10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13575
Two neighboring languages of the Sepik region of Papua New Guinea, Ap Ma (Keram) and Waran (Ramu), exhibit an unusual structure in adpositional phrases. In both languages, all postpositions that govern nouns are obligatorily marked with deictic prefixes that indicate the position of the referent of the NP relative to the deictic center. Both languages employ deictic morphemes that index whether a referent is near, medial, or far. In addition to having many crosslinguistically common and expected applications, these morphemes also occur as obligatory elements in adpositional phrases. This article examines the details of these unusual deictic-marked adpositional constructions, placing them in a typological context. We conclude that diachronic changes in Ap Ma phonology were likely the historical impetus for these constructions, which may have subsequently spread to Waran through contact.
application/pdf
2785-0943
13575
1
en
Russell Barlow
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
Keram-Ramu
Deictic marking in adpositions in Ap Ma and Waran
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
2
Research articles
2022-04-14
2021-09-21
2022-04-14
2022-04-14
37-64
LTC
Russell Barlow
2022/04/14
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13575
37
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
2785-0943
1
Keram-Ramu
en
64
Z’graggen, John A. 1972. Comparative wordlist of the Ramu language group, New Guinea. Alexishafen: Anthropos Institute. Unpublished MS.
Deictic marking in adpositions in Ap Ma and Waran
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13575/14093
2
               Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64    ISSN 2785-0943



       Deictic marking in adpositions in Ap Ma and Waran

                                DON KILLIAN1, RUSSELL BARLOW2
       1
           UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI, 2MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY




                        Submitted: 21/09/2021        Revised version: 01/12/2021
                          Accepted: 03/12/2021           Published: 14/04/2022




                                                 Abstract
Two neighboring languages of the Sepik region of Papua New Guinea, Ap Ma (Keram) and
Waran (Ramu), exhibit an unusual structure in adpositional phrases. In both languages, all
postpositions that govern nouns are obligatorily marked with deictic morphemes that indicate
the position of the referent of the NP relative to the deictic center. Both languages employ
deictic morphemes that index whether a referent is near, medial, or far. In addition to having
other crosslinguistically common and expected applications, these morphemes occur as
obligatory elements in adpositional phrases. This article examines the details of these unusual
deictic-marked adpositional constructions, placing them in a typological context. We
conclude that diachronic changes in Ap Ma phonology were likely the historical impetus for
these constructions, which may have subsequently spread to Waran through contact.


Keywords: adpositions; postpositions; deixis; demonstratives; Papuan; Keram-Ramu.




1. Introduction


Demonstratives are words that prototypically indicate spatial deictic reference,
indicating the location of a referent relative to the deictic center (or “origo”, following
Bühler 1934) (cf. Lyons 1977); as in, for example: “I would like to purchase this
book”.1 Although they are often stereotypically thought of as comprising pronouns


1
    Demonstrative systems can also include other types of demonstratives, such as those that are
deictically neutral as well as those that make reference to geographical features. Although languages
that make reference to geographical features are outside the scope of this paper, it is worth mentioning
the possibility of having a spatially neutral or unmarked term that contrasts with other terms with a
clear anchorage and reference zone (cf. Levinson 2018).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13575                                                         37
Killian, Barlow                                                           Deictic marking in adpositions


and determiners, demonstratives belonging to several other lexical categories have
also been identified in the world’s languages. In his typological work, Diessel (1999:
57-58) recognizes four basic types of demonstratives, based on their syntactic position
(1).


(1)     Basic types of demonstratives
        (i) pronoun: a pronoun being used to replace a noun, e.g., I like this.
        (ii) determiner: a determiner used in apposition to a noun, e.g., I like this book.
        (iii) identifier: a non-verbal predicator used in non-verbal clauses, e.g., This is John.
        (iv) adverb: an adverb that modifies a verb, e.g., He read the book here.


Dixon (2003; 2010: 225), on the other hand, recognizes three types of demonstratives:
nominal demonstratives (encompassing both Diessel’s pronoun and determiner
categories), local adverbial demonstratives (corresponding to Diessel’s adverb
category), and verbal demonstratives, which have a meaning of ‘do like this/that’.
Demonstrative verbs have also been investigated in more recent works, such as
Gruzdeva (2013), Guérin (2015), and Breunesse (2019).
     Killian (2021) expands considerably on the syntax and semantics of non-verbal
predicating       demonstratives     (corresponding      to   Diessel’s     identifier     category).
Additional and more fine-grained distinctions may also be needed for the categories
of determiners and adverbs, categories which contain under-researched semantic
types such as manner, quality, quantity, and degree (for adverbs; cf. König & Umbach
2018), and definiteness and specificity (for determiners). Some of these categories
may end up being shown to behave syntactically more like adjectives than
determiners for instance, adding yet another category.
     However, one category of demonstratives that has not yet been discussed in the
literature, with perhaps the sole exception of a single sentence in Breunesse (2019:
197),2 is that of adpositional demonstratives. The term adposition is used here to refer
to “words that combine with noun phrases and that indicate the semantic relationship
of that noun phrase to the verb” (Dryer 2007: 81-82). Hagège (2010: 175)
acknowledges spatial deixis marking as a possible inflectional category of adpositions;
however, he states that this constitutes “deixis agreement”, rather than existing as a



2
    “… a paradigm of demonstratives described as prepositions exists in Begak (see Goudswaard 2005:
90-92), Buru (see Grimes 1991: 255-256), and Semelai (see Kruspe 1999: 359 ff.).”



                                                                                                     38
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


category in its own right. Thus, although adpositions commonly possess spatial or
temporal meanings, they do not normally include a deictic component.
      Indeed, deictic distinctions in adpositions are extremely rare.3 However, they do
occur in a small number of Austronesian and Atlantic languages, such as Wolof
(Atlantic, Senegal), where the paradigm of locative prepositions ci and ca indexes
either proximal (2) or distal (3) relations.4


(2)      Wolof (Atlantic; Robert 2006: 158)
         ci           néeg      bi
         in.PROX      room      the.PROX
         ‘in the room (close to me)’5


(3)      Wolof (Atlantic; Robert 2006: 158)
         ca           néeg      ba
         in.DIST      room      the.DIST
         ‘in the room (far away from me)’


Similarly, in Begak (Austronesian, Malaysia), the two prepositions nong and di’
include a deictic component to their meaning. Whereas nong refers to locations near
the speaker or deictic center (4), di’ is used for locations removed from the speaker
or deictic center (5).




3
    By “deictic distinctions” we refer to relative proximity to the origo, rather than default viewpoints of
relative frames of reference that originate from a deictic center. Although a preposition like English
behind (as in the man is behind the tree) may contain a deictic component to its meaning, this has little
to do with the deixis of relative proximity.
4
    Although the Wolof examples may appear to be exhibiting agreement between the preposition and
the deictic article, such an analysis would not be correct (Stéphane Robert, p.c.). It is, for example,
possible for the deictic prepositions ci and ca to occur with proper nouns, which do not take articles.
5
    We have maintained the original orthographies of the various sources in our examples, including the
authors’ use of hyphens, equal signs, and spaces. In a few instances, however, where morpheme
boundaries were ignored in the original, we have added hyphens. We do not, however, wish to argue
for the syntactic status of any morphs (i.e., whether they be affixes, clitics, or words). Also, although
we have tried to be faithful in reproducing these orthographies, we have made some changes to the
interlineal glossing, primarily to make them conform to the abbreviations of the Leipzig Glossing Rules,
but occasionally to reflect a difference in analysis.


                                                                                                         39
Killian, Barlow                                                        Deictic marking in adpositions


(4)    Begak (Austronesian; Goudswaard 2005: 246)
       kəmmi             gərə-i-dagang           kaset          di’         Indonesia
       1PL.EXCL.NOM      AV.DSTP-COMPL-buy       cassette       PREP.DIST   Indonesia
       ‘We bought cassettes in Indonesia.’


(5)    Begak (Austronesian; Goudswaard 2005: 85)
       -u-rənna’         kat      nupi        key        nong          monay
       -DEP-descend      CDM      dream       FOC        PREP.PROX     young.man
       ‘A dream came down to Young Man.’


A far more elaborate and unusual construction occurs in two neighboring and
distantly related Papuan languages of Papua New Guinea. In Ap Ma (also known as
Kambot or Botin, Keram family) and Waran (also known as Banaro, Ramu family), all
adpositions governing nouns obligatorily mark spatial deixis (proximal, distal, or
medial).
   Although spoken in close proximity, the two languages are only distantly related.
Figure 1 provides a map of the region where both languages are spoken. Figure 2
provides a tentative subgrouping of the Keram-Ramu family, to which both languages
belong, based largely on the work of John Z’graggen (1971: 73-92) and Timothy
Usher (p.c.) (cf. Barlow 2020: 14-17).




      Figure 1: Map of northeastern New Guinea, depicting where Ap Ma, Waran, and some other
                                neighboring languages are spoken.




                                                                                                  40
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64




                                  Figure 2: The Keram-Ramu family.6


As in Wolof and Begak, adpositions in Ap Ma and Waran not only relate the nominal
argument to the clause but also carry deictic information, relating the entire
adpositional phrase to the speaker or deictic center. Unlike in Wolof and Begak, the
deictic element in such constructions in Ap Ma and Waran is a morphologically
distinct (although bound) component, as illustrated for Ap Ma in (6).


(6)      Ap Ma (Keram; Barlow, unpublished field notes 2018)
         ni-ŋga      nindan       ape      nda-nɨn        ta-p
         1SG-PROX yesterday father DIST-with walk-PFV
         ‘Yesterday I walked around with father.’7


The phrase ape ndanɨn not only relates the noun phrase ‘father’ to the clause as a
whole, but also indicates (by means of the morpheme nda ‘DIST’) that the object of the
postposition (‘father’) is or was distant from the current location of the speaker, either
because father is not nearby at the time of the speech event, or because the event of
walking itself occurred at a distance from the speaker’s current location. In other
words, the adposition conveys deictic information on the position of the referent of
the NP relative to the speaker or deictic center.



6
    Ottilien consists of Watam, Bore, Kaian, Awar, and Bosngun. Misegian consists of Akukem, Kire, and
Mikarew. Agoan consists of Abu and Gorovu. Ataitan consists of Igom, Tanggu, Kaje, and Tanguat.
Tamolan consists of Romkun, Breri, Kominimung, Igana, Inapang, and Chini.
7
    The grapheme <ɨ> is used in the transcriptions by Barlow (2021) and Pryor (1986, 1990) to
represent the high central unrounded vowel in Ap Ma, which has phonemic status in the language
(Barlow 2021: 36). Wade’s (1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1984) transcriptions, however, do not use this
grapheme. What is written elsewhere as <ɨ> corresponds to other vowels in her transcriptions.


                                                                                                   41
Killian, Barlow                                                            Deictic marking in adpositions


     Such constructions – in Ap Ma at least – are only possible if the argument governed
by the adposition is nominal; if the argument is pronominal, then the argument occurs
in the same position that the deictic marker otherwise would occupy, and no deictic
reference is indicated (7).


(7)     Ap Ma (Keram; Barlow, unpublished field notes 2018)
        ape       ndɨ       ni-nɨn      ta-p
        father FOC          1SG-with walk-PFV
        ‘Father walked around with me.’


In the following sections we aim to explain in greater detail the phenomenon of
adpositional spatial deixis in Ap Ma (Section 2) and in Waran (Section 3), before
proposing a diachronic explanation for this unusual feature (Section 4), thereby
placing it in a broader typological context (Section 5).


2. Ap Ma


There are three (singular) forms for Ap Ma deictics, which ostensibly signal proximal
(gɨ-), medial (mɨ-),8 or distal (dɨ-) distances. Deictics appear to have a very high
functional load in Ap Ma: not only do they mark physical distance, but they are also
used to track referents in discourse, as well as to indicate the attitude of the speaker
towards the referent (Pryor 1990). Although such functions of deictics are not
uncommon among the world’s languages (cf. Himmelmann 1996), the degree to
which Ap Ma recruits deictics for such purposes is remarkable. Indeed, Pryor & Farr
(1989: 116) acknowledge deixis as “a major part” of the language. According to Pryor
(1990: 22), “demonstratives serve as the major cohesive device in the language.”
     In example (8), the proximal form is used with the postposition -ak (glossed by
Wade as ‘ORG’, i.e., ‘origin’). However, the story was not actually told in or near the
garden mentioned in the story. Rather, this use of a proximal form instantiates a
deictic shift and cognitive framing, the proximal form being used to set the scene and



8
    Levinson (2018: 25) writes that “... there are grounds for suspicion that most if not all terms that
might be described as ‘medial’ in descriptive grammars are in fact neutral or unmarked distal, and pick
up their medial usage through privative opposition with proximal or far-distal terms.” It is possible
that this scenario would apply to Ap Ma as well, although we do not know for certain.



                                                                                                      42
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


the deictic center for the story. The deictic center has been transposed to the garden,
and future deictic references in the story occur accordingly.


(8)     Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1982: 9)
        wuluk     ma-n           sak        g-ak            ma-n        nage   l-ul-ul-me
        man       MED-OBL        garden     PROX-from       MED-OBL banana     3PL-cut-IPFV-EPIS
        ‘(She) cut the man’s garden’s bananas.’        9




Deictics in Ap Ma have a somewhat unusual distribution, attaching to verbs (9) and
to postpositions (10), as well as to various bound grammatical morphemes, including
case markers, emphatic markers, and topic markers (11), amongst other possible
morphemes whose functions are not yet understood. Additionally, all deictics may
also fuse with personal pronouns or with other deictics. Such deictic-deictic
combinations create meaningful words that serve several functions (Wade 1982: 25-
34), such as that of a copula (12) (see also (41) for an example of the same
combination of deictics being used as a focus marker).


(9)     Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 145)
        nyi-ga       no     pa-di-m-a-me
        1SG-PROX own house-DIST-go-IRR-EPIS
        ‘I will certainly go to my own house.’


(10) Ap Ma (Keram; Pryor 1986: 32)
        nyimɨ-ba     Astɨlelia     d-okol            wis
        some-NT      Australia DIST-through          come.PFV
        ‘Some come from Australia.’


(11) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1982: 23)
        73     da-yen       o      Mis Rop ba-lup           nyi-tin-a
        73     DIST-TOP     INJ    Miss Rop turn-PFV        1SG-get-IRR
        ‘In 1973 Miss Rop was again coming to get me …’


9
    The gloss ‘EPIS’ is used for the Ap Ma forms ma and me (both always occurring clause-finally), since
– although their functions are not fully understood – they seem to have epistemic force. The former
occurs in perfective contexts, whereas the latter occurs elsewhere (i.e., imperfective and irrealis
contexts). They may derive from suffixed versions of the medial deictic mɨ-.


                                                                                                     43
Killian, Barlow                                                              Deictic marking in adpositions


(12) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1982: 16)
         neg        da-n          dinat       da-ma
         woman      DIST-OBL      heavy DIST-MED
         ‘It is that woman’s problem.’


Deictics do not appear in their bare forms, nor do they fuse directly with nouns, unless
the fusion additionally includes verbs, postpositions, topic or case markers, or other
deictics. More crosslinguistically familiar deictic categories, such as demonstrative
pronouns and demonstrative adverbs, are extremely rare (if not totally absent) in Ap
Ma. Table 1 provides a list of some Ap Ma postpositions with their fused deictic
markers.


  Gloss                             Root              Proximal       Medial              Distal
                                                      g(ɨ)-          m(ɨ)-               d(ɨ)-
  ‘with’ (comitative)               -nɨn              ganɨn          manɨn               danɨn
  ‘with’ (inanimate comitative)     -pa               gɨpa           mɨpa                dɨpa
  ‘with’ (instrumental)             -n                gan            man                 dan
  ‘for’ (beneficiary)               -ayak             gayak          mayak               dayak
  ‘at, from’                        -aak              gaak           maak                daak
  ‘from’                            -uk               guk            muk                 duk
  ‘in’                              -in               gin            min                 din
  ‘to’                              -ada              gada           mada                dada
  ‘under’                           -abe              gabe           mabe                dabe
  ‘on’                              -aal              gaal           maal                daal
  ‘near’                            -el               gel            mel                 del
  ‘through’                         -okol             gokol          mokol               dokol
  ‘above’                           -atiyel           gatiyel        matiyel             datiyel


                        Table 1: Ap Ma postpositions (adapted from Pryor 1990: 5).


Note that, in addition to this paradigm of (singular) deictic markers, there are two
plural deictic forms: w(ɨ)- ‘PL.PROX’ and l(ɨ)- ‘PL.DIST’. Also, what is treated here as
“medial” appears to be ambiguous between marking a third person referent and
marking spatial deixis. This colexification of 3SG pronominal and MED deictic forms is
common among languages of the Keram-Ramu family. Finally, based on comparative
data from other Keram-Ramu languages, the form -n, presented above as a
postposition (‘with’), could alternatively be considered an “oblique marker”; however,



                                                                                                        44
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


it appears to have nearly (if not exactly) the same morphosyntactic distribution as
(other) postpositions in Ap Ma. This morpheme is discussed further in Section 4.2.
   The origin of this rather curious phenomenon appears to lie in phonology.
Postpositions in Ap Ma belong to a closed set of morphs (along with deictic enclitics)
that must form “tightly-knit” noun phrases (Wade 1983b). Another way of viewing
these forms is to consider them to be enclitics, which – quite remarkably – require
proclitics as their phonological hosts. Only when these enclitics join with proclitics
can they make well-formed words. The group of proclitics that can function in this
way consists of personal pronouns (13, 14) and deictics (14, 15).


(13) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 302)
      ny-e      wu-nin       y-e-w-o
      1SG-?     2SG-with ground-PRF-1.2-STAT
      ‘I am here with you.’


(14) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 55)
      nyi-ba       lo-sala          li-nin       pasta    woksap   m-in   s-ap-ma
      1SG-NT       QUANT-three      3PL-with pastor workshop MED-in go-PFV-EPIS
      ‘It’s a fact that I went there three times with them to the pastor workshop.’


(15) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 293)
      mi-d-aak               lol    da-ma
      water-DIST-from        man DIST-MED
      ‘He was a man from the water.’


Note that the form mi ‘water’ in (15) belongs to a class of “semi-free nouns”, which
are discussed further in Section 4.3.
   There is thus a phonologically based functional motivation for postpositions to
index spatial deixis. Since they belong to a class of enclitics that require proclitics as
hosts, they can only permissibly follow pronouns or deictics. When the object of the
postposition is a pronoun like wu- ‘you’ (13), then no deictic is “needed”. However, it
would not be permitted for a postposition immediately to follow a noun, since nouns
do not participate in this peculiar proclitic-enclitic “co-hosting” relationship that
postpositions require. By fusing with a deictic, the postposition becomes capable of
taking any NP as its object. (Based on its usage in texts, it is assumed here that, when



                                                                                       45
Killian, Barlow                                                       Deictic marking in adpositions


no particular deictic distinction is intended, a speaker has recourse to use the medial
form in a somewhat semantically bleached fashion as a generic referent.)
   Table 2 summarizes the possible combinations of postpositions and other parts of
speech in Ap Ma.


             Object of the postposition   Deictic marking?    Postpositional phrase
             (Independent) noun           Obligatory          NOUN DEIC=PP
             Semi-free noun               Obligatory          SF.NOUN=DEIC=PP
             Pronoun                      Prohibited          PRON=PP


                       Table 2: Postpositions and deictic marking in Ap Ma.


We should note that, although we refer to “marking” here and elsewhere in this
article, we do not wish to make any theoretical claims about the locus of marking in
these constructions in Ap Ma (or in Waran). That is, we are not concerned with
whether spatial deixis is an inflectional category of adpositions, or whether deictic
forms are being inflected for case-like categories (if these postpositions may be
considered as such). The simple facts of this fusion of deictic forms and adpositions
are fascinating in their own right and, we believe, deserving of closer examination.


3. Waran


Less is known about Waran compared to Ap Ma, and nearly all information
concerning the language originates from Butler’s (1981a) sketch grammar. However,
we may begin by noting that there are three deictics in the language, which signal
proximal (ga-), medial (na-), or distal (da-) distances. The semantics of this contrast
may be somewhat different from the three-way contrast found in Ap Ma, since what
is treated here as a “medial” category in Waran is described by Butler (1981a: 38) as
indicating referents that are near the hearer (i.e., addressee-proximal). Moreover,
unlike in Ap Ma, deictics in Waran may appear in their bare forms (i.e., free) when
they are used to indicate a location, in crosslinguistically expected fashion for
demonstrative adverbs (16, 17).


(16) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 38)
      gu    ga    pe-Ø
      1SG PROX exist-N3SG
      ‘I live here.’


                                                                                                 46
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


(17) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 16)
      a-na              kai     erake     da       se-t
      1PL.EXCL-POSS banana garden DIST exist-3SG
      ‘Our banana garden is over there.’


Deictics suffixed with the “demonstrative marker” -ŋ <ng> (Butler 1981a: 39) or
with the 3SG pronoun ma both may function as modifiers of nouns (18, 19, 20) as well
as pronominally (21). It is uncertain what the difference in usage between the two
suffixes in such contexts is. It may be noted that the Waran 3SG pronoun ma is cognate
with the Ap Ma medial deictic form mɨ-, although synchronically Waran uses na- as
its medial form.


(18) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 15)
      sin          da-dɨk       u       erake      ga-ng     tɨgo-pa-magɨn
      long.ago DIST-INS         2SG garden PROX-DEM cut-COMPL-FP
      ‘Long ago you cleared this garden.’


(19) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 15)
      maraksong         ga-ma       enabu       ra-se-t
      child             PROX-3SG    big         become-PRS-3SG
      ‘This child is becoming big (i.e., is growing).’


(20) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 37)
      kabop     gu-ng         kañe-ñe     wa       eñabu   ga-ng      kañe-ñe
      little    PROX-DEM      get-2.FUT or         big     PROX-DEM   get-2.FUT
      ‘Will you take this little (one) or this big (one)?’

(21) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 20)
     ga-ma      kabop-bu
     PROX-3SG little-CMPR
     ‘This one is smaller.’


Additionally, deictics may occur with the “specifier” suffix -(a)p (22), described as
functioning “to make specific the item to which it is attached” (Butler 1981a: 44).




                                                                                      47
Killian, Barlow                                                            Deictic marking in adpositions


(22) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 10)
         nga-na     nga-may     da-p      Rikan     da-wa kaka-ra-ñ
         1SG-POSS   1SG-wife DIST-SP Likan          DIST-at   leave-NP-N3
         ‘I left my wife at Likan [village].’


Finally, deictics attach to all postpositions, in much the same way as in Ap Ma.
Paradigms for adpositions in Waran are presented in Table 3.


  Gloss                           Root            Proximal         Medial              Distal
                                                  ga-              na-                 da-
  ‘with’ (instrumental)           -dɨk            gadɨk            nadɨk               dadɨk
  ‘on’ (temporal)                 -jin            gajin            najin               dajin
  ‘at’                            -wa             gawa             –                   dawa
  ‘to’                            -na             gana             –                   dana
  ‘from’                          -ka             gaka             –                   daka
  ‘from’ (animate source)         -gɨn            ?                ?                   dagɨn
  [unknown meaning]               -kɨn            ?                ?                   dakɨn


                    Table 3: Waran postpositions (adapted from Butler 1981a: 49).


The meaning of -kɨn in Table 3 is uncertain. Additionally, Butler (1981a: 40) notes
that he has not observed medial deictic forms occurring with “location relators” (i.e.,
‘at’, ‘to’, ‘from’), but we do not know whether such constructions would be ill-formed.
It is also uncertain whether -gɨn ‘from’ (animate source) can combine with proximal
or medial forms in addition to distal forms.
   The following examples (23, 24, 25) illustrate the contrast among the three deictic
markers in Waran in combination with the postposition dɨk ‘with’. Note that deictic
reference is not made with a pronoun but rather with the postposition.


(23) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 40)
         kamin      ga-dɨk         gora     na-ng         ra-pa-se-Ø
         bow        PROX-with      bird     MED-DEM       shoot-COMPL-PRS-N3SG
         ‘With this bow I shot a bird.’ (The bow is close to the speaker.)


(24) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 40)
         kamin      na-dɨk         gora     na-ng         ra-pa-se-Ø
         bow        MED-with       bird     MED-DEM       shoot-COMPL-PRS-N3SG
         ‘With that bow I shot a bird.’ (The bow is close to the hearer.)


                                                                                                      48
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


(25) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 40)
      kamin        da-dɨk           gora      na-ng        ra-pa-se-Ø
      bow          DIST-with        bird      MED-DEM      shoot-COMPL-PRS-N3SG
      ‘With that bow I shot a bird.’ (The bow is not close to the speaker or the hearer.)


Other postpositions behave similarly, immediately following deictic markers (as
opposed to the nouns that they govern), as illustrated in the following examples (26,
27, 28).


(26) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 46)
      kas       pep       ngɨnang      enebu          Angoram       da-wa     kaje-Ø
      dog       black     two          big            Angoram       DIST-at   get.PRS-N3SG
      ‘I bought two big black dogs at Angoram.’


(27) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 32)
      gu     krorowom        da-ka            paye-Ø
      1SG Klorowom           DIST-from        come-N3SG
      ‘I came from Klorowom.’


(28) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 40)
      ñaka         gu     krung        ga-na          yi-riyu-ñ
      yesterday 1SG village            PROX-to        come-PST-N3
      ‘Yesterday I came to the village.’


In unmarked situations where the location relationship is unimportant, the distal
deictic form da- is used (Butler 1981a: 39). Notably, Waran differs in this regard from
Ap Ma, which instead employs the medial deictic as the unmarked (or neutral) form
in such circumstances. It is also worth noting here that, although the Waran proximal
(ga-) and distal (da-) forms are both cognate with their Ap Ma equivalents (proximal
g(ɨ)- and distal d(ɨ)-), the Waran medial form (na-) is innovative. In Ap Ma – as in
many Keram-Ramu languages – the medial form (m(ɨ)-) is clearly related to the 3SG
pronominal form (mɨ- ~ ma-). In Waran, however, the medial form (na-) is, as Butler
(1981a: 38) notes, very similar to the 2SG pronominal form (na) in that language; this
accords with the form’s addressee-proximal meaning.




                                                                                             49
Killian, Barlow                                               Deictic marking in adpositions


   No information is given on whether anything comparable to Ap Ma’s semi-free
nouns exists in Waran, nor are there any examples showing how postpositions interact
with personal pronouns.
   Waran also employs deictics with a temporal postposition -jin, which Butler
(1981a: 41) describes as a “temporal relator”. When following the proximal marker,
this form is used to refer to an immediate time (‘right now’) (29); following the
addressee-proximal marker, it refers to a time further off but still close (30); and
following the distal marker, it refers to a time that is far off, at least a day in the
future or past (31). Note that constructions with the temporal relator do not always
appear to have an argument, such as in examples (29) and (30).


(29) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 41)
      ga-jin      krung    da-na       me-ñe
      PROX-TR     village DIST-to go-2.FUT
      ‘Are you going to the village right now?’


(30) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 41)
      na-jin      gu    ma-bi-ta-mas
      MED-TR      1SG 3SG-see-?-1.FUT
      ‘I’ll look at it in a minute.’


(31) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 41)
      waran       imanong        da-jin        me-mas
      no          tomorrow       DIST-TR       go-1.FUT
      ‘No, we’ll go tomorrow.’


There is fairly clear evidence that deictics and adpositions interact in Waran in much
the same way that they do in Ap Ma. However, unlike Ap Ma, which seems to contain
rather nuanced phonological requirements for various parts of speech, there is no
clear language-internal motivation for the development of such adpositional deictic
marking in Waran. However, the two language areas are in close proximity and show
a historical relationship, so one plausible explanation would involve contact-induced
change. Therefore, we suggest that the Waran deictic adposition system was at least
partially influenced by Ap Ma. Section 4.4 addresses this in greater detail.




                                                                                         50
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


4. A possible diachronic explanation


The origin of this construction likely stems from some particular aspects of Ap Ma
phonology. Postpositions in Ap Ma belong to a closed set of enclitic morphs that
require proclitics (such as deictics) as phonological hosts in order to form well-formed
words. Before detailing the peculiar behavior of these clitics in Ap Ma in Section 4.3,
we discuss two potentially relevant grammatical features found in the Keram-Ramu
family that may have encouraged the development of deictic-marked adpositions in
both Ap Ma and Waran. These are a semantically versatile class of articles (Section
4.1) and an oblique-marking morpheme that commonly follows deictic forms (Section
4.2). Finally, in Section 4.4, we consider the possibility that Waran was influenced by
Ap Ma in the development of its similar postpositional constructions.


4.1. “Articles”


Throughout the Keram-Ramu family there are examples of NP-final determiners that
are historically related to medial deictic demonstratives and/or third person personal
pronouns. These determiners, which will be referred to here broadly as articles, seem
to vary widely in their particular functions, both across and even within individual
languages. They may indicate definiteness or specificity, but also may serve as topic
markers or focus markers, and may index number and (to a more limited extent) case.
They also vary in the degree to which they are used in particular Keram-Ramu
languages: some members have no attestations of their use, some make occasional
use of them, and some employ them rather frequently (Ap Ma sits at one extreme of
this spectrum, using either these articles or deictic determiners for essentially every
NP). In the languages that exhibit these articles, they are generally in complementary
distribution with other determiners, namely proximal (Proto-Keram-Ramu *ŋga) and
distal (Proto-Keram-Ramu *anda) deictic demonstratives and (if present) an indefinite
marker. They may follow either common or proper nouns, but they do not cooccur
with personal pronouns.
   Since these frequently occurring articles may have paved the way for the
proliferation of Ap Ma deictic forms (Section 4.3), we take a moment here to describe
their behavior in some other languages belonging to the Keram-Ramu family.
   These articles have been described, variously, as “subject markers” (and “object
markers”) in Ulwa (Barlow 2018: 166-195, 2019b: 4-7) and in Pondi (Barlow 2020:



                                                                                     51
Killian, Barlow                                                    Deictic marking in adpositions


87), as “echo pronouns” in Waran (Butler 1981a: 51-52), and as pronouns in
“appositional noun phrases” in Rao (Christensen 1977: 23-24).
     The following examples illustrate various uses of these articles. In Pondi they may
index referent number (32, 33, 34). In Ulwa they may disambiguate grammatical
relations (35, 36). In languages with flexible constituent order, such as Rao, they may
provide essential case information (37). In Ambakich (as in Ap Ma), they have also
developed predicative functions (cf. Li & Thompson 1977; Diessel 1999: 143-148),
occurring in non-verbal clauses (38, 39).


(32) Pondi (Keram; Barlow 2020: 110)
        kula-m        mï
        boy-NPL       3SG.SUBJ
        ‘the boy’10


(33) Pondi (Keram; Barlow 2020: 111)
        kula-m        min
        boy-NPL       3DU
        ‘the (two) boys’


(34) Pondi (Keram; Barlow 2020: 111)
        kula-wi       ndïn
        boy-PL        3PL.SUBJ
        ‘the (more than two) boys’


(35) Ulwa (Keram; Barlow 2018: 170)
        inom          manji      ay      ma=ama-p
        mother        3SG.POSS   sago    3SG.OBL=eat-PFV
        (a) ‘Mother ate her sago.’
        (b) ‘(Someone) ate mother’s sago.’


(36) Ulwa (Keram; Barlow 2018: 170)
        inom          mï         manji      ay       ma=ama-p
        mother        3SG.SUBJ 3SG.POSS     sago     3SG.OBL=eat-PFV
        (a) ‘Mother ate her sago.’
        *(b) ‘(Someone) ate mother’s sago.’

10
     The grapheme <ï> in the Pondi and Ulwa data represents /ɨ/.



                                                                                              52
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


(37) Rao (Ramu; Christensen 1978: 32)
      frendɨ       me            ma           ole-lɨ
      man          3PL.SUBJ 3SG.OBL           drag-COND
      ‘If the men dragged it …’


(38) Ambakich (Keram; Barlow, unpublished field notes 2018)
      Lucy         anetʃo        man
      [name]       woman         NPL.MED

      ‘Lucy is a woman.’


(39) Ambakich (Keram; Barlow, unpublished field notes 2018)
      anɨ       erer      arin
      1PL       dog       PL.MED

      ‘We have dogs.’


Although, as shown above, these Keram-Ramu articles can serve grammatical
functions, their overall use seems largely determined by pragmatic factors – in
particular, topic marking. Diessel & Breunesse (2020: 331) mention several Papuan
languages in which topic markers have developed historically from demonstratives.
   The presence of articles in a Papuan family deserves comment. Foley (2000: 383)
notes that articles are uncommon in Papuan languages, and he (Foley 2000: 393)
even attributes the loss of articles in some Austronesian languages to contact with
neighboring Papuan languages. It is not inconceivable that contact has had the
opposite effect in the case of the Papuan Keram-Ramu family – that is, that the
evolution of the Keram-Ramu articles was influenced by contact with nearby
(unrelated) Austronesian languages (specifically, Oceanic languages of the Schouten
Chain; see Ross 1988: 122-132). There are several well-known examples of metatypy
between Papuan and Oceanic languages in this region of New Guinea (cf. Ross 1996).
It is even possible that the Oceanic influence here was not only structural but also
formal: the nearby Oceanic language Manam, for example, has a “specifier”
suffix -ma, which, among other things, follows NPs to “identify an object or a person
as being the same as the one that has been spoken of before” (Lichtenberk 1983: 207-
208, 364). Similarly, Kairiru (closely related to Manam) has a postnominal topic
marker mai, which may be used either anaphorically or cataphorically (Wivell 1981:




                                                                                  53
Killian, Barlow                                                      Deictic marking in adpositions


187-190). Juillerat (2000: 50) even mentions Waran foundation legends of their
ancestors having originally come by canoe from Manam island.
   Regardless of the origin of these articles, their versatility and frequency in Keram-
Ramu languages such as Ap Ma may have encouraged the proliferation of deictic
forms in that language, due to the formal and semantic similarities between the two
types of morphs.


4.2. The oblique marker *-n


Another morphosyntactic feature that may have encouraged the development of the
Ap Ma and Waran systems of deictic marking is a postposed oblique marker that
occurs in many languages of the family (Proto-Keram-Ramu *-n). This oblique
marker, which commonly immediately follows deictic forms, may have served as a
model for semantically similar postpositions to require immediately preceding deictic
markers.
   In some Keram-Ramu languages, this marker may attach to any non-subject NP
(including direct objects and objects of postpositions), whereas in other languages it
is restricted to non-core arguments, especially non-core arguments that do not contain
postpositions. Indeed, the oblique marker *-n, which often indicates instrumental,
genitive, or beneficiary roles, behaves semantically very much like a postposition;
however, it is considered separately here, since – at least in some languages – it
patterns differently from postpositions morphosyntactically. For example, in Pondi,
the oblique marker =n is restricted to determiners, whereas postpositions can follow
any nominal element in that language. Examples of this oblique marker are given
below for Pondi (40), Ap Ma (41), Ulwa (42), Waran (43), Akukem (44), Mikarew
(45), and Kire (46).


(40) Pondi (Keram; Barlow 2020: 129)
      tatï        sanglama     ma=n            kondiyam      oli-ï
      papa        axe          3SG.OBL=OBL     palm.sp       cut-IPFV
      ‘Papa cuts a palm with an axe.’


(41) Ap Ma (Keram; Barlow, unpublished field notes 2018)
      ape         da-ma      ŋgai   nda-n      su-ndɨ-e-p            ma
      father DIST-MED        axe    DIST-OBL   pig-DIST-hit-PFV      EPIS

      ‘Father killed the pig with an axe.’



                                                                                                54
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


(42) Ulwa (Keram; Barlow 2019a: 1031)
      nungol=nï           ama-p-e           lam
      child=OBL           eat-PFV-DEP       meat
      ‘The meat was eaten by the child.’


(43) Waran (Ramu; Butler 1981a: 41)
      waran        gu     u-na            kas a-i-Ø-rang
      no           1SG 2SG-POSS dog NEG-hit.PRS-N3SG-NEG
      ‘No, I didn’t hit your dog.’


(44) Akukem (Ramu; Daniels 2010: 121)
      ɑ      ɡuɑ        utuɑv-ɨn
      3SG go            path-OBL
      ‘He goes along the path.’


(45) Mikarew (Ramu; Capell 1951: 140)
      'kø       'pokon       uŋi'pamu-ni           i'tji
      1SG       yesterday village-LOC              was
      ‘I was in the village yesterday.’


(46) Kire (Ramu; Stanhope 1972: 60)
      ana       Kire-ttə-n          iki
      3SG       Giri-upper-LOC be.at
      ‘He is at [Upper] Giri [village].’


The preceding examples illustrate the broad use of this postposition-like oblique
marker in the Keram-Ramu family. In some languages of the family, especially those
in and around the Keram branch to the west, it seems to have developed a
“preference” for pronominal or deictic (as opposed to nominal) hosts (this may have
especially been the case in those languages that frequently employ postnominal
articles). In Pondi, there developed an outright prohibition against *-n immediately
following nominal arguments. Since this Keram-Ramu morpheme is semantically very
much like a postposition, it is reasonable to imagine that it provided a model for all
postpositions in Ap Ma to disfavor nominal hosts.




                                                                                   55
Killian, Barlow                                                         Deictic marking in adpositions


4.3. The proliferation of Ap Ma deictics


Although the presence in Keram-Ramu both of topic-marking articles and of a
postposed oblique marker may have played a role in the genesis of the Ap Ma and
Waran deictic systems, these facts alone certainly do not suffice to explain the extreme
degree to which deictics pervade Ap Ma grammar. Part of the solution may lie in
diachronic phonology – namely, the fact that almost every multisyllabic Ap Ma noun
lost its initial syllable. Since many roots were originally disyllabic, this resulted in a
great many monosyllabic nouns, including numerous homophones. For example,
earlier forms like *mbapa ‘wing’ and *kapa ‘house’ both ended up as pa in Ap Ma.
Following this great shedding of initial syllables, there seems to have developed a
strong aversion to ending prosodic units with (unbound) vowel-final monosyllabic
words. Notably, when giving citation forms of such words (e.g., pa ‘house’), speakers
almost invariably provide bound versions thereof (commonly by adding the focus
marker ndɨma – thus: [pandɨma]).11
     Wade (1983b: 3-4) refers to words such as pa ‘house’ in Ap Ma as “semi-free
nouns”, a class of vowel-final monosyllabic words that are “grammatically free” but
are “phonologically bound to the following word or suffix and can never occur in
isolation.” The set of semi-free nouns is closed but includes a great many high-
frequency concepts, such as ‘house’, ‘village’, ‘jungle’, ‘sky’, ‘spear’, ‘water’, ‘fire’,
‘talk’, ‘name’, ‘dog’, and ‘pig’.
     Semi-free nouns can potentially attach to a variety of hosts, so long as the host is
a phonological word, such as a verb (47) or an adjective (48). Also, a semi-free noun
may immediately precede a deictic, provided the deictic is itself a proclitic attaching
to a following form (49), which may itself be an enclitic (50). This suggests that
proclitic-enclitic pairings can themselves constitute phonological words.


(47) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 303)
        me-t           pi-k-ap
        MED-take       fire-put-PFV
        ‘(He) caused it to stay on the fire.’




11
     Even based on very limited data, Laycock & Z’graggen (1975: 759) make a similar observation:
“[Pronouns] take a range of suffixes … Nouns also show similar suffixes, including a prevalent -dama
which occurs on all monosyllabic nouns in isolated, final and predicative positions, but which may be
omitted elsewhere.”



                                                                                                   56
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


(48) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 295)
      li-nyaam                  da-ma
      mosquito.net-big          DIST-MED

      ‘It is a big mosquito net.’


(49) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 54)
      l-e       alak      no        pa-di-m-a
      3PL-?     also      own       house-DIST-go-IRR
      ‘… they also will go to their own house.’


(50) Ap Ma (Keram; Wade 1984: 239)
      su-du-ba            w-odu-p
      pig-DIST-NT         2SG-see-PFV
      ‘… the pig saw you …’


Thus, it seems as though rules of prosody have strongly influenced the proliferation
of postnominal deictic markers in Ap Ma, since they provide a semantically weak
means of addressing a prosodic problem. Since a postposition is not a phonological
word in Ap Ma, it cannot by itself serve as a host for a semi-free noun. However, by
adding a deictic proclitic and thereby creating a proclitic-enclitic pairing, a speaker
may permissibly use a semi-free noun in an adpositional phrase. Considering the great
number of high-frequency items constituting this class of semi-free nouns, it is not
unlikely that the [(semi-free) noun=deictic=postposition] structure was generalized
to encompass all nouns, including those that are phonologically free.


4.4. Diffusion to Waran?


While this historical sound change and these (unusual) prosodic requirements may
help to explain the situation in Ap Ma, they do not necessarily account for the similar
(albeit somewhat less extreme) situation in Waran. Given the proximity of the two
language areas, as well as their longstanding relationship, however, we consider it
plausible that the Waran deictic system was influenced at least in part by that of Ap
Ma.
   Several Waran villages lie along the well-traversed Keram River, just upstream
(southeast) from Ap Ma villages lying along the same river. Today, the closest Ap Ma



                                                                                    57
Killian, Barlow                                                  Deictic marking in adpositions


and Waran settlements on the Keram are within 10 kilometers of each other: they are
Bopten (Ap Ma) and Yar (Waran). Almost exactly equidistant between the two is Yaut,
one of the seven villages where Ambakich (Keram family) is spoken. However, the
Ambakich language area mainly lies farther to the east, along the Porapora River. The
village of Yaut was only built in the middle of the 20th century by the transposed
Ambakich-speaking population of the former Angang village. Thus, traditionally, the
Ap Ma and Waran people occupied contiguous stretches of land along the important
conduit that is the Keram River. Furthermore, to the west of the Keram River, in the
“Grass” area, sit several Ap Ma and Waran villages in considerable proximity, perhaps
the closest two of which are Kekten (Ap Ma) and Pushyten (Waran), positioned some
three kilometers apart from each other, along the same bayou. Figure 3 presents a
map of these villages.




                     Figure 3: Neighboring Ap Ma and Waran villages.


Thurnwald (1916: 254) also notes some shared cultural traits of this region, including
the use of bow and arrow (as opposed to dart) and pottery making, both of which he
says are unknown in the Lower Sepik area. Thurnwald (1916: 281-282) also states
that Waran kinship and marriage customs (the subject of his work) are shared by the



                                                                                            58
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


Ap Ma (“Kambót”) people. Finally, linguistic contact is evident from the presence of
lexical loans, occurring apparently bidirectionally between the two languages. Some
likely borrowings from Waran into Ap Ma are given in Table 4, and some likely
borrowings from Ap Ma into Waran are given in Table 5.


                         Gloss            Waran           >   Ap Ma
                         ‘woman’          miɲak           >   neŋ
                         ‘basket’         uman            >   wumɨn
                         ‘spirit sp.’     koɲim           >   koɲim
                         ‘spirit sp.’     mɨrom           >   molombi


                           Table 4: Likely loans from Waran into Ap Ma.12




                         Gloss            Ap Ma           >   Waran
                         ‘arrow’          peu             >   peʌp
                         ‘paddle’         napuŋ           >   nap
                         ‘betel nut’      au              >   o
                         ‘ground’         mbɨn            >   mbɨŋ


                           Table 5: Likely loans from Ap Ma into Waran.13


Therefore, in light of the known cultural and linguistic interactions between the Ap
Ma- and Waran-speaking peoples, and in the absence of any known language-internal
motivation for this highly unusual deictic behavior in Waran, we consider it plausible
that deictic-marked adpositions in Waran developed at least in part thanks to
influence from the neighboring Ap Ma language.




12
     Sources: <miñɑk> ‘woman’ (Butler 1981b: 31), <neg> ‘woman; wife’ (Wade 1983a: 68),
<umɑn> ‘woven basket’ (Butler 1981b: 7), <wumɨn> ‘basket’ (Barlow 2021: 85), <koñim> ‘spirits
of nature’ (Z’graggen 1972: 20), <konyim> ‘spirit’ (Wade 1983a: 48), <mʉrɔm> ‘spirits of ancestors’
(Z’graggen 1972: 21), <molobi> ‘spirit whose face is found on garamut etc.’ (Wade 1983a: 63).
13
     Sources: <peu> ‘arrowhead’ (Barlow 2021: 82), <peʌp> ‘arrow’ (Z’graggen 1972: 196b),
<napug> ‘paddle’ (Wade 1983a: 67), <nɑp> ‘paddle’ (Butler 1981b: 18), <au> ‘betel nut’ (Wade
1983a: 5), <o> ‘betelnut’ (Butler 1981b: 6), <mbɨn> ‘land, ground’ (Barlow 2021: 79), <bʉŋ>
‘ground’ (Z’graggen 1972: 168).


                                                                                                59
Killian, Barlow                                                 Deictic marking in adpositions


5. Conclusion


This article has examined the synchronic and diachronic aspects of obligatory spatial
deixis marking in adpositions, an extremely rare phenomenon crosslinguistically. This
construction seems, at least in part, to have arisen due to a phonological requirement
in Ap Ma. Namely, certain enclitics (among them, postpositions) require proclitics as
phonological hosts in order to form well-formed words. This proclitic-enclitic co-
hosting relationship is itself a remarkable phonological phenomenon and warrants
future research to better understand its nature and, especially, its origin. At any rate,
the particular prosodic demands of the language are likely what have encouraged the
general spread of deictic markers in the language and the particular pattern of
obligatory deixis marking in adpositional phrases discussed here.
   While it is possible that phonology may have also played a role in the development
of this phenomenon in Waran, it is reasonable to assume that the marking of spatial
deixis in adpositional phrases was borrowed from Ap Ma, or at the very least was
influenced by it.
   Looking further back into the history of the Keram-Ramu family, to which both
languages belong, we see some of the structural conditions that may have helped give
rise to deictic-marked adpositions in Ap Ma and Waran. First, the frequent use of
semantically versatile articles may have provided a model for the proliferation Ap Ma
deictic forms, which share some semantic and distributional features with these
articles. Likewise, the fact that the Keram-Ramu oblique marker *-n commonly
follows deictic forms may have encouraged semantically similar postpositions to
require immediately preceding deictic markers. Thus, even though areal diffusion
likely played a role in the development of deictic marking in Waran, this language as
well would have possessed some of the morphosyntactic conditions facilitating the
advent of this unusual construction.
   Regardless of its origin, however, the obligatory combination of deictic forms with
adpositions is very rare in the world’s languages. Languages such as Ap Ma and Waran
add further attestation to the diversity and degree to which languages can encode
spatial deixis in their grammars.




                                                                                           60
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


Acknowledgements


We are grateful to Martha Wade for her valuable comments and help. We also wish
to thank the audience of the Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea 2021 annual
conference as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful questions and
suggestions.


Abbreviations


? = morpheme of unknown              EXCL   = exclusive          OBL   = oblique
meaning                              FOC    = focus              PFV   = perfective
1 = 1 person
        st
                                     FP   = far past             PL   = plural
2 = 2 person
        nd
                                     FUT    = future             POSS   = possessive
3 = 3 person
        rd
                                     INJ   = interjection        PREP   = preposition
AV   = actor voice                   INS   = instrumental        PRF   = perfect
CDM     = core development           IPFV   = imperfective       PROX   = proximal
         marker                      IRR   = irrealis            PRS   = present
CMPR    = comparative                LOC    = locative           PST   = past
COMPL    = completive                MED    = medial             QUANT   = quantity
COND    = conditional                N3 = non-3
                                                   rd
                                                        person   SG   = singular
DEM    = demonstrative               N3SG    = non-3SG           SP   = specifier
DEP    = dependent                   NEG    = negative           STAT   = stative
DIST   = distal                      NOM    = nominative         SUBJ   = subject
DSTP   = distant past                NP    = near past           TOP   = topic
DU   = dual                          NPL    = nonplural          TR   = time relator
EPIS   = epistemic marker            NT    = neutral topic


References


Barlow, Russell. 2018. A grammar of Ulwa. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at
     Mānoa.
Barlow, Russell. 2019a. Agent demotion through inverted word order: Syntactic
     passives in Ulwa. Studies in Language 43(4). 1015-1037.
Barlow, Russell. 2019b. A syntactic motivation for valency reduction: Antipassive
     constructions in Ulwa. Oceanic Linguistics 58(1). 1-30.
Barlow, Russell. 2020. A sketch grammar of Pondi. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics
     (College of Asia and the Pacific, the Australian National University).




                                                                                        61
Killian, Barlow                                                 Deictic marking in adpositions


Barlow, Russell. 2021. Ambakich phonological sketch. Language and Linguistics in
   Oceania 13. 32-88.
Breunesse, Merlijn. 2019. Demonstratives in space and discourse: A synchronic and
   diachronic analysis. PhD Dissertation, University of Jena.
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav
   Fischer Verlag.
Butler, William. 1981a. Preliminary notes on Banaro grammar. Pioneer Bible
   Translators. Unpublished MS.
Butler, William. 1981b. A tentative phonology of Banaro. Pioneer Bible Translators.
   Unpublished MS.
Capell, Arthur. 1951. Languages of Bogia District, New Guinea. Oceania 22(2). 130-
   147.
Christensen, Fay. 1977. Rao grammar (from stem to clause): A preliminary study.
   Unpublished MS.
Christensen, Fay. 1978. Combinations of predications in Rao. Unpublished MS.
Daniels, Don. 2010. Akukem 1 notebook. Papuan languages collection: A collection
   of various materials gathered about several Papuan languages spoken in Madang
   Province, Papua New Guinea. Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in
   Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC).
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization.
   Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diessel, Holger & Breunesse, Merlijn. 2020. A typology of demonstrative clause
   linkers. In Åshild Næss, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in
   discourse, 305-341. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language
   27(1). 61-112.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, volume 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford:
   Oxford University Press.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Word order. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and
   syntactic description, volume 1: Clause structure, 61-131. Cambridge: Cambridge
   University Press.
Foley, William A. 2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology
   29. 357-404.
Goudswaard, Nelleke. 2005. The Begak (Ida’an) language of Sabah. Utrecht: LOT (PhD
   Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam).
Grimes, Charles E. 1991. The Buru language of eastern Indonesia. PhD Dissertation,
   Australian National University.



                                                                                           62
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 37-64


Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 2013. Демонстративные глаголы в языках мира: проблемы
   идентификации и анализа [Demonstrative verbs in the languages of the world:
   Problems of identification and analysis]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 9(3). 51-80.
Guérin, Valérie 2015. Demonstrative verbs: A typology of verbal manner deixis.
   Linguistic Typology 19(2). 141-199.
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy
   of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205-254. Amsterdam /
   Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Juillerat, Bernard. 2000. Do the Banaro really exist? Going back after Richard
   Thurnwald. Oceania 71(1). 46-66.
Killian, Don. 2021. Towards a typology of predicative demonstratives. Linguistic
   Typology. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2078.
König, Ekkehard & Umbach, Carla. 2018. Demonstratives of manner, of quality and
   of degree. In Marco Coniglio, Andrew Murphy, Eva Schlachter & Tonjes Veenstra
   (eds.), Atypical demonstratives: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics, 285-328. Berlin: De
   Gruyter.
Kruspe, Nicole D. 1999. Semelai. PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
Laycock, Donald C. & Z’graggen, John A. 1975. The Sepik-Ramu phylum. In Stephen
   A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea area languages and language study, volume 1: Papuan
   languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene, 731-764. Canberra: Research School
   of Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian National University.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2018. Introduction: Demonstratives: Patterns in diversity. In
   Stephen C. Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael J. Dunn, N. J. Enfield & Sérgio Meira
   (eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective, 1-42. Cambridge: Cambridge
   University Press.
Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra. 1977. A mechanism for the development of copula
   morphemes. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 419-444. Austin:
   University of Texas Press.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
   Press.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pryor, John. 1986. A provisional semantic-structure analysis of Botin hortatory and
   descriptive discourse. Pioneer Bible Translators. Unpublished MS.
Pryor, John. 1990. Deixis and participant tracking in Botin. Language and Linguistics
   in Melanesia 21. 1-29.




                                                                                      63
Killian, Barlow                                                Deictic marking in adpositions


Pryor, Bonita & Farr, Cindi. 1989. Botin deictics: Go and come. Language and
   Linguistics in Melanesia 20. 115-145.
Robert, Stéphane. 2006. Deictic space in Wolof: Discourse, syntax and the importance
   of absence. In Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Space in languages:
   Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 155-174. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
   Benjamins.
Ross, Malcolm. 1988. Proto-Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of western
   Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, the Australian National University.
Ross, Malcolm. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: Cases
   from Papua New Guinea. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative
   method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 180-217. New York:
   Oxford University Press.
Stanhope, John M. 1972. The language of the Kire people, Bogia, Madang District,
   New Guinea. Anthropos 67. 49-71.
Thurnwald, Richard. 1916. Bánaro society: Social organization and kinship system of
   a tribe in the interior of New Guinea. Memoirs of the American Anthropological
   Association 3. 251-391.
Wade, Martha. 1982. Pronouns and deictics in Botin. Pioneer Bible Translators.
   Unpublished MS.
Wade, Martha. 1983a. Botin/English dictionary. Pioneer Bible Translators.
   Unpublished MS.
Wade, Martha. 1983b. A tentative analysis of Botin morphophonemics in a generative
   format. Pioneer Bible Translators. Unpublished MS.
Wade, Martha Lynn. 1984. Some stratificational insights concerning Botin (Kambot), a
   Papuan language. MA Thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
Wivell, Richard. 1981. Kairiru grammar. MA Thesis, University of Auckland.
Z’graggen, John A. 1971. Classificatory and typological studies in languages of the
   Madang district. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, the Australian National University.
Z’graggen, John A. 1972. Comparative wordlist of the Ramu language group, New
   Guinea. Alexishafen: Anthropos Institute. Unpublished MS.



CONTACT
donald.killian@helsinki.fi
russell_barlow@eva.mpg.de




                                                                                          64
