Clusivity

In linguistics, clusivity[2] is a grammatical

distinction between inclusive and exclusive
rst-person pronouns and verbal
morphology, also called inclusive "we" and
exclusive "we". Inclusive "we" specically
includes the addressee (that is, one of the
words for "we" means "you and I and
possibly others"), while exclusive "we"
specically excludes the addressee (that
is, another word for "we" means
"he/she/they and I, but not you"),
regardless of who else may be involved.
While imagining that this sort of
distinction could be made in other persons
(particularly the second) is
straightforward, in fact the existence of
second-person clusivity (you vs. you and
them) in natural languages is controversial
and not well attested.[3]

The rst published description of the

inclusive-exclusive distinction by a
European linguist was in a description of
languages of Peru in 1560 by Domingo de
Santo Toms in his Grammatica o arte de
la lengua general de los indios de los
Reynos del Per, published in Valladolid,
Spain.[4]

Schematic paradigm

Sets of reference: Inclusive form (left) and exclusive

form (right)

Clusivity paradigms may be summarized

as a two-by-two grid:

Includes the addressee?

Yes No

Includes Yes Inclusive we Exclusive we

the speaker? No you they
Morphology
In some languages, the three rst-person
pronouns appear to be unrelated. This is
the case for Chechen, which has singular
so/, exclusive txo/, and inclusive vay/
. In others, all three are related, as in
Tok Pisin (an English creole spoken in
Papua New Guinea) singular mi, exclusive
mi-pela, and inclusive yu-mi (a compound
of mi with yu "you") or yu-mi-pela. However,
when only one of the plural pronouns is
related to the singular, it may be either one.
In some dialects of Mandarin Chinese, for
example, inclusive or exclusive
wmen is the plural form of singular w "I",
while inclusive znmen is a
separate root. However, in Hadza it is the
inclusive, one-bee, which is the plural of
the singular ono (one-) "I", while the
exclusive oo-bee is a separate root.

It is not uncommon for two separate

words for "I" to pluralize into derived forms
having a clusivity distinction. For example,
in Vietnamese the familiar word for "I" (ta)
pluralizes to inclusive we (chng ta) and
the polite word for "I" (ti) pluralizes into
exclusive we (chng ti). In Samoan, the
singular form of the exclusive pronoun is
the regular word for "I", while the singular
form of the inclusive pronoun may also
occur on its own, in which case it also
means "I", but with a connotation of
appealing or asking for indulgence.

In the Kunama language of Eritrea, the rst

person inclusive and exclusive distinction
is marked on dual and plural forms of
verbs, independent pronouns, and
possessive pronouns.[5]

Distinction in verbs
Where verbs are inected for person, as in
Australia and much of America, the
inclusive-exclusive distinction can be
made there as well. For example, in
Passamaquoddy "I/we have it" is
expressed

Singular n-thin (rst person prex n-)

Exclusive n-thin-n (rst person n- +
plural sufx -n)
Inclusive k-thin-n (inclusive prex k- +
plural -n)

In Tamil on the other hand, the two

different pronouns have the same
agreement on the verb.

First-person clusivity
First-person clusivity is a common feature
among Dravidian, Kartvelian, Caucasian,[6]
Australian and Austronesian, and is also
found in languages of eastern, southern,
and southwestern Asia, Americas, and in
some creole languages. Some African
languages also make this distinction, such
as the Fula language. No European
language outside the Caucasus makes
this distinction grammatically, but some
constructions may be semantically
inclusive or exclusive.

Singular inclusive forms

Several Polynesian languages, such as

Samoan and Tongan, have clusivity with
overt dual and plural sufxes in their
pronouns. The lack of a sufx indicates
the singular. The exclusive form is used in
the singular as the normal word for "I", but
the inclusive also occurs in the singular.
The distinction is one of discourse: the
singular inclusive has been described as
the "modesty I" in Tongan, often rendered
in English as one, while in Samoan its use
has been described as indicating
emotional involvement on the part of the
speaker.

Second-person clusivity
In theory, clusivity of the second person
should be a possible distinction, but its
existence is controversial. Some notable
linguists, such as Bernard Comrie,[7] have
attested that the distinction is extant in
spoken natural languages, while others,
such as John Henderson,[8] maintain that
the human brain does not have the
capacity to make a clusivity distinction in
the second person. Many other linguists
take the more neutral position that it could
exist but is nonetheless not currently
attested.[3]

Clusivity in the second person is

conceptually simple but nonetheless if it
exists is extremely rare, unlike clusivity in
the rst. Hypothetical second-person
clusivity would be the distinction between
"you and you (and you and you ... all
present)" and "you and someone else
whom I am not addressing currently."
These are often referred to in the literature
as "2+2" and "2+3", respectively (the
numbers referring to second and third
person as appropriate). Horst J. Simon
provides a deep analysis of second-person
clusivity in his 2005 article.[3] He
concludes that oft-repeated rumors
regarding the existence of second-person
clusivityor indeed, any [+3] pronoun
feature beyond simple exclusive we[9]
are ill-founded, and based on erroneous
analysis of the data.
Third-person clusivity
Obviative (abbreviated ) third person is
a grammatical-person marking that
distinguishes a non-salient (obviative)
third-person referent from a more salient
(proximate) third-person referent in a given
discourse context. The obviative is
sometimes referred to as the "fourth
person".[10]

Distribution of the clusivity

distinction
Look up we in Wiktionary, the free

dictionary.
The inclusiveexclusive distinction occurs
nearly universally among the Austronesian
languages and the languages of northern
Australia, but rarely in the nearby Papuan
languages. (Tok Pisin, an English-
Melanesian pidgin, generally has the
inclusiveexclusive distinction, but this
varies with the speaker's language
background.) It is widespread in India
(among the Dravidian and Munda
languages, as well as in the Indo-European
languages of Marathi, Rajasthani, Punjabi,
Sindhi, and Gujarati, which borrowed it
from Dravidian), and in the languages of
eastern Siberia, such as Tungusic, from
which it was borrowed into northern
Mandarin Chinese. In indigenous
languages of the Americas it is found in
about half the languages, with no clear
geographic or genealogical pattern. It is
also found in a few languages of the
Caucasus and Sub-Saharan Africa, such as
Fulani and Khoekhoe.[11][12]

It is, of course, possible in any language to

express the idea of clusivity semantically,
and many languages provide common
forms that clarify the ambiguity of their
rst person pronoun (English "the rest of
us", Italian noialtri). A language with a true
clusivity distinction, however, does not
provide a rst person plural with indenite
clusivity: where the clusivity of the
pronoun is ambiguous; rather, the speaker
is forced to specify - by choice of pronoun
or inection - whether they are including
the addressee or not. This rules out most
European languages, for example.
Clusivity is nonetheless a very common
language feature overall. Some languages
with more than one plural number make
the clusivity distinction only in, for
example, the dual, but not in the greater
plural. Others make it in all numbers. In the
table below, the plural forms are the ones
preferentially listed.
Examples of the clusivity distinction in specic languages
Inclusive Singular Language
Language Exclusive form Notes
form related to family

Ainu a-/an- ci- ?? Ainu

Subject prexes are ta-
(incl.) and kaa(ma)-
Apma kidi gema Neither (excl.). Dual forms, Austronesian
derived from the plurals,
also exist.
The derived form
jiwasanaka of the
Aymara jiwasa naya Exclusive Aymaran
inclusive refers to at
least 3 people.
The inclusive form is
derived from the
second person pronoun English
Bislama yumi mifala Both
and the rst person creole
pronoun. There are also
dual and trial forms.
Short forms are ta
Cebuano kita kami ?? Austronesian
(incl.) and mi (excl.)

Chechen vai txo Neither Caucasian

Daur baa biede ?? Mongolic

Evenki mit b ?? Tungunsic

Examples show short &
Fula en, een min, mien Exclusive (?) long form subject Niger-Congo
pronouns.

Guarani ande ore Neither Tupi-Guarani

Indo-
Gujarati /me/ Exclusive
/ap(e)/ European

Hadza
Hadza onebee bee Inclusive
(isolate)

kua (dual);
mua (dual);
Hawaiian kkou Austronesian
mkou (plural)
(plural)

Hiligaynon kit kam Austronesian

The dual inclusives dat
Ilocano datay, dakam, sikam ?? and sit are widely Austronesian
used.
sitay
The dual inclusive ikata
Kapampangan ikatamu ikami ?? Austronesian
is widely used.
The inclusive form is
derived from the
second person pronoun
and the rst person
pronoun. The exclusive
form is derived from the English
Australian Kriol yunmi melabat Exclusive
rst person sing. and creole
the third person plural
forms. There is
signicant dialectal and
diachronic variation in
the exclusive form.
The inclusive form has
dual number. By adding
the sufx "-pi" it takes
Lakota u(k)- u(k)- ... -pi Neither Siouan
the plural number. In the
plural form no clusivity
distinction is made.
There also exists the
form ma'a, which
means the speaker,
listener, and others
unspecied. It is of note
that the rst-person Constructed
Lojban mi'o mi'a/mi Both
pronoun mi doesn't take language
number and can refer to
any number of
individuals in the same
group; mi'a and mi'o are
usually preferred.

Malagasy Isika Izahay Austronesian

Manchu muse be Exclusive Tungunsic

Malay kita kami Neither The exclusive form is Austronesian

hardly used in informal
Indonesian in (and
spreading from)
Jakarta. Instead, kita is
almost always used
 colloquially to indicate
both inclusive and
exclusive "we".
However, in more
formal circumstances
(both written and
spoken), the distinction
is clear and well-
practiced. Therefore,
kami is absolutely
exclusive whereas kita
may generally mean
both inclusive and
exclusive "we"
depending on the
circumstances. This
phenomenon is less
frequently encountered
in Malaysian.

Malayalam Exclusive Dravidian
(namma) (aa)
is used both
inclusively and
exclusively by most
speakers, especially in
/ / formal situations. Use
Mandarin
(znmen) (wmen)
Exclusive
of is common only Sino-Tibetan
in northern dialects,
notably Beijing dialect,
and may be a Manchu
inuence.[13]

Indo-
Marathi /ap/ /ami/ Exclusive
European

Indo-
Marwari /ap/ /m/ Exclusive
European

Southern Min (ln) (gon/gn) Exclusive Sino-Tibetan

Both are used as

Newar Jhi: sa:n Jim sa:n (
possessive Sino-Tibetan
language ( ::) :)
pronouns

Pohnpeian kitail (plural), kiht There is an independent Austronesian

(non-verbal) and
 kita (dual) (independent), subject (verbal)
pronoun distinction.
se (subject)
The exclusive includes
both dual and plural
while the independent
has a dual/plural
distinction

Indo-
Punjabi (apan) (asin)
European

Quechuan
uqanchik uqayku Both Quechuan
languages
The dual forms are
Samoan itatou imatou Exclusive itaua (incl.) and imaua Austronesian
(excl.)
The inclusive form is
morphologically derived
Shawnee kiilawe niilawe Exclusive Algic
from the second person
pronoun kiila.

Tagalog tyo kam Neither Austronesian

The dual inclusive is
Tausug kitaniyu kami ?? Austronesian
kita.

Tamil (nm) Exclusive Dravidian
(nka)

Telugu (memu) Neither Dravidian
(manamu)

Tetum ita ami ?? Austronesian

The inclusive form is
derived from the
second person pronoun English
Tok Pisin yumipela mipela Exclusive
and the rst person creole
pronoun. There are also
dual and trial forms.

Tupi and or Inclusive Tupi-Guarani

Tulu namma yenkun Dravidian

The exclusive form is
Vietnamese chng ta chng ti Inclusive derived from the polite Austroasiatic
form of I, ti
References
1. "Grammatical Features - Associativity" .
www.grammaticalfeatures.net.
2. https://books.google.pl/books?
id=kbg5AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77
3. Simon, Horst J. Only you? Philological
investigations into the alleged inclusive-
exclusive distinction in the second person
plural, in: Elena Filimonova (ed.): Clusivity:
Typology and case studies of the inclusive-
exclusive distinction.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2005. "Archived
copy" (PDF). Archived from the original
(PDF) on 2011-06-09. Retrieved 2010-08-02.
4. Mary Haas. 1969. "Exclusive" and
"inclusive": A look at early usage.
International Journal of American
Linguistics 35:1-6.
5. Thompson, E. D. 1983. "Kunama:
phonology and noun phrase" in M. Lionel
Bender (ed.): Nilo-Saharan Language
Studies, pp.280322. East Lansing: African
Studies Center, Michigan State University.
6. https://books.google.pl/books?
id=RtyhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=
chechen+noun+classes&source=bl&ots=Qg
7yqMUNp7&sig=RIH3yCGfhqeBICWcaEem8
sf_ttA&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBtcvB4Y
XUAhWM3SwKHSjuCI4Q6AEIMDAB#v=one
page&q=chechen%20noun%20classes&f=f
alse
7. Comrie, Bernard. 1980. "Review of
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of
human language, Volume 3: Word Structure
(1978)". Language 56: p837, as quoted in
Simon 2005. Quote: One pair of
combinations not discussed is the
opposition between 2nd person non-
singular inclusive (i.e. including some third
person) and exclusive, which is attested in
Southeast Ambrym.
8. Henderson, T.S.T. 1985. "Who are we,
anyway? A study of personal pronoun
systems". Linguistische Berichte 98: p308,
as quoted in Simon 2005. Quote: My
contention is that any language which
provided more than one 2nd person plural
pronoun, and required the speaker to make
substantial enquiries about the
whereabouts and number of those referred
to in addition to the one person he was
actually addressing, would be quite literally
unspeakable.
9. One treated example is the Ghomala'
language of Western Cameroon, which has
been said to have a [1+2+3] rst-person
plural pronoun, but a more recent analysis
by Wiesemann (2003) indicates that such
pronouns may be limited to ceremonial use.
10. Kibort, Anna. "Person." Grammatical
Features. 7 January 2008. [1] Retrieved on
2009-10-25.
11. http://wals.info/chapter/39 World Atlas
of Language Structures 39:
Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in
Independent Pronouns
12. http://wals.info/chapter/40 World Atlas
of Language Structures 40:
Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Verbal
Inection
13. Matthews, 2010. "Language Contact
and Chinese". In Hickey, ed., The Handbook
of Language Contact, p 760.

Further reading
Jim Chen, First Person Plural (analyzing
the signicance of inclusive and
exclusive we in constitutional
interpretation)
Payne, Thomas E. (1997), Describing
morphosyntax: A guide for eld linguists,
 Cambridge University Press, ISBN0-521-
58224-5
Filimonova, Elena (eds). (2005).
Clusivity: Typological and case studies of
the inclusive-exclusive distinction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company. ISBN90-272-2974-0.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Clusivity&oldid=812225632"

Last edited 2 days ago by Loraof

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.