GetWiki

{{short description|Grammatical distinction in pronouns and agreement}}{{Grammatical categories}}In linguistics, clusivityBOOK,weblink Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction, Elena, Filimonova, 30 November 2005, John Benjamins Publishing, Google Books, 9789027293886, is a grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person pronouns and verbal morphology, also called inclusive "we" and exclusive "we". Inclusive "we" specifically includes the addressee, while exclusive "we" specifically excludes the addressee; in other words, two (or more) words that both translate to "we", one meaning "you and I, and possibly someone else", the other meaning "me and some other person or persons, but not you". 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 they) in natural languages is controversial and not well attested.BOOK, Simon, Horst J., Only you? Philological investigations into the alleged inclusive-exclusive distinction in the second person plural, Elena, Filimonova, Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction., Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2005,weblink King's College London, 2010-08-02, dead,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110609180626weblink">weblink 2011-06-09, While clusivity is not a feature of standard English language, it is found in many languages around the world.The first 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 Tomás in his Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los Reynos del Perú, published in Valladolid, Spain.Mary Haas. 1969. "Exclusive" and "inclusive": A look at early usage. International Journal of American Linguistics 35:1-6. {{JSTOR|1263878}}.

Schematic paradigm

(File:Inclusive-exclusive.jpg|thumb|300px|Sets of reference: Inclusive form (left) and exclusive form (right))Clusivity paradigms may be summarized as a two-by-two grid:{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"! rowspan="2" colspan="2"|!colspan="2" scope="col"| Includes the addressee?!scope="col"| Yes!scope="col"| No!scope="row" rowspan="2"| Includesthe speaker?!scope="row"| Yes

| Exclusive we:I and they, but not you

!scope="row"| No

| they

Morphology

In some languages, the three first-person pronouns appear to be unrelated roots. That is the case for Chechen, which has singular (), exclusive (), and inclusive (). In others, however, all three are transparently simple compounds, as in Tok Pisin, an English creole spoken in Papua New Guinea, which has 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, that may be the case for either one. In some dialects of Mandarin Chinese, for example, inclusive or exclusive ／ ' is the plural form of singular ' "I", and inclusive ／ is a separate root. However, in Hadza, the inclusive, ’one-be’e, is the plural of the singular ’ono (’one-) "I", and the exclusive, ’oo-be’e, is a separate {{dubious|date=May 2020|reason="oo" and "one" both seem to be related to "ono"}} root.{{citation needed|date=May 2020}}It is not uncommon for two separate words for "I" to pluralize into derived words, which have a clusivity distinction. For example, in Vietnamese, the familiar word for "I" (') pluralizes to inclusive we ('), and the formal or cold word for "I" (') pluralizes into exclusive we ('). In Samoan, the singular form of the exclusive is the regular word for "I", and the singular form of the inclusive may also occur on its own and then also means "I" but with a connotation of appealing or asking for indulgence.In the Kunama language of Eritrea, the first-person inclusive and exclusive distinction is marked on dual and plural forms of verbs, independent pronouns, and possessive pronouns.Thompson, E. D. 1983. "Kunama: phonology and noun phrase" in M. Lionel Bender (ed.): Nilo-Saharan Language Studies, pp. 280–322. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.

Distinction in verbs

Where verbs are inflected for person, as in the native languages of Australia and in many Native American languages, the inclusive-exclusive distinction can be made there as well. For example, in Passamaquoddy, "I/we have it" is expressed In Tamil, on the other hand, the two different pronouns have the same agreement in the verb.

First-person clusivity

First-person clusivity is a common feature among Dravidian, Kartvelian, and Caucasian languages,BOOK,weblink Chechen-English English-Chechen Dictionary and Phrasebook, Nicholas, Awde, Muhammad, Galaev, 22 May 2014, Routledge, Google Books, 9781136802331, Australian and Austronesian languages, and is also found in languages of eastern, southern, and southwestern Asia, Americas, and in some creole languages. Some African languages also make the distinction, such as the Fula language. No European language outside the Caucasus makes this distinction grammatically, but some constructions{{examples|date=November 2021}} may be semantically inclusive or exclusive.

Singular inclusive forms

Several Polynesian languages, such as Samoan and Tongan, have clusivity with overt dual and plural suffixes in their pronouns. The lack of a suffix 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. It is often rendered in English as one, but 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. Clusivity in the second person is conceptually simple but nonetheless if it exists is extremely rare, unlike clusivity in the first. Hypothetical second-person clusivity would be the distinction between "you and you (and you and you ... all present)" and "you (one or more addressees) 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). Some notable linguists, such as Bernard Comrie,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. have attested that the distinction is extant in spoken natural languages, while others, such as John Henderson,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. maintain that a clusivity distinction in the second person is too complex to process. Many other linguists take the more neutral position that it could exist but is nonetheless not currently attested. Horst J. Simon provides a deep analysis of second-person clusivity in his 2005 article. He concludes that oft-repeated rumors regarding the existence of second-person clusivity—or indeed, any [+3] pronoun feature beyond simple exclusive weOne treated example is the Ghomala' language of Western Cameroon, which has been said to have a [1+2+3] first-person plural pronoun, but a more recent analysis by Wiesemann (2003) indicates that such pronouns may be limited to ceremonial use. – are ill-founded, and based on erroneous analysis of the data.

Distribution of the clusivity distinction

{{Wiktionary pipe|we#Translations|we}}The inclusive–exclusive 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 creole, generally has the inclusive–exclusive distinction, but this varies with the speaker's language background.) It is widespread in India, featuring in the Dravidian and Munda languages, as well as in several Indo-European languages of India such as Oriya, Marathi, Rajasthani, Punjabi, Dakhini, and Gujarati (which either borrowed it from Dravidian or retained it as a substratum while Dravidian was displaced). It can also be found in the languages of eastern Siberia, such as Tungusic, as well as 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 Khoekhoeweblink World Atlas of Language Structures 39: Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Independent Pronounweblink World Atlas of Language Structures 40: Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Verbal InflectionIt 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 first person pronoun (English "the rest of us", Italian noialtri). A language with a true clusivity distinction, however, does not provide a first-person plural with indefinite clusivity in which the clusivity of the pronoun is ambiguous; rather, speakers are forced to specify by the choice of pronoun or inflection, whether they are including the addressee or not. That 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, but other languages make it in all numbers. In the table below, the plural forms are the ones preferentially listed.{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible"|+Examples of the clusivity distinction in specific languages! width=100pt| Language! width=150pt| Inclusive form! width=150pt| Exclusive form! width=100pt| Singular related to! Notes! width=100pt| Language family

Ainu language>Ainu| a-/an-| ci-| ??|	Ainu languages>Ainu

|American Sign Language (ASL)|"K" tips up palm in (dual)"1" tap chest + twist (pl)|"K" tips up palm side (dual)"1" tap each side of chest (pl)|Exclusive plural|

French Sign Language family>French Sign Language

Ojibwe language>Anishinaabemowin| giinwi| niinwi| Both	The inclusive form is derived from the second-person singular, and the exclusive form is derived from first-person singular.	Algonquian languages>Algonquian

Apma language>Apma| kidi| gema| Neither	Subject prefixes are ta- (inclusive) and kaa(ma)- (exclusive). There are also dual forms, which are derived from the plurals.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Aymara language>Aymara| jiwasa| naya| Exclusive	The derived form jiwasanaka of the inclusive refers to at least three people.| Aymaran

Central Bikol language>Bikol| kita| kami| Neither|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

| Bislama| yumi| mifala| Both

The inclusive form is derived from the second-person pronoun and the first-person pronoun. There are also dual and trial forms.| English creole

Cebuano language>Cebuano| kita| kami| Neither	Short forms are ta (incl.) and mi (excl.)	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Chechen language>Chechen| vai| txo| Neither|	Caucasian language>Caucasian

Cherokee language>Cherokee| ᎢᏂ (ini- (dual)), ᎢᏗ (idi- (plural))| ᎣᏍᏗ (osdi- (dual)), ᎣᏥ (oji- (plural))| Neither	The forms given here are the active verb agreement prefixes. Free pronouns do not distinguish clusivity.| Iroquoian

Plains Cree language>Cree, Plains| ᑭᔮᓇᐤ(kiyānaw)| ᓂᔭᓈᐣ(niyanān)| Both	The inclusive form is derived from the second-person singular pronoun, and the exclusive form is derived from the first-person singular.	Algonquian languages>Algonquian

Moose Cree language>Cree, Moose| ᑮᓛᓈᐤ(kîlânâw)| ᓃᓛᐣ(nîlân)| Both	The inclusive form is derived from the second-person singular pronoun, and the exclusive form is derived from the first-person singular.	Algonquian languages>Algonquian

Swampy Cree language>Cree, Swampy| ᑮᓈᓇᐤ(kīnānaw)| ᓃᓇᓈᐣ(nīnanān)| Both	The inclusive form is derived from the second-person singular, whereas the exclusive form is derived from the first-person singular.	Algonquian languages>Algonquian

Woods Cree language>Cree, Woods| ᑮᖭᓇᐤ(kīthānaw)| ᓂᖬᓈᐣ(nīthanān)| Both	The inclusive form is derived from the second-person singular, and the exclusive form is derived from the first-person singular.	Algonquian languages>Algonquian

Deccani language>Dakhini| apan اپن| ham ہم| |	Indo-European languages>Indo-European

Daur language>Daur| baa| biede| ??|	Mongolic languages>Mongolic

Evenki language>Evenki| mit| bū| ??|	Tungusic languages>Tungusic

Fijian language>Fijian| kedatou†| keitou ("we" but excludes the person spoken to)|	"kedaru" also means "we" but is limited to the speaker and the person spoken to and can be translated as "you and me".† ("we" but includes both the person spoken to and the speaker as part of a finite group. To refer to a much larger group, like humanity or a race of people, "keda" is used instead.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Fula language>Fula| 𞤫𞤲 (en), 𞤫𞤯𞤫𞤲 (eɗen)| 𞤥𞤭𞤲 (min), 𞤥𞤭𞤯𞤫𞤲 (miɗen)| Exclusive (?)	Examples show short- and long-form subject pronouns.	Niger-Congo language>Niger-Congo

Guarani language>Guarani| ñande| ore| Neither|	Tupi-Guarani language>Tupi-Guarani

Gujarati language>Gujarati	/aˑpəɳ(eˑ)/}}	/əmeˑ/}}| Exclusive|	Indo-European languages>Indo-European

Hadza language>Hadza| onebee| ôbee| Inclusive|	Hadza language>Hadza (isolate)

Hawaiian language>Hawaiian| kāua (dual); kākou (plural)| māua (dual); mākou (plural)| Neither|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Ilocano language>Ilocano| datayó, sitayó| dakamí, sikamí| Neither	The dual inclusives datá and sitá are widely used.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Juǀʼhoan language>Juǀʼhoan| mtsá (dual); m, mǃá (plural) | ètsá (dual); è, èǃá (plural)| Neither	The plural pronouns è and m are short forms.	Kxʼa languages>Kxʼa

Kapampangan language>Kapampangan| ikatamu| ikami| Neither	The dual inclusive ikata is widely used.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Australian Kriol language>Australian Kriol| yunmi| melabat| Exclusive	The inclusive form is derived from the second-person pronoun and the first-person pronoun. The exclusive form is derived from the first-person singular and the third-person plural. There are significant dialectal and diachronic variations in the exclusive form.| English creole

Lakota language>Lakota| uŋ(k)- | uŋ(k)- ... -pi| Neither	The inclusive form has a dual number. By adding the suffix -pi, it takes the plural number. In the plural form, no clusivity distinction is made.| Siouan

| Lojban| mi'o| mi'a/mi| Both

There is also the form ma'a, which means the speaker, the listener, and others unspecified. However, the first-person pronoun mi take no number and can refer to any number of individuals in the same group; mi'a and mi'o are usually preferred.| Constructed language

Maguindanao language>Maguindanaon| sekitanu| sekami| Neither|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Malagasy language>Malagasy| Isika| Izahay| –|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Manchu language>Manchu| muse| be| Exclusive|	Tungusic languages>Tungusic

Malay language>Malay| kita| kami| Neither	The exclusive form is hardly used in informal Indonesian in the Jakarta area. 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, but kita may generally mean both inclusive and exclusive "we" depending on the circumstances. That phenomenon is less frequently encountered in Malaysian.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

| Malayalam| നമ്മൾ (nammaḷ)| ഞങ്ങൾ (ñaṅṅaḷ)| Exclusive|

Dravidian languages>Dravidian

Standard Chinese>Mandarin| 咱們 / 咱们 (zánmen)| 我們 / 我们 (wǒmen)| Exclusive	我们 is used both inclusively and exclusively by most speakers, especially in formal situations. Use of 咱们 is common only in northern dialects, notably that of Beijing, and may be from Manchu influence.Matthews, 2010. "Language Contact and Chinese". In Hickey, ed., The Handbook of Language Contact, p 760.	Sino-Tibetan languages>Sino-Tibetan

Māori language>Māori| tāua (dual); tātou (plural)| māua (dual); mātou (plural)| Neither|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Marathi language>Marathi	/aˑpəɳ/}}	/aˑmʱiˑ/}}| Exclusive|	Indo-European languages>Indo-European

Marwari language>Marwari	/aˑpãˑ/}}	/mɦẽˑ/}}| Exclusive|	Indo-European languages>Indo-European

| Southern Min| 咱 (lán)| 阮 (goán/gún)| Exclusive|

Sino-Tibetan languages>Sino-Tibetan

| Newar language| Jhi: sa:n (झि:सं:)| Jim sa:n (जिम् सं:)| | Both are used as possessive pronouns.

Sino-Tibetan languages>Sino-Tibetan

Pohnpeian language>Pohnpeian| kitail (plural), kita (dual)| kiht (independent), se (subject)|	There is an independent (non-verbal) and subject (verbal) pronoun distinction. The exclusive includes both dual and plural, and the independent has a dual-plural distinction.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Potawatomi language>Potawatomi|ginan, g- -men (short), gde- -men (long)|ninan, n- -men(short), nde- -men (long)|??|Potawatomi has two verb conjugation types, "short" and "long." Both are listed here, and labeled as such.	Central Algonquian languages>Central Algonquian

Punjabi language>Punjabi| ਆਪਾਂ (apan)| ਅਸੀਂ (asin)| |	Indo-European languages>Indo-European

| Quechuan languages| ñuqanchik| ñuqayku| Both|

Quechuan languages>Quechuan

Shawnee language>Shawnee| kiilawe| niilawe| Exclusive	The inclusive form is morphologically derived from the second-person pronoun kiila.| Algic

Tagalog language>Tagalog| táyo| kamí| Neither|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Tausug language>Tausug| kitaniyu| kami| ??	The dual inclusive is kita.	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

Tamil language>Tamil| நாம் (nām)| நாங்கள் (nāṅkaḷ)| Exclusive|	Dravidian languages>Dravidian

Telugu language>Telugu| మనము (manamu)| మేము (memu)| Exclusive|	Dravidian languages>Dravidian

Tetum language>Tetum| ita| ami| Neither|	Austronesian languages>Austronesian

| Tok Pisin| yumipela| mipela| Exclusive

The inclusive form is derived from the second-person pronoun and the first-person pronoun. There are also dual and trial forms.| English creole

Tupi language>Tupi| îandé| oré| Inclusive|	Tupi-Guarani language>Tupi-Guarani

Tulu language>Tulu| nama| yenkul||	Dravidian languages>Dravidian

Udmurt language>UdmurtК проблеме категории инклюзивности местоимений в удмуртском языке| as'meos (асьмеос); ваньмы ("we all together")| mi (ми)| exclusive	Permic languages>Permic

Vietnamese language>Vietnamese| chúng ta| chúng tôi| Exclusive	Austroasiatic

References

{{Reflist}}

Further reading

• Jim Chen, First Person Plural (analyzing the significance of inclusive and exclusive we in constitutional interpretation)
• {{Citation | first = Thomas E. | last = Payne | year = 1997 | title = Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0-521-58224-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LC3DfjWfCiwC}}
• Filimonova, Elena (eds). (2005). Clusivity: Typological and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. {{ISBN|90-272-2974-0}}.
• Kibort, Anna. "Person." Grammatical Features. 7 January 2008. weblink Retrieved on 16 March 2020.

{{lexical categories|state=collapsed}}