Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-xc2tv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-03T16:23:18.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preference Organization Driving Structuration: Evidence from Australian Aboriginal Interaction for Pragmatically Motivated Grammaticalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Joe Blythe
Joe Blythe*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and The University of Melbourne
*
joe.blythe@unimelb.edu.au
Get access

Extract

Kin-enriched morphosyntax has emerged many times in distantly related Australian languages. An examination of language use in conversation reveals that this emergence can be explained in terms of convergent evolutionary pressures. All Australian Aboriginal societies have classificatory kinship, and all have taboos limiting the use of personal names. A conversational preference for avoiding restricted names (Levinson 2007) and preferences for achieving recognition and being succinct (Sacks & Schegloff 1979, Schegloff 1996) provide selection principles that assist speakers in choosing the most suitable expressions for the given occasions of reference. Because kin-based expressions are not names, but are nevertheless useful for securing recipients’ recognition of referents, they are regularly selected when names are unsuitable. Through repeated selection in conversation, the same preferences ultimately drive the diachronic development of kin-based morphosyntax. The Murrinh-Patha case study in this article presents the development of kin-based morphology through reanalysis. It then draws on fragments of face-to-face conversation exemplifying how conversational pressures bias the selection of kin-based structures. Finally, the micro- and macrocausal domains are linked through an ‘invisible hand’ explanation (Keller 1994).

Keywords

social interactionpreference organizationstructurationkintaxmicro/macro interactionsconvergent evolution

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 89 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 883 - 919
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Many thanks to Nick Enfield, Claire Bowern, Gunter Senft, Fiona Jordan, Lila San Roque, Michael Dunn, Kobin Kendrick, Paul Kockelman, and John Mansfield for comments on drafts of this article and to two anonymous referees for their useful criticisms. I am also grateful to Phyllis Bunduck, Lucy Tcherna, Gertrude Nemarlak, the late Elizabeth Cumaiyi, and Carmelita Perdjert for advice on Murrinh-Patha language and kinship, and to Mark Crocombe at the Kanamkek Yile Ngala Museum and Languages Centre in Wadeye for logistical support. This research was funded by the European Research Council (StG Project 240853) and the Australian Research Council (DP110100961 and DE130100399).

References

Alpher, Barry. 1982. Dalabon dual-subject prefixes, kinship categories, and generation skewing. In Heath, et al., 19–30.Google Scholar
Berndt, Ronald M., and Berndt, Catherine H.. 1988 [1964]. The world of the first Australians: Aboriginal traditional life, past and present. 5th edn. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Bitbol, Anne-Florence, Taberlet, Nicolas, Morris, Stephen W.; and McElwaine, Jim N.. 2009. Scaling and dynamics of washboard roads. Physical Review E 79. 1–11.10.1103/PhysRevE.79.061308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blythe, Joe. 2009a. Doing referring in Murriny Patha conversation. Sydney: University of Sydney dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5388.Google Scholar
Blythe, Joe. 2009b. Prosodic person reference in Murriny Patha reported interaction. Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface, vol. 8, ed. by BarthWeingarten, Dagmar, Dehé, Nicole, and Wichman, Anne, 23–52. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Blythe, Joe. 2010a. From ethical datives to number markers in Murriny Patha. Grammatical change: Theory and description (Studies in language change 6), ed. by Hendery, Rachel and Hendriks, Jennifer, 157–84. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Blythe, Joe. 2010b. Self-association in Murriny Patha conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics (Special issue: Studies in Australian indigenous conversation, ed. by Mushin, Ilana and Gardner, Rod) 30. 447–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2007. Principles of person reference in Tzeltal conversation. In Enfield & Stivers, 172–202.Google Scholar
Davidson, Judy. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. by Atkinson, John Maxwell and Heritage, John, 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Judy. 1990. Modifications of invitations, offers and rejections. Interactional competence, ed. by Psathas, George, 149–80. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Dench, Alan. 1997. Where do complex kinterms come from? Boundary rider: Essays in honour of Geoffrey O’Grady (Pacific linguistics C-136), ed. by Tryon, Darrell T. and Walsh, Michael, 107–32. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Wilfred H. 1964. An introduction to the Western Desert language. Sydney: Oceania.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. The morality of knowledge in conversation, ed. by Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2013a. Relationship thinking: Enchrony, agency, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338733.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2013b. Reference in conversation. The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. by Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, 433–54. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Stivers, Tanya (eds.) 2007. Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2000. Kinship verbs. Approaches to the typology of word classes, ed. by Vogel, Petra M. and Comrie, Bernard, 103–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003a. Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 32. 13–40.10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003b. An interesting couple: The semantic development of dyad morphemes. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2006a. Dyadic constructions. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, 24–27. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00188-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2006b. Verbos de parentesco en ilgar y iwaidja. VIII Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, ed. by Fernández, Zarina Estrada, 11–49. Hermosillo: Unison.Google Scholar
Flynn, William H. n.d. Native language of Port Keats commonly called Murinbada. Kensington, NSW, ms.Google Scholar
Garde, Murray. 2002. Social deixis in Bininj Kun-wok conversation. Brisbane: University of Queensland dissertation.Google Scholar
Garde, Murray. 2008. Person reference, proper names and circumspection in Bininj Kunwok conversation. Discourse and grammar in Australian languages, ed. by Mushin, Ilana and Baker, Brett, 203–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gipper, Sonja. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: An interactional account. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation. Online: http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/94408.Google Scholar
Green, Ian. 2003. The genetic status of Murrinh-Patha. The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of Northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent's most linguistically complex region (Pacific linguistics 552), ed. by Evans, Nicholas, 159–84. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hacohen, Gonen, and Schegloff, Emanuel A.. 2006. On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 1305–12.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1966. Kinship reflections in syntax: Some Australian languages. Word 22. 318–24.10.1080/00437956.1966.11435458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John B. 2007. Person reference in Tzotzil gossip: Referring dupliciter. In Enfield & Stivers, 226–52.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey, Merlan, Francesca; and Rumsey, Alan (eds.) 1982. The languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1988. Sign languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, semiotic and communicative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia. 2005. ‘Speaking as a heterosexual’: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction 38. 3. 221–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1982. Kinship categories in Kaytej pronouns. In Heath, et al., 64–71.Google Scholar
Laughren, Mary. 1982. Warlpiri kinship structure. In Heath, et al., 72–85.Google Scholar
Lea, Vanessa. 2004. Aguçando o entendimento dos termos triádicos Mẽbêngôkre via os aborígenes australianos: Dialogando com Merlan e outros. Liames: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 4. 29–42.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59. 303–21.10.2307/2787073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, ed. by Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, 61–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbcs.5.10levCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2005. Living with Manny's dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7. 43153.10.1177/1461445605054401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. Optimizing person reference—Evidence from repair on Rossel Island. In Enfield & Stivers, 29–72.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1982. Neutralisation and degrees of respect in Gurindji. In Heath, et al., 86–106.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick, and Obata, Kazuko. 2006. A higher order of kinship semantics: Trirelational kinterms and kin. A higher order of kinship semantics: Trirelational kinterms and kin: The Linguistics of Endangered Languages, Kobe. Online: http://wiki.pacific-credo.fr/images/6/65/Kobe_poster_final.pdf.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1996. Dyadic and polyadic kin terms in Gooniyandi. Anthropological Linguistics 38. 216–47.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1989. Jawoyn relationship terms: Interactional dimensions of Australian kin classification. Anthropological Linguistics 31. 227–63.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca, and Heath, Jeffrey. 1982. Dyadic kinship terms. In Heath, et al., 107–24.Google Scholar
Nash, David, and Simpson, Jane. 1981. ‘No-name’ in Central Australia. Chicago Linguistic Society (Papers from the parasession on language and behavior) 1. 2. 165–77.Google Scholar
Nash, Jill. 1974. Matriliny and modernisation: The Nagovisi of South Bougainville. Port Moresby: New Guinea Research Unit.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20. 321–41.10.1007/s11525-010-9184-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. by Atkinson, J. Maxwell, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita, and Heritage, John. 2013. Preference. The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. by Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, 210–28. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1930. The social organization of Australian tribes. Oceania 1. 34.63, 206-46, 322-41, 426–56.10.1002/j.1834-4461.1930.tb00003.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Nicholas. 1990. Ngan 'gityemerri: A language of the Daly River region, Northern Territory of Western Australia. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Reid, Nicholas. 2003. Phrasal verb to synthetic verb: Recorded morphosyntactic change in Ngan'gityemerri. The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of Northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent's most linguistically complex region (Pacific linguistics 552), ed. by Evans, Nicholas, 95–123. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Reid, Nicholas, and McTaggart, Patricia Marrfurra. 2008. Ngan'gi dictionary. Armidale: Australian Linguistics Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Schegloff, Emanuel A.. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. by Psathas, George, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Harold W. 1978. Australian kin classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511557590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction. Studies in anaphora (Typological studies in language 33), ed. by Fox, Barbara A., 43785. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Conveying who you are: The presentation of self, strictly speaking. In Enfield & Stivers, 123–48.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail; and Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361–82.10.1353/lan.1977.0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Sacks, Harvey. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8. 289327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiss, Melanie, and Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Applicativizing complex predicates: A case study from Murrinh-Patha. Proceedings of the LFG ’10 Conference, 416–36. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/15/lfg10.toc.html.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. Repairing person reference in a small Caribbean community. In Enfield & Stivers, 281–308.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 2002. From common ground to syntactic constructions: Associated path in Warlpiri. Ethnosyntax, ed. by Enfield, Nick, 287–307. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Ruth. 2001. The inclusory construction in Australian languages. Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 1. 81–96.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 2005 [1759]. The theory of moral sentiments, ed. by Soares, Sálvio. Glasgow: MetaLibri. Online: http://metalibri.wikidot.com/title:theory-of-moral-sentiments:smith-a.10.1093/oseo/instance.00042831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. 2007 [1776]. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. by Soares, Sálvio. London: MetaLibri. Online: http://metalibri.wikidot.com/title:an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of.Google Scholar
Stanner, W. E. H. 1937. Aboriginal modes of address and reference in the north-west of the Northern Territory. Oceania 7. 300–315.10.1002/j.1834-4461.1937.tb00385.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In Enfield & Stivers, 73–96.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N. J.; and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Enfield & Stivers, 1–20.Google Scholar
Taberlet, Nicolas, Morris, Stephen W.; and McElwaine, Jim N.. 2007. Washboard road: The dynamics of granular ripples formed by rolling wheels. Physical Review Letters 99. 1–4.10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.068003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, Carl. 2004. A reference grammar of Menya, an Angan language, Papua New Guinea. Manitoba: University of Manitoba dissertation.Google Scholar