwhen one is using
423

extend back to the proto-stage.

his finalwork.The factthatMilner and
Just a word also in regard to the
Kaihler both feel bound to give the
bulk of their commentsto explaining query raised by Sharp at the end of
Dempwolff'sposition as theysee it, in- his comments:can the differencesbedicatesthe lack of clarityin his original tween modern Fijian and Tongan be
wayof expressinghis conclusions.
explained by divergenceaftera small
In reterenceto Newman'sdifficulties, group of proto-Polynesians
went from
as far as we know, the four character- WesternFiji to Eastern Fiji, and then
istics of NAN languages can only be
part of them went on to Tonga? The
regarded as typological.Whether they answer is "only in part." See Capell
containanythingof historicalvalue has
and Lester (1941) for informationon
yet to be determined.No comparative the very differentvocabularies and
diachronicworkon theNAN languages structuresof Westernand EasternFiji,
has yet been done, except for brief with the added fact that some western
adumbration in Capell 1943 (188-91, vocabulary corresponds to Mathuata
(Vanua Levu) and not to Bau. Part of
Papua.
260 et passim) forsouth-eastern
the linguisticsituationin the west apThe study of the New Britain and
Solomon Is. NAN is long overdue,but pears to resemble the Florida area of
still awaits the publication of sufficient the Solomons (Capell and Lester
basic materials.Some of thesewere col- 1945-6, p. 238 of Oceania 16:3) rather
lected by Capell in 1958 but have not than the southern Solomons, with
yet been published. The four points which the closestresemblanceto Polymentioned contrast with the AN
nesian is in general found.Hocart long
morphologicalstructureand thusserve ago took his proto-Samoansthrougl
as a line of demarcationbetween AN
Fiji and I thinkhe was right.
and NAN-nothing more.
In conclusion,I thinkthat the comvariaThe comparison between lexicosta- ments preceding show sufficient
tisticand archaeological dating is not tion amongst themselvesto make exmeant to have the implications that tremely doubtful Milke's suggestion
Newman ascribes to it. At this stage, thatonly two typesof theoryregarding
I preferto remain agnostic as to the the originof the Oceanic languagesare
generallyheld. I am quite in agreement
relationshipbetweenthe two,but I did
wish to stress the point that archae- with the idea of subdividingthe group
ology may well be important in the called MN. In fact, this is not a new
idea. Ray himselfwas inclined to do
final sorting out of the problems. I
have developed the theme in a paper
this,as he suggestedin a letterof 1932
to appear veryshortlyin Oceania un- using the term"Kelainesian" for "lander the title "InterdisciplinaryReguages which vary greatly from the
search on Polynesian Origins." If we
MN (as e.g. Lifu, Santa Cruz, Nifiloli)
mean real people speaking a real lan- and yet cannot be called MN in the
guage at a particular time then some sense that Mota, Fiji or Florida are
connection between locality and lan- MN," and Wurm made a similar sugguage must be assumed.In some areas gestion independentlyat a later date.
especiallyof Polynesia thereis demon- There is yet such a wide field of instrable linguisticand cultural continu- vestigation,especiallyof MN and MC,
ity, although at present this does not that any discussionis of value, and it is

too early to be dogmatic.

At the same time,Dyen's statement
of Meillet's viewpoint that there is
no such thing as a mixed language is
not true for the MN of New Guinea,
whose entire syntax in very many of
the MN languages is completelyNAN:
postpositions are used where insular
MN uses prepositionsand the syntactic
structureis preciselythat of the surrounding NAN languages. That there
are veryclear tracesof a substratumof
common NAN vocabularyof regional
distributionwas shown in Capell 1943
(168-97).
It seemsveryclear thatAN elements
have been irregularlyand spasmodically accepted into these New Guinea
"MN" languages. It is the recognition
that these form a clear subgroup of
MN that lies behind Cowan's claim
that the present term MN ought to
be limited to these languages. Actually Meillet in another work (La
Me'thodeComparativeen Linguistique
Historique, 1925) quotes examples (p.
81) of syntacticmixtureand only precludes (p. 82) mixture in "le systeme
morphologiqued'une langue donnee;"
in that very sentence he is careful to
add that such a phenomenon has not
been found "jusqu'ici." I believe that
in the case of New Guinea at least,
syntacticmixtureis clear and morphological mixture probable, and that if
this is true then the same events may
have taken place in Melanesia further
east. Study of the Western Solomon
Islands languages mightbe helpful on
this.On p. 83, however,Meillet leaves
the possibilityopen by saying,"However, it could not be affirmedthat in
certain favorableinstances,therehave
not been true 'mixtures'." I believe
that here we have an example that
Meillet himselfwould not deny.

Cited
References
ABBREVIATIONS
The names of periodicals in this list
are abbreviatedas follows:
AA
AmericanAnthropologist
AL
Anthropological Linguistics
AU
Afrikaund Ybersee
Bijdr
Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde
BSLP
Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and AfricanStudies (London)
HJAS
Harvard Journalof Asiatic
Studies
IJAL
International Journal of
424

AmericanLinguistics
Journalof Austronesian
Studies
JPS
Journal of the Polynesian
Society (Wellington, New
Zealand)
JRAI
Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute
(London)
JSO
Journal de la Societe des
Oceanistes,Paris
KITLV Koninklijk Instituut van
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
Lg
Language
MAGW Mitteilungen der AnthropologischenGesellschaftzu
Wien

JAS

MSOS
NGS
SJA
TITLV
TNG
VKI

ZAOS
ZE
ZfES

Mitteilungendes Seminars
fur OrientalischeSprachen
Nieuw Guinea Studien
Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology
Tijdschrift voor Indische
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
TijdschriftNieuw Guinea
Verhandelingen van het
Koninklijk Instituut voor
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
Zeitschrift
fulrAfrikanische
und Ozeanische Sprachen
ZeitschriftfulrEthnologie
ZeitschriftfuirEingeborenensprachen

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

N. 1893.SangireescheSpraakkutnst.
Leiden.
1928a. Bare'e-Nederlandsch Woordenboek. Leiden.
1928b. SpraakkunstigeSchetsvan de
Taal der Mentawei Eilanden. Bijdr 84:
1-117.
1931. Spraakkunst der Bare'e-Taal.
Verh.Bat. Gen. 70.
ADRIANI, N., and A. C. KRUYT. 1912-14.
Bare'e Sprekende Toradjas, vol. 3, Linguistics.
ANCEAUX, J. C. 1952. The Wolio Language.
VKI 9.
1953. New Guinea: Keystone of
Oceanic Linguistics. Bijdr 109:289-299.
[CAS*]
1958. The Languages of the Bomberai Peninsula. NGS 2:2.
ASAI, E. 1936. A Study of the YamniLanguage (Botel Tobago). Leiden.
--. 1953. The Sedik Language of Formosa. Kanazawa.
AUFENANGER, H. 1959. Ayom Pygmies and
Their Method of Counting. Anthropos
55:247-49.
BENEDICT, PAUL K. 1941. A Cham Colony
on the Island of Hainan. HJAS 16:2,
129-34.
1942. Thai, Kadai and Indonesian.
AA 44:4, 576-601.
BENVENISTE, E. 1952-53. La classification

Capell:

ADRIANI,

des langues. Confe'rences de l'Institut de

de Paris 11:
Linguistique de I'JUniversite
33-50.
[KJH*]
BERGSLAND, K. and H. VOGT. 1962. On the
validity

of glottochronology.

Current

Anthropology3:115-53.
BERTHE, L. 1959. Sur quelques distiques
Buna'. Bijdr 115:4, 336-72.
BEYER, H. 0. 1948. Philippine and East
Asian Archaeology and its relation to the

origin of the Pacific Islands population.

Bulletin of the National Research Council 29:1-130.
[CAS*]
BIGGS, B. 1953a.Vocabularyof Nailawa, Viti
Levu. JAS 1:118-22.
--. 1953b. Vocabulary and Phrases in
the NandroBa Dialect of Fijian. JAS
1:106-16.
---. 1960. Morphology-Syntaxin a Polynesian Language (Maori). JPS 69:4, 376,
379.
---. 1961. The Structureof NXv Z2aland
Maori. AL 3:3.
BINGHAM, H. 1908. A Gilbertese-Eng7ish
Dictionary.Boston.
--. 1922. Outlines of the Grammnarof
the Gilbert Islands Language. Rongorongo, G. I. 2nd edition, 1945.
BLAGDEN, C. 0. 1916. An Introduction to
Indonesian Linguistics.London. (Translations of four of Brandstetter'sessays.)
BLOOMFIELD,
L. 1917. Tagalog texts with
grammatical analysis. University of Illi-

nois Studies in Language and Literature

3, No. 2-4.
[ID*]
1933. Language. NewvYork: Holt.
[KJH*]
BOUILLON, P. 1915-16. Etudes sur le dialecte de Sugu (Guadalcanar, Solomon Is.).
BRANDSTETTER, R. 1910-15. Wir Menschen
der Indischen Erde. (Series of essays on

various aspects of IN linguistics.)

BUCK, PETER H. (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1944.
Arts an(l craftsof the Cook Islands. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 179.
Honolulu.
[WD*]
A. 1946-49. Steingerate, SteinBUHLER,
skuipturen und Felszeichnungen aus
Melanesien

und

Polynesien.

A nthropos

41-44:225-274,577-606.
[CASt]
--.1961. Die Kunst der Suldsee.BadenBaden.
[CAS-W]

Vol. 3 *No. a October1962

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

Oceania 26:1, 42-58. Corrigenda, 26:2,

153.
--. 1957a. A Large Papuan Language
Phylum in Western New Guinea.
Oceania 28:2, 159-66.
--, 1957b. Eene tweede grote Papoeataalgroepiering in Nederlands Nieuw
Guinea. NGS 1:2, 107-18.
--. 1957c. Prospectsof a "Papuan" com[HKJC11]
parative linguistics.Bijdr 113:70ff.
1941. A New Fijian Dictionary. Sydney.
[HKJC*]
1959a. Linguistic Research in New
--. 1943. The Linguistic Position of
Guinea. NGS 3:3, 196-206.
South-EasternPapua. Sydney.
--. 1959b. A note on statisticalmethods
1944. Peoples and Languages of
--.
in comparative linguistics. Lingua 8:
Timor. Oceania 14:3, 191-219; 14:4, 311233ff.
37; 15:1, 19-48.
[HKJC*]
--. 1959c. La classificationdes langues
--. 1949a. The Concept of Possessionin
papoues. Anthropos 54:973ff. [HJKC*]
Australia and Oceania. SJA 5:3, 169-89.
--. 1960a. Nadere Gegevens betreffende
--. 1949b. Two Tonal Languages of
de verleiding der west-Papoea'se taalNew Guinea. BSOAS 13:184-99.
groep (Vogelkop, N. G.). Bijdr 115:3,
--. 1949c. Palau Grammar. CIMA rc350-64.
port, (duplicated).
de
1951. Grammar and Vocabulary of ---. 1960b.Aanteekiningenbetreffende
verhoudingvan het Atiesch tot de MonSonsorol-Tobi. CIMA report 30 (dupliKhmer talen. BTLV van NI 104:4, 429cated), Officeof Naval Research and Na514.
tional Academyof Science, U.S.A.
--. 1954. A Linguistic Survcy of the
COWVEL[,R. 1951. The Structureof GilberSouth-Western Pacific. South Pacific
tese. Beru, Rongorongo,G. I.
Commission Technical Paper, Number
CURR,E. M. 1886. The Australian race: its
70. Noumea. (Second edition to appear in
origin, languages, customs, places of
1962.)
landing in Australia, and the routes by
--. 1961. Techniques of Morphostatisit spread itselfover that continent.
wvhich
tics.Paper presentedto the Tenth Pacific
4vv. Melbourne: Ferres.
[KJH*]
Science Congress, Honolulu.
[SAW*f] DAHL, 0. C. 1951. Malgache et Maanjan.
CAPELL, A., and R. H. LESTER. 1941. Local
Oslo.
Divisions and Movements in Fiji.
0. 1905.Beitrmige
zur Kenntnis
DEMPXVOLFF,
Oceania 11:4, 313-41; 12:1, 21-48.
d-'r Sprachen von Deutsch-Neuguinea.
1945-46. Kinship in Fiji. Oceania
MSOS 8:182-254.
15:3, 171-200; 15:2, 109-43; 16:3, 234-53;
1920. Die Lautentsprechtingender
16:4, 297-318.
indonesischen Lippenlaute in einigen
anderen austronesischenSiidseesprachen.
CHRETIEN, C. D. 1956.Word Distributionin
ZfES Beih4ft 2.
South-EasternPapua. Lg 32:1, 88-108.
[DC*f]
1922-23. Entstehung von Nasalen
1962. The mathematical mode's of
tundNasalverbindungenim Ngadju (Daglottochronology.Language 38:11-37.
jak). ZfES 13:161-205.
[DC, HK-*]
CHURCHWARD, C. M. 1938. History of Ro---. 1924-1925.Die 1-,4- and d-Latite in
tuma as Reflected in Its Language.
austronesischenSprachen.ZfES 15:19-50,
Oceania 9:79-88.
116-138, 223-238, 273-319. [DC, HK*]
1940. Rotuman Grammar and Dic1927. Das AustronesischeSprachgut
---.
tionary.Sydney.
in den Melanesischen Sprachen. Folia
1953. Tongan Grammar. Oxford
Ethnoglossica,April-December.
UniversityPress.
--. 1959. Tongan Dictionary. Oxfor(d ---. 1928. Das AustronesischeSprachgut
in den Polynesischen Sprachen. FeestUniv2rsityPress.
l)undel uitgegeven door het Koninklijk
CODRINGTON, R. H. 1885. The Melanesian
Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten
Languages. Oxford UniversityPress.
en Witenschappen bij gelegenheid van
CODRINGTON, R. H., and J. PALMER. 1896.
zijn 150 jarig bestaan. Weltevreden.
A Dictionary of the Language of Mota.
1:62-86.
London.
--. 1934-38. Vergleichende Lautlehre
COWAN, H. K. J. 1948. Aantekeningenbedes A ustronesischenWortschatzes.Berde verhoudingvan het Atjehsch
treffende
lin.
tot de Mon-Khmertalen. Bijdr 104:429ff.
--. 1939. Grammatik der,jabem Sprache
autfNeuguinea. Hamburg.
[HKJC*l
1949. Vier Tjamse Verhalen. TI TL V
DIXON, R. B. 1930. Recent archaeological
82:199-234.
discoveriesin the Philippines and their
--. 1949-50. Indonesisch of Melanesisch
bearing on the prehistory of Eastern
op Noord Nieuw-Guinea. IndonesiL; 3:
Asia. Proceedingsof the AmericanPhilo351ff.
[HKJC*l
sophical Society 69:225-229.
[CASt]
1951-52a. Notes on Sentani GramM. 1960. Kapauku-Malay-DutchDOBLE,
mar. Oceania 21:3, 214-28; 21:4, 302-9;
English Dictionary. Koninklijk Instituut
22:1, 53-71. Corrigenda,22:4, 315-16.
voor Land-, Taal- en Volkenkunde.
1951-52b. Genitief-constructieen
--.
DRABBE,P. 1952. Spraakkunst van het
Melanesische talen. Indonesie~ 5:307ff.
Ekaji. Edited by M. Nijhoff.The Hague.
rHKJC*-]
[HKJCr]
1952. De Austronesisch-Papoea's2
1953. Spraakkunst van de Kamoro
Taalgrens in de onderafdelingHollandia.
Taal. Kon. Inst. voor Taal-, Landen
TNG 13:4, 113-48; 13:5, 161-78.
Volkenkunde.
--. 1953. Voorlopige resultatenvan een
--. 1955. Spraakkunst van het Marind.
ambtelijk taalonderzoek in Nieuw
Studia Instituti Anthropos, vol. 11.
Guinea. KITLVL.
Vienna.
1954. Ethnolinguisticsand Papuan
Etymology.Oceania 25:1-2, 54-60.
DUBOIS,M. J. Ms. Dictionaire Mar6-franl955a. Variability in New Guinea
cais. Microfilm of the Commission of
Languages. Oceania 25:3, 208-15.
Southern Pacific, Noumea, New Caledonia.
-.1955b. Notes on Windesi Grammar.
[AGHA]
A. 1936-38. The Sikayana Language: A PreliminaryGrammar and Vocabulary.JPS 44-46.
1938. Stratificationof Afterworld
Beliefs in the New Hebrides. Folklore
49:51-85.
1940. Language Study for New
--.
Guinea Students. Oceania 11:40ff.

CAPELL,

425

I. 1947a. The Malayo-Polynesian

word for 'two.' Lg 23.50-55.
[DC*]
1947b. The Tagalog reflexes of
Malayo-Polynesian D. Lg 23.227-38.
[DCA]
1949. Historyof the Trukese Vowels.
Lg 25:0.
1951. Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *Z.
Lg 27.534-40.
[DC*]
---. 1953a. The Proto-Malayo-Polynesian
Laryngeals. Baltimore, Md.
1953b. Dempwolff'sR. Lg, 359-66.
1956. The Ngaju-Dayak 'Old Speech
Stratum.' Lg 32.83-87.
[DC*]
--. 1960. Review of Grace, Polynesian
within the Austronesian Family. JPS
69:2, 180-84.
---. 1962. The lexicostatisticalclassification of the MalayopolynesianLanguages.
Lg 38:38-46.
EASTMAN, G. H. 1948. An English-Gilbertese Vocabulary of the Most Commonly
Used Words. Rongorongo,G. I.
ELBERT, S. H. 1947. Trukese-English and
English-Trukese Dictionary. Pearl Harbor: United States Naval Military Government.
[WHG*]
--. 1953. Internal Relationships of the
Polynesian Languages and Dialects. SJA
9:147-73.
--. 1957. Possessivesin Polynesia. Bible
Translator 8:23-27.
[WM*]
ERLAND, P. A. 1906. Worterbuchund Grammatik der Marshall Sprache. Berlin.
ESSER, S. J. 1934. Handleiding voor de Beoefeningder Leda-Taal. VKBG 62:1.
Fox, C. E. 1908. Vocabularies of Santa Cruz
and Vanikoro. NorfolkI. Mission Press.
1910. Introduction to the Study of
the Oceanic Languages. Norfolk I. Mission Press.
--. 1947. Phonetic Laws in MN Languages. JPS 56:58-118.
1948a. Passives in Oceanic Lan--.
guages. JPS 57:1, 1-29.
--. 1948b. Prefixesand Their Function
in Oceanic Languages. JPS 57:3, 227-55.
1955.Ngela Dictionary.Auckland.
1958. Lord of the Southern Isles.
London: A. R. Mowbray.
[WD*]
FRASER, J., (Ed.) 1892. An Australian language as spoken by the Awabakal, the
people of Awaba or Lake Macquarie....
Sydney.
[KJH*]
FRIEDERICI, G. 1912. Untersuchungeniiber
eine melanesische Wanderstrasse,vol. 3
of WissenschaftlicheErgebnisse einer
Amtlichen Forschungsreise nach dem
Bismarck-Archipelim Jahre 1908.
R. 1959a. Taulil Language.
FUTSCHER,
AnthroposMicrofilmSeries,Number 30.
See Anthropos30:213-18.
--. 1959b. See Laufer, 1959.
GABELENTZ, H. C. VON. 1861.Die Melanesischen Sprachen,vol. 1. Leipzig.
--. 1873. Die Melanesischen Sprachen,
DYEN,

vol. 2. Leipzig.

J. 1959. Archeologie du Pacific

Sud, resultatset perspectives.Journal de
la Societe des Oceanistes 15:1-54. [CASt]
GONDA,
J. 1949. Prolegomena tot een
theorieder woordsoortenin Indonesische
talen. Bijdr 15:275-331.
--.
1953. Indonesian Languages and
General Linguistics. Lingua 3:17-53.
GOODENOUGH, G. WV.1961. Migrations Implied by Relationships of New Britain
Dialects to Central Pacific Languages.
JPS 70:112-136.
[SHE, WM*]
GRACE,G. W. 1955.Subgroupingof MalayoPolynesian: A Report of Tentative Findings. AA{ 57:2, 337-39.
--.1959. The Position of the Polynesian
Languages within the Austronesian
GOLSON,

426

(Malayo-Polynesian) Language Family.

of Marau Sound, Guadalcanar, B.S.I.
Supplement to IJAL 25:3.
BSOAS 5:345-58.
--. 1961a. AustronesianLinguistics and
--. 1930-32. A Vocabulary of the LanCulture History. American Anthropolguage of Marau Sound. BSOAS 6:963ogist63:359-68.
[CAS, GWG*]
1002.
--. 1961b. LexicostatisticalComparison
--. 1933-35. Grammar of the Language
of Six Eastern Austronesian Languages.
of Vaturanga,Guadalcanar, B.S.I. BSOAS
Anthropological Linguistics 3, 9:1-22.
7:349-75.
--. 1937-39. A Grammar of the Lan[GWG, SHE*]
guage of Lamalanga, New Hebrides.
GRAEBNER, F. 1909.Die melanesischeBogenBSOAS 9:733-63.
kultur und ihre Verwandte. Anthropos
JONKER, J. C. G. 1908. Rottineesch-Hol4:726-780.
[CASt]
landsch Woordenboek.Leiden.
GREENBERG, J. H. 1953. "Historical lin--. 1915. Rottineesch Spraakkunst.Leiguistics and unwritten languages," in
den.
Anthropology Today: an Encyclopedic
--.1932. LettineescheTaalstudien. VerInventory,prepared under the chairmanhandelingenvan het Koninklijk Bataviaship of A. L. Kroeber, pp. 265-87. Chiasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wecago: Universityof Chicago Press.
tenschappen Deel LXIX.
[HK*]
[KJH*]
KAHLER, H. 1940. GrammatischerAbriss
HALL,
R. A. JR. 1953. Haitian Creole:
des Enggano. ZfES 30:81-117, 182-210,
Grammar, Texts, Vocabulary.American
296-320.
AnthropologicalAssociationMemoir,No.
--.1950. Die Stellung der polynesischen
74.
[KJH*]
Dialekte innerhalb der austronesischen
HAUDRICOURT, A. G. 1948. Les langues du
Sprachen.Zeitschrif
t der Deutschen Mownord de la Nouvelle Cal6donie et la
genldndischenGesellschaft100:646-658.
grammairecomparee. ISO 4:159-62.
[HK*]
1951. Variations paralleles en Mela1952-55. Untersuchungenzur Morn6sien. BSLP 47:1, 140-53.
phologie PolynesischenDialekte. AU 36:
--. 1954. Les originesasiatiques des lan145-62; 37:35-48; 38:73-88, 165-86; 39:
gues malayo-polyn6siennes. JSO 10:
129-46.
180-83.
1954-55. Bemerkungen zu einigen
HAUGEN, E. 1956.Bilingualism in the Amer"polynisischen" Ausdruicken, "tribus."
icas. A Bibliographyand Research Guide.
t fiurEthnologie und ihre NachZeitschrif
American Dialect Society, Publication
barwissenschaf
ten 4-5:114-21.
[HK*]
No. 26.
[KJH*]
--. 1954-58. Texte von der Insel EngHAZLEWOOD, D. 1914. Fijian Grammar and
gano. AU 39:89-98; 41:153-56; 42:179Dictionary.
89; 43:299-312.
---. 1955. Die Sichule Sprache. AU BeiHEALEY,
P. M. 1958. An Agta Conversaheft 27.
tional Text. Studies in Philippine Lin--.1961. Simalur-DeutschesWorterbuch
guistics by Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Pacific Branch,
mit Deutsch-Simaluresischem
Worterverzeichnis.
Oceania Linguistic Monographs, Number 3. Sydney.
KASPRUS,
A. 1942-45.The Languages of the
HEINE-GELDERN,
Mugil District,North-EastNew Guinea.
R. 1932. Urheimat und
friihesteWanderungen der Austronesier.
Anthropos 37-40:711-78. Corrigenda,
Anthropos 27:543-619.
41-42:146-49, 370.
[CAS*]
1937. L'Art prebouddhique de la
KAYSER,
A. 1917-18. Die Eingeborenenvon
Chine et de l'Asie du Sud-Est et son inNauru; eine kritischeStudie. Anthropos
fluenceen Oc6anie. Revue des ArtsAsia12-13:313-37.
tiques 11:177-206.
[CAS*]
--. 1938. Nauruan Grammar. Multi--. 1945. "Prehistoric Research in the
graphed.
Netherlands Indies," in Science and
H. 1886. De Fidji-taal, vergeleken
KERN,
Scientists in the Netherlands Indies,
met hare verwanten in Indonesie en
pages 129-167. New York.
[CASt]
Polynesie. Amsterdam. rev. and imHILL-ToUT,
C. 1898. "The Oceanic origin
proved ed. 1916 in his Verspreide Gesof the Kwakiutl, Nootka and Salish
chriften 4.
[HKJC*]
stocksof British Columbia." Proceedings
---. 1887. Klankverwisseling in de
and Transactionsof the Royal Societyof
Maleisch-Polynesischentalen. Bijdr 5:2,
Canada, second series.
[KJH*]
333-43, 560-72.
HOCART, A. M. 1923. Who are the Mela--. 1906. Taalvergelijkende verhandelnesians? Journal of the Royal Anthroing over het Aneityumsch.Amsterdam.
pological Institute53:472.
[CAS*]
--. 1915. Gottingische gelehrte AnzeiHOLLYMAN,
K. J. 1959a. Some Polynesian
gen, Boekbsespreking: Untersuchungen
words in New Caledonia. Te Reo 2:3-5.
uiber eine melanesische Wanderstrasze,
--.
1959b. Polynesian Languages in
von G. Friederici (reprinted in VerNew Caledonia: Linguistic Aspect. JPS
spreiche Geschrif
ten) vol. 5:293.
68:4, 357-89. (Revised and expanded ver[HKJC*]
sion of 1959a.)
KING, COPLAND. 1926.Grammar and DicK. J. 1960. Anthropologyand
HOLLYMAN,
tionaryof the Binandere Language.
linguisticsof Futuna-Aniwa, NewvHebKLAFFL, J. 1905. Die Sprachen der Berlinrides. JPS 69:303-305.
[AS*]
hafen Bezirks in Deutsch-Nueguinea.
HUMBOLDT, W. VON. 1836-39.Uber die Kawi
Mitteilungen des Seimars fur OrientalSprache: A bhandlungen der Akademie
ischen Sprachen 8:1-13.
der Wissenschaftenzu Berlin. Part I reKLUGE, THEODOR.
1938. Die Zahlbegriffe
printed 1876-80 by A. F. Pott.
der Australier,Papua und Bantuneger,
IVENS, W. G. 1918. Dictionary and Grainnebst eine Einleitung iiber die Zahl.
mar of the Language of Sa'a and Ulawa.
Berlin.
[CL*]
Washington.
KROEBER,
A. L. 1941. Some Relations of
Grammar
and Vocabulary of
--.1921.
Linguistics and Ethnology. Lg 17:287the Lau Languages. Washington.
291.
[CASt]
--.1926-28. A Study of the Oroha Language, Mala, Solomon Is. BSOAS 4:587LABBERTON,D . VAN HINLOOPEN. 1924.Pre610.
liminary Results of Researches into the
--.1928-30. A Study of the Language
Original Relationship between NipponCURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

ese and Malayo-Polynesian Languages.

JPS 33:244-80.
LANYON-ORGILL,
P. A. 1944. Mailu-English
Dictionary from Mss. of W.J.V. Saville.
London.
--. 1953. Papuan Languages of the New
Georgian Archipelago. JAS 1:122-39.
--. 1960. Raluana Dictionary.
LARSON,G. F. 1958. A Glottochronological
Study of Kapauku-Moni-Woda. Course
paper, Universityof Michigan. [SAW*]
LARSON,
M. 0. and G. F. LARSON.1958. Preliminarystudies in the Moni Language.
Bijdr 114:406ff.
[HKJC*]
LAUFER,C. 1959. P. Futschers Aufzeichnungen uber die Butam Sprache. Anthropos 54:1-2, 183-212.
LEENHARDT,
M. 1932. Documents NeoCaledoniens. Paris.
1946. Langues et dialectes de
--.
l'Austro-M!lan!sie. Paris, Institut de
l'Ethnologie.
LENORMAND, M. H. 1951. Correspondances
Phonetiques du Malais et du Melan6sien
de Lifou. BSLP 47:154-65.
LENORMAND, M. H. 19'52a. The phonemes
of Lifu (Loyalty Islands): The shaping
of a pattern. Word 8:252-7.
[WM*]
--. 1952b. Correspondancesphon6tiques
et changementsparalleles dans les parlers
de la familleaustron6sienne(Melanesien,
Indon6sien, Polyn6sien). Bulletin de la
Societe des Etudes Indo-chinoises, n.s.,
27:405-420.
[KJH*]
LE
Roux. 1950. De Bergpapoea's van
Nieuw Guinea en hun Woongebied.(Linguisticsin vol. 2.)
LINTON, R. 1955. The Tree of culture. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[WD*]
LOUKOTKA, C. 1957. Classificationdes Langues Papoues. Lingua Posniensis 6:19-83.
MAcDONALD, D. 1894. The Asiatic origin of

the Oceanic languages: etymologicaldictionary of the language of Efate (New

Hebrides). London: Melville, Mullen
and Slade.
[KJH*]

MAcDONALD, D.

1907. The

Oceanic

Lan-

guage, Their Material or VocabularySet

Forth in a Complete Dictionary, Comparative and Etymological, of One of
Them, the Language of Efate,New Hebrides. London.
MAGER, J. F. 1952. Gedaged-English Dictionary.Columbus, Ohio: Board of Foreign Missions of the American Lutheran
Church.
MATHEW,J.
1899. Eaglehawk and Crow; a
study of the Australian aborigines, including an enquiry into their origin and
a survey of Australian languages. London: Nutt.
[KJH*]
MATSUMOTO, N. 1928. Le Japonais et les
langues austroaisiatiques. Austro-Asiatica I.
MATTHEWS, W. K. 1949. Characteristicsof
Micronesian. Lingua 2:419-37.
MEILLET, A. 1921. Linguistique historique
et linguistique gdn!drale.Paris.
[ID*]
--. 1925. La methode comparative en
linguistique historique. Oslo: Instituttet
for Sammenlingnendekulturforskning.
MILKE, W. 1958. Zur inneren Gliederung
und geschichtlichenStellung der ozeanischaustronesischen Sprachen. ZE 83:
58-62.
--. 1961. Beitrage zur ozeanischen Linguistik.ZE 86:162-182. [WM, GBM*]
--.1962. Report of remarks at Burg
Wartenstein,September19-24,1960. Current Anthropology3:87-9.
[DC~]
MILNER, G. B. n.d. Fijian Grammar. Suva,
Fiji: GovernmentPrinter (?1955).
PVol. 3 *No. 4 * October 1962

Capell:
MONTAUBANand O'REILLY. 1952 ff.Mythes

de Buka. JSO (continued through subsequent issues, but 1952:27-80, contains

texts in Gagan dialect).
NAPU,BEN. 1953. Mota-Kilokaka Vocabulary.JAS 1:139-44 (originallywrittenfor
S. H. Ray).
NIKIGAWA, A. 1953. Classificationof Formosa Languages. JAS 1:145-51.
OATES, W. J. and L. F. 1958.The Phonemes
of Central Cagayan Negrito. Studies in
Philippine Linguistics by members of
the Summer Instituteof Linguistics,Pacific Branch, Oceania Linguistic Monographs,Number 3, 34-46.
PARKINSON,R. 1907. Dreissig Jahre in der
Siidsee. (Linguistic material at pp. 72187. Reprinted in 1926 but without the
linguisticmatterof the 1907 edition.)
PITTMAN, R. S. 1959. Jarai as a Member of
the Malayo-Polynesian Family of Languages. Asian Culture 1:4, 59-67.
RAUSCH, J. 1912. Die Sprache von Siudost
Bougainville, Deutsche Salomoninsel,
Anthropos 7:105-34, 586-616, 964-94,
1056-57.
RAVEN-HART,R. 1953. A dialect of Yasawa
I, Fiji. JPS 62:1, 33-56.
RAY, S. H. 1907.Reports of the Cambridge
Expedition to Torres Straits, vol. 3
(Linguistics).
--.

1917. People and Language

of Lifu,

Loyalty Islands. JRAI 67:239-322.

--. 1926a. The Melanesian Island Languages. Oxford UniversityPress.
--. 1926b. A comparative study of the
Melanesian Island Languages. Cambridge: The UniversityPress. [WD*]
--.
1928. The Non-Melanesian Languages of the Solomon Islands. Festschrift:Publication d'Hommage offerte
au P. W. Schmidt: 123-126.
[KJH*]
RAY, S. H., and E. BAXTER RILEY. 1930. Vocabularies of the Fly River. Anthropos
25.
--. 1931.Some Mythsof Origin fromthe
Fly River. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft.Vienna, 61.
--. 1933.A Grammar of the Kiwai Language, Fly River Delta, Papua. Pt.
Moresby.
REIZENSTEIN, M. E. 1959. The Comparative
Linguistics of Oceanic Languages:

A Re-

view of Work Done. Te Reo 2:6-14.

---. 1960. Problems of Reconstructionin
the Austronesian Languages. Te Reo
3:32-43.
[KJH*]
ROBINs,R. H. 1953.Phonologyof the Nasalised Verbal Forms (in Sunda).

BSOAS

15:138-45.
SAVILLE, W. J. V. 1912. Grammar of the
Mailu Language, Papua. JRAI 62:397436.
SCHLESIER, E. 1958. Die melanesischenGeheimkulte.

Verlag.

Gottingen:

Musterschmidt-

[CAS*]

SCHMIDT, W. 1899a. Die sprachlichen Ver-

haltnisse Ozeaniens (Melanesiens, Poly-

nesiens, Mikronesiens und Indonesiens)

in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Ethnologie.

MAGW 29:245-58.

--.
1899b. Vber das Verhdiltnis der
melanesischen Sprachen zu den polynesischen und untereinander. Vienna. (Sitzungsberichte der philosophen-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie

der Wissenschaften,141:6.)
--. 1900-1901. Die sprachlichen Verhaltnissevon Deutsch Neuguinea. ZAOS
5:534-84; 6:1-99.
--. 1906. Die Mon-Khmer Volker. AnthroposBSibliothek.

OCEANIC

LINGUISTICS

TODAY

--. 1926. Die Sprachfamilienund Sprachenkreiseder Erde. Heidelberg.

--. 1940-41. Das Verhaltnisder melanesischen Sprachen zu den polynesischen.
Anthropos 35-36:379-80.
SCHMITZ,C. A. 1960. HistorischeProbleme
in NordostNeuguinea. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag.
1961. Das Problem der austro--.
melaniden Kultur. Acta Tropica 18:97141.
[CAS*]
in das StuSCHRIJNEN,
J. 1921. Einfiihrung
dium der IndogermanischenSprachwissenschaft. Translated by Dr. Walther
Fischer from 1917 Dutch original:
Handleiding bij de Studie der Vergelijkende IndogermanischeTaalwetenschap.
SCHULTZE, L. 1911. Zur Kenntnis der melanesischen Sprache von der Insel Tumleo. Jena.
SHAPIRO, H. L., and R. C. SUGGS.1959. New
Dates for Polynesian Prehistory.Man
59:3.
SHARPE,A. 1956. Ancient Voyagersin the
Pacific. Polynesian Society, Wellington,
N.Z.
SMITH,S. P. 1898-99.Hawaiki, The Whence
of the Maori. JPS 7:137-77, 186-223; 8:
1-48.
SPEISER,F. 1946. Versuch einer siedlungsgeschichte der Sudsee. Denkschriftend.
schweizerischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft 72: 1.
[CAS*]
STRONG,
W. M. 1912. Notes on the language
of Kabadi. Anthropos 7:155-60.
SUGGS,R. C. 1960a. Historical Tradition
and Archaeology in Polynesia. AA 62:
764-73.
--. 1960b. The Island Civilizations of
Polynesia. New York: Mentor Books.
SWADESH,M. 1959. Linguisticsas an Instrumentof Prehistory.SJA 15:20-36. [CASt]
TATTEVIN, E. 1929. Mytheset Legendes du
Sud de l'lle de Pentec6te.Anthropos24:
983-1004.
--. 1931. Mytheset Ugendes du Sud de
I'lle de Pentecote. Anthropos 26:489512, 863-81.
THALHEIMER, A. 1907. Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der Pronomina personalia und possessiva der Sprachen Mikronesiens.Stuttgart.
TowI'A, A. UND RIULERA. 1953.Vocabularies
of Tegua

and Toga, Torres Islands. JAS

1:93-105.
TRANEL, P. 1952. Volkerkundliche und
Sprachliche

Aufzeichnungen

aus

den

Moando-Sprachgebiet in Nordost Neuguinea. Anthropos47:447-73.

TREGEAR,E. 1885. The Aryan Maori. Wellington: Government Printer.

[KJH*]

TRUBETZKOY, E. 1939. Gedanken tiber das

Indogermanenproblem. Acta Linguistica
1:81.
[KJH*]
UHLENBECK, E. M. 1949. De structuurvan

het Javaanse morpheem. Bandoeng.

[WM*]
1956. Review of Dyen, The ProtoMalayo-Polynesian Laryngeals. Lingua

5:308-18.
[DC*]
UHLENBECK, E. M. and A. A. CENSE. 1958.

Languages of Borneo. Bibliographical

Series 2. s'Gravenhage.
[WM*]
VEEN, H. VAN DER. 1915. De Noord Halmaheersche taalgroep tegenoverde austronesische talen. Leiden.
VOORHOEVE,
P. 1955.Languages of Sumatra.
Bibliographical Series 1. s'Gravenhage.
[WMi*]

427

F., and W. SCHARFENBERGER.

1914. Die Monumbo Sprache. Anthropos
Linguistische Bibliothek. Vienna.
WHEELER, G. C. 1926. Mono-Alu Folklore.
London.
WILLIAMS,
HERBERT W. 1957. A Dictionary of the Maori Language. Wellington:
R. E. Owen, Government Printer.
[WHG*]
WILLMS, A. 1957. Lautlehre und syntaktische Untersuchungenuber die Mentawei Sprache.A U 1-24, 49-72.
WULFF, K. 1942. Uber das VernhIiltnisdes
Malayo-polynesischen zum Indonesischen. Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes
Selskab. Historisk-filologiskeMaddelel[AGH*]
ser 27:1-157.
WURM, S. A. 1951. Studies in th,eKiwai
Languages, Fly River Delta, Papua, New
Guinea. Acta Ethnologica, Number 2.
Vienna.
VORMANN,

Institutions
*

THE

DR. PAUL RIVET CENTER

ICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OF AMER-

AND ANTHROPOLOG-

named in memoryof the

famous French-American anthropologist Dr. Paul Rivet, was founded in
May, 1961 in Montevideo, Uruguay.
The purposes of the institutionare to
researchand
pursuehigh-levelscientific
to furtherround-tablediscussions,seminars,and coursesamong national and
foreignscholarsin the fieldsof American anthropologyand archaeology.
Furtherplans include adding to the
Center an Archaeological and Ethnographic Museum of the River Plata
area, with a specialized library.In El
Plata, a Montevideo daily newspaper,
theCentermaintainsthe "Bibliography
of the Sciencesof Man," a weeklycommentaryon booksand journalsreceived
forthe library.In addition, the Center
an illustratedpage
publishesfortnightly
in El Plata, whichfeaturesshortmonographs,reviewsof books on primitive
art,and noticesof generalanthropological interest.Twice a year the Center
publishes its journal, Amerindia,containing original studies and abridgementsofthebibliographicalnoteswhich
appear in El Plata. The Center invites
books,jourpublications-dissertations,
nals-for reviewin El Plata and AmerIndia. Publications and furtherinformation may be obtained fromDANIEL
D. VIDART, Director,Centrode Estudios
Arqueologicosy AntropologicosAmericanos DR. PAUL RIVET, Zubillaga 1117,
Montevideo,Uruguay.
ICAL

STUDIES,

INTERNATIONAL
1E THE
ON THE
FOR
RESEARCH
AGRICULTURAL

IMPLEMENTS,

SECRETARIAT
HISTORY

OF

which is lo-

cated in the Danish Folkmuseum at

Brede near Copenhagen, was established after a meeting of plough researchers had been held in Copen428

--. 1961b. Language Map of the Three

--. 1954a. Notes of the StructuralAffiniHighlands Districts,Territoryof Papuaties of Non-Melanesian (Papuan) LanNew Guinea. 14-colourmap, Australian
guages. Die Wiener Schule der VolkerNational University,Canberra,Australia.
kunde, Festschriftzum 25-jkhrigenBestand. 1929-54:467-72.
[SAW*]
--. 1954b. The Indonesian Element in
1961c. The Linguistic Situation in
Melanesia: A Reply. JPS 63, 3 and 4:
the Highlands Districts of Papua and
New Guinea. A ustralian Territories 1:
266-73.
[SAW*]
--. 1959. Grouping of Languages in the
14-23.
Highlands Districts of Papua-New
--. 1961d. Problems of the Verb StrucGuinea. Paper presented to the 34th
ture in Central New Guinea. Paper preCongress of the ANZAAS, Perth, Aussented to the Tenth PacificScience Con[SAW*]
[SAW*]
tralia, August.
gress,Honolulu, August.
--. 1960a. The linguistic situation in
--. 1961e. The changing linguistic picthe htighlandsdistricts of Papua and
ture of New Guinea. Sydney: (Reprint
New Guinea. Canberra: (Ministry of)
from Oceania 31:121-36). Australian
[KJH*]
[KJH*]
Australian Territories.
Medical Publishing Co.
--. 1960b. The changing linguisticpicWURM, S. A. and D. C. LAYCOCK. 1961. The
ture of New Guinea. Oceania 31:121Question of Language and Dialect in
[CAS, SAW*]
136.
New Guinea. Oceania 32, No. 2:128-43.
1961a. Research Report on New
Guinea Languages. Current Anthropol- ZAHN, H. 1940. Lehrbuch der Jabern
Sprache. Berlin.
[SAW*]
ogy 2:114-16.

have its own

hagen in 1954. The purpose of the Institutewill ultinmately
secretariatis to serve as a connecting building and will be controlledby its
own Council. An Interim Council has
link between all scientistsengaged in
the historyof agriculture.To create been appointed by the Prime Minister
and build up contactbetweenscientists to get activitiesunder way and go into
question- the matter of cooperation with uniby the issuingof newsletters,
naires and occasional publications is versities,museums,etc. on an Australiawide scale. The Interim Council comthe primarytaskof the secretariat.
universityrepreAbout 250 scientistsare in touch prisesanthropologists,
with the secretariat,headed by Pro- sentatives,governmentrepresentatives
fessorAxel Steensbergand throughit and businessmen. The Chairman is
obtain help in solvingproblemsin agri- Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall,
cultural ethnography,either by being Australian National University,CanAsreferreddirectlyto specialistsin their berra; the Principal Administrative
fields,or by having questionnairesdis- sistantis Mrs. J. Inglis.
Four advisorypanels of expertshave
tributedto all of the secretariat'scorbeen appointed,each withits own conrespondents.
vener,to cope with specialized aspects
The secretariat has established a
aboriginalanthropology.These are:
of
agricultural-ethnoon
library
special
graphical and agricultural-historical General Cultural Anthropology:Emersubjects.Authorswho wish to contrib- itusProfessorA. P. Elkin, Universityof
ute to the libraryare urged to include Sydney; Linguistics and Musiocology:
Dr. A. A. Capell, Universityof Sydney;
two copies of their publications. Eacl
year a list of recentlyacquired litera- Archaeology: Mr. F. D. McCarthy,
Australian Museum, Sydney; Human
ture is issued.
There is also a special record office Biology: ProfessorA. A. Abbie, Uniwhere photographs and drawings of versityof Adelaide.
The postal addressof the Instituteis
agriculturalimplementsare deposited.
Institute of Aboriginal
colwere
Australian
photographs
the
of
Most
lected through registrationof ante- Studies, P.O. Box 553, Canberra City,
industrial ploughs conducted among A.C.T., Australia.
all Danish museums,but many photographsand drawingsof agriculturalimplementsfromotherpartsof the world
have been received from correspondents.
Plans to publish a Handbook for
Plough Research are well under way, > Public Health for Reluctant Comaided by a grant from the Wenner- munities, an anthropologicalinterpreGren Foundation for Anthropological tationof communityhealth writtenfor
the laity, by James G. Roney, Jr., is
Research.
available at no cost to readers of CA.
O AN AUSTRALIANINSTITUTE OF ABO- Requests for this 71-page book should
be sentto Dr. Roney at the Institutefor
RIGINALSTUDIES, to cover all aspects of
Advancementof Medical Communicawork concerning Australian aborigines,
tion,33 East 68th Street,New York 21,
has been established by the CommonNew York,U.S.A.
wealth Government in Canberra. The

FreeMaterials

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY