Nominalisation Strategies in Kalamang and Ulwa Languages

Introduction

In linguistic studies, nominalization—a fundamental linguistic process—plays a crucial role. It alludes to the important linguistic occurrence of verbs becoming nouns, which makes it possible to describe states, ideas, or acts as tangible entities. In this work, we explore the intriguing nominalization techniques used by two little-studied languages: Ulwa (spoken in Papua New Guinea) and Kalamang (spoken in West Papua, Indonesia). In addition to illuminating the structural diversity in linguistic expression, our examination of these languages’ disparate approaches to nominalization provides insightful information about the particular cultural and historical environments in which they have developed. In order to identify the similarities and differences between Kalamang and Ulwa’s nominalization procedures, this study will compare and contrast them. By doing this, we hope to identify the unique characteristics of every language and track the cultural and historical influences that have moulded each one’s linguistic structure. These findings have significant theoretical ramifications because they advance our knowledge of linguistic typologies and increase our comprehension of linguistic diversity. By filling in the knowledge gaps regarding these less-studied languages, this research will contribute significantly to the field of linguistics’ understanding of nominalization.

Literature Review

Within the frameworks of generative, functional, and typological language, nominalization has been studied. The theoretical foundation for comprehending nominalization as a ubiquitous linguistic process has been developed by these investigations. The structural changes that underpin nominalization processes can be understood through generative techniques like Chomsky’s Transformational-Generative Grammar (Chomsky, Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 1970).

The process of nominalization, which frequently involves the use of morphological and syntactic elements, is viewed in functional linguistics as a method for turning verbs or other word classes into nouns (Yongsheng, 2008). Conversely, typological research has yielded important insights into the diversity of languages by examining cross-linguistic variation in nominalization tactics (Yongsheng, 2008).

Spoken in West Papua, Indonesia, Kalamang offers an interesting example of nominalization research. The two main suffixes used in this language to nominalize verbs are -un and -et. Several functions of the suffix -un are as follows: it nominalizes the verb ‘eranun,’ changes stative verbs into attributive nouns, nominalizes transitive verbs (including Malay loanwords), and nominalizes with the comitative postposition ‘=bon’ (Visser, 2022; Visser, 2020). These techniques highlight how flexible Kalamang is when it comes to using nouns to represent ideas and activities, which is indicative of its own linguistic structure.

The Ulwa language of Papua New Guinea has a unique nominalization approach that mainly uses the -en suffix to turn verbs into nouns (Barlow, 2023). Ulwa’s nominalization procedure is quite intricate; it includes requirements like demonstrative determiners, subject or object markers, object retention in transitive verbs, adjective modification, possession, and nomen patientis formation (KOONTZ-GARBODEN, 2016). This linguistic richness alludes to the profound cultural and historical influences that have influenced the language and emphasize the complex character of Ulwa’s nominalization techniques.

Linguistic variation and typological trends can be better understood through comparative studies of nominalization in the Ulwa and Kalamang languages. Despite the fact that both languages are geographically and historically remote from one another, a cross-linguistic analysis of their nominalization techniques can shed light on the relative contributions of linguistic universals and language-specific characteristics to the phenomena. Additionally, the investigation might reveal shared traits or possible impacts of language interaction with nearby languages.

Discussion

A range of parallels and discrepancies between the nominalization techniques used in Kalamang and Ulwa is revealed, offering a singular chance to comprehend the linguistic and cultural influences that have moulded both languages. This section discusses how these results relate to existing language typologies, highlights their unique characteristics, and examines their consequences.

Comparison

• Suffixation as a Common Strategy: The main nominalization technique used by Kalamang and Ulwa is suffixation. Ulwa has ‘-en’ as opposed to the suffix ‘-un’ and ‘-et’ that characterize Kalamang (Visser, 2022; Barlow, 2023). The above similarities suggest that the languages apply a common nominalization base.
• Functional Variations: The use of suffixes may vary substantially with regard to their functions. The suffix un is used in Kalamang for nominalizing all kinds of verbs, i.e. borrowed words, transitive, intransitive, and static verbs (Visser, 2022). However, Ulwa is a language with a peculiar grammar, whose -en suffix generally changes verbs to agency nouns (Barlow, 2023).
• Cultural and Historical Influences: The distinct cultural and historical epochs have impacted Kalamang, resulting in different ways of nominalization as compared to those in Ulwa. The use of agent nouns and nomen patientis by Ulwa could relate to specific cultural practices as well as socio-economic contexts (Barlow, 2023). However, Kalamang’s use of ‘–un’ to refer to Malays’ loanwords suggests external interaction (Visser, 2022).

Distinctive Features and Their Evolution

• Use of the Comitative Postposition by Kalamang: One distinguishing feature of Kalamang’s nominalization strategies involves the utilization of ‘=bon’ comitative postposition. In addition, verb pairs are connected to mean what was done together, while the verbs with an ‘e bon’ tend to be adjusted with a -un suffix (Olthof et al., 2021). This feature reflects Kalamang’s unique way of showing relationships and behaviour and is typical of their culture.
• Ulwa’s Complicated Requirements for Nominalization: Ulwa’s extensive criteria for nominalization have included possessives, demonstrative determiners, the subject or object-marked nominals, and adjectival modifiers (Barlow, 203 & Hale, 2001). From this analysis, it is clear that the language of the Ulwa people is highly structured and contains multiple nuances in the semantics, which may reflect the diverse society of the Ulwa tribe.

Theoretical Implications

• Linguistic Typology and Variation: While traditional linguistic typologies are frequently based on well-documented languages, these findings highlight the enormous linguistic variation that exists between languages. The nominalization techniques of Kalamang and Ulwa serve as a helpful reminder of how crucial it is to research underrepresented languages in order to deepen our comprehension of linguistic variety.

• Cultural and Historical Viewpoints: Kalamang and Ulwa’s nominalization techniques demonstrate the close relationship between language and culture. The distinctive characteristics of any language can be ascribed to certain cultural customs, historical influences, and societal frameworks. This emphasizes how important it is for linguistic study to take historical and cultural context into account.

Future Research Avenues

• Documentation and Preservation: The necessity for additional documentation and preservation initiatives is highlighted by the study of minority languages, such as Ulwa and Kalamang. Future studies can help preserve these languages and make sure that their linguistic diversity is maintained, even though they are at risk of becoming extinct.
• Cross-Linguistic Research: Analyzing nominalization techniques in underrepresented languages comparatively can reveal more general cross-linguistic trends. A better knowledge of linguistic evolution and the cultural influences on language can be gained from this research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the examination of nominalization procedures in Kalamang and Ulwa underscores the intrinsic connection between language and culture, as well as the linguistic diversity seen in lesser-studied languages. These results cast doubt on accepted linguistic typologies and highlight the need for additional study in marginalized languages, which will ultimately lead to a more thorough comprehension of linguistic diversity and preservation.

References

Aboagye, P. O., Zheng, Y., Yeh, C. C. M., Wang, J., Zhang, W., Wang, L., … & Phillips, J. (2021, October). Normalization of language embeddings for cross-lingual alignment. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Barlow, R. (2023). A grammar of Ulwa (Papua New Guinea). Language Science Press.

Chomsky, N., Jacobs, R. A., & Rosenbaum, P. S. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. 1970, 184, 221.

Hale, K. (2001). Ulwa (Southern Sumu): The beginnings of a language research project. Linguistic fieldwork, pp. 76–101.

KOONTZ-GARBODEN, A. N. D. R. E. W. (2016). A case study from Ulwa. The Morphome Debate, 89.

Olthof, M., van Lier, E., Claessen, T., Danielsen, S., Haude, K., Lehmann, N., … & Wolvengrey, A. (2021). Verb-based restrictions on noun incorporation across languages. Linguistic Typology, 25(2), 211-256.

Sproat, R., Black, A. W., Chen, S., Kumar, S., Ostendorf, M., & Richards, C. D. (2001). Normalization of non-standard words. Computer speech & language, 15(3), 287–333.

Tanzer, G., Suzgun, M., Visser, E., Jurafsky, D., & Melas-Kyriazi, L. (2023). A Benchmark for Learning to Translate a New Language from One Grammar Book. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16575.

Visser, E. (2020). A grammar of Kalamang: The Papuan language of the Karas Islands.

Visser, E. (2022). A grammar of Kalamang. Language Science Press.

Yongsheng, Z. (2008). Nominalization, verbalization and grammatical metaphor. Meaning in context: Strategies for implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 297-308.