لغات پاپوا
لغات پاپوا Papuan Languages تـُطلق على مجموعة كبيرة من اللغات المنتشرة في منطقة غينية الجديدة، إلى الشمال من أسترالية، موزعة ما بين جزر آلور وهالماهيرا وتيمور غرباً، ومجموعة جزر سانتا كروز شرقاً. يبلغ مجموع هذه اللغات نحو سبعمئة لغة. في البداية كانت تسمية البابوا تطلق على هذه اللغات لتمييزها من اللغات الأسترالية أو الأسترونيزية Austronesian إذ كان يُعتقد بأنه لا توجد أي صلة بين هذه اللغات.
تقسم لغات البابوا إلى مجموعتين كبيرتين، تضم الأولى نحو خمسمئة لغة، وتؤلف ما يعرف بمجموعة لغات وسط غينية الجديدة، وتنتشر هذه اللغات في المناطق الداخلية والهضاب، وقد أظهرت الدراسات الحديثة أنه كان لهذه المجموعة أصل مشترك. أما لغات المجموعة الثانية البالغ عددها نحو مئتي لغة فتنتشر في المناطق الساحلية والجزر، وتعرف بمجموعة اللغات الأسترونيزية، ولا يعرف الكثير عن أصلها. وفي الواقع يراوح عدد الناطقين بكل لغة من هذه اللغات بين بضع مئات وبضعة آلاف واللغة الأكثر انتشاراً هي لغة الإنگا Enga التي يتكلمها نحو مئة وثلاثين ألف شخص.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
اللغات
وبوجه عام، يمكن تمييز إحدى وعشرين مجموعة لغوية في لغات بابوا المعروفة، ثمانٍ منها مجموعات لغوية صغيرة يراوح عدد لغات كلٍّ منها ما بين لغتين وست لغات، وهناك ست مجموعات لغوية تؤلف ما يعرف بلغات عبر غينيا الجديدة، وهي أكبر مجموعة لغوية في وسط غينية الجديدة. وهذه المجموعات هي:
- مجموعة لغات هضاب شرقي غينية الجديدة
- مجموعة لغات فينستر-هوون Finisterre-Huon Phylum
- مجموعة لغات وسط وجنوبي غينيا الجديدة
- مجموعة لغات هضاب غربي غينية الجديدة
- مجموعة لغات جنوبي شرقي غينية الجديدة
- مجموعة لغات مادانگ Madang Phylum.
كما توجد مجموعات لغوية أخرى تابعة للغات بابوا مثل مجموعة إنگا وغيرها. وهناك أيضاً بعض لغات بابوا التي يصعب تصنيفها بسبب تأثر كل منها بالأخريات من جهة، وباللغات الأسترونيزية من جهة أخرى. ومع أن معظم لغات البابوا لم تتمتع بأهمية دولية لكونها لغات محلية فإن بعضها احتل مكانة ثقافية بارزة، وذلك لأن البعثات الدينية التبشيرية استخدمتها، مما أسهم في اتساع نطاق انتشارها وسمو منزلتها.
وقد عنيت الأبحاث اللغوية بدراسة الخصائص النحوية والصوتية والمعجمية لهذه اللغات بعد تصنيفها. ففي مجال القواعد يمكن القول إن معظم لغات بابوا ذات نظم قواعدية ونحويّة بالغة التعقيد، فصيغة الفعل، مثلاً، تُظهر تنوعاً كبيراً في التطابق العددي مع الفاعل، ويلاحظ وجود أشكال مختلفة من التطابق في التذكير والتأنيث، كما أن هذه الصيغة تُظهر كثيراً من خصائص كل من الفاعل والمفعول به إضافة إلى أنها تُعبِّر عن زمن الفعل أو الحدث وحالته، وبعض الظروف المتعلقة بحدوثه. وبوجه عام يمكن استخدام نوعين من صيغ الأفعال، فهناك الصيغة العادية، وتستخدم في الجمل ذات الفعل الواحد، وهناك الصيغة الخاصة، وتستخدم في الجمل التي تحتوي على أكثر من فعل. أما من حيث النظام الصوتي في لغات پاپوا، فهناك تنوعٌ معقد في استخدام الأصوات، إذ يتم استخدام أنظمة صوتية تعتمد على النغمة tone والنبرة stress لتحديد المعنى، وأي تغيير في نغمة الصوت يؤدي إلى تغيير في المعنى، كما أن هذه الأنظمة الصوتية تتداخل مع أنظمة النبر وطول المقطع الصوتي بطريقة معقدة.
وأخيراً يلاحظ أن هذه اللغات تتصف باستخدام أنواع من الاسم قد تصل إلى عشرة أو أكثر. كما تشهد هذه اللغات تنوعاً كبيراً في استخدام الأرقام وأسماء الإشارة وحالات الإعراب. لقد أظهرت الأبحاث اللغوية أنه يوجد اختلاف وتنوع كبيران في استخدام المفردات بين هذه اللغات إلى حد يصبح من المتعذر معه أحياناً تمييز اللغات الفصحى من اللهجات العامية.
المفهوم
The "Papuan languages" are a strictly geographical grouping, and does not imply a genetic relationship. The concept of Papuan (non-Austronesian) speaking Melanesians as distinct from Austronesian-speaking Melanesians was first suggested and named by Sidney Herbert Ray in 1892.[2]
In accordance with William A. Foley (1986):
The term 'Papuan languages' must not be taken in the same sense as 'Austronesan languages'. While all Austronesian languages are genetically related in one family, in the sense that they all descend from a common ancestral language called Proto-Austronesian spoken some 6,000 years ago... [Papuan languages] do not all trace their origins back to a single ancestral language... when a language is termed 'Papuan', this claims nothing more than that a language is not Austronesian.[3]
أعداد المتكلمين
Most Papuan languages are spoken by hundreds to thousands of people; the most populous are found in the New Guinea highlands, where a few exceed a hundred thousand. These include Western Dani (180,000 in 1993) and Ekari (100,000 reported 1985) in the western (Indonesian) highlands, and Enga (230,000 in 2000), Huli (150,000 reported 2011), and Melpa (130,000 reported 1991) in the eastern (PNG) highlands. To the west of New Guinea, the largest languages are Makasae in East Timor (100,000 in 2010) and Galela in Halmahera (80,000 reported 1990). To the east, Terei (27,000 reported 2003) and Naasioi (20,000 reported 2007) are spoken on Bougainville.
تاريخ التبويب
Although there has been relatively little study of these languages compared with the Austronesian family, there have been three preliminary attempts at large-scale genealogical classification, by Joseph Greenberg, Stephen Wurm, and Malcolm Ross. The largest family posited for the Papuan region is the Trans–New Guinea phylum, consisting of the majority of Papuan languages and running mainly along the highlands of New Guinea. The various high-level families may represent distinct migrations into New Guinea, presumably from the west.[4] Since perhaps only a quarter of Papuan languages have been studied in detail, linguists' understanding of the relationships between them will continue to be revised.
Statistical analyses designed to pick up signals too faint to be detected by the comparative method, though of disputed validity, suggest five major Papuan stocks (roughly Trans–New Guinea, West, North, East, and South Papuan languages);[5] long-range comparison has also suggested connections between selected languages, but again the methodology is not orthodox in historical linguistics.[6]
The Great Andamanese languages may be related to some western Papuan languages, but are not themselves covered by the term Papuan.[4]
Greenberg's classification
Joseph Greenberg proposed an Indo-Pacific phylum containing the (Northern) Andamanese languages, all Papuan languages, and the Tasmanian languages, but not the Australian Aboriginal languages. Very few linguists accept his grouping. It is distinct from the Trans–New Guinea phylum of the classifications below.
أشر (2020)
Timothy Usher and Edgar Suter, with the advice of Papuan researchers such as William Croft, Matthew Dryer, John Lynch, Andrew Pawley, and Malcolm Ross,[7] have reconstructed low-level constituents of Papuan language families to verify which purported members truly belong to them. In many cases Usher and Suter have created new names for the member families to reflect their geographic location. Much of their classification is accepted by Glottolog (though the names are not; Glottolog invents its own names). As of 2020, the following families are identified:[8]
In addition, poorly attested Karami remains unclassified. Extinct Tambora and the East Papuan languages have not been addressed, except to identify Yele as an Austronesian language.
Wurm (1975)
The most widely used classification of Papuan languages is that of Stephen Wurm, listed below with the approximate number of languages in each family in parentheses. This was the scheme used by Ethnologue prior to Ross's classification (below). It is based on very preliminary work, much of it typological, and Wurm himself has stated that he doesn't expect it to hold up well to scrutiny. Other linguists, including William A. Foley, have suggested that many of Wurm's phyla are based on areal features and structural similarities, and accept only the lowest levels of his classification, most of which he inherited from prior taxonomies. Foley (1986) divides Papuan languages into over sixty small language families, plus a number of isolates. However, more recently Foley has accepted the broad outline if not the details of Wurm's classification, as he and Ross have substantiated a large portion of Wurm's Trans–New Guinea phylum.
According to Ross (see below), the main problem with Wurm's classification is that he did not take contact-induced change into account. For example, several of the main branches of his Trans–New Guinea phylum have no vocabulary in common with other Trans–New Guinea languages, and were classified as Trans–New Guinea because they are similar grammatically. However, there are also many Austronesian languages that are grammatically similar to Trans–New Guinea languages due to the influence of contact and bilingualism. Similarly, several groups that do have substantial basic vocabulary in common with Trans–New Guinea languages are excluded from the phylum because they do not resemble it grammatically.
Wurm believed the Papuan languages arrived in several waves of migration with some of the earlier languages (perhaps including the Sepik–Ramu languages) being related to the Australian languages,[9][10] a later migration bringing the West Papuan, Torricelli and the East Papuan languages[9] and a third wave bringing the most recent pre-Austronesian migration, the Trans–New Guinea family.[9]
Papuan families proposed by Wurm (1975) (with approximate numbers of languages)
|
|---|
Two of Wurm's isolates have since been linked as the and since Wurm's time another isolate and two languages belonging to a new family have been discovered,
|
Foley (2003)
Foley summarized the state of the literature.[11] Besides Trans–New Guinea and families possibly belonging in TNG (see), he accepted the proposals for,
Papuan families other than TNG accepted by Foley (2003)
|
|---|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
روس (2005)
Malcolm Ross re-evaluated Wurm's proposal on purely lexical grounds. That is, he looked at shared vocabulary, and especially shared idiosyncrasies analogous to English I and me vs. German ich and mich. The poor state of documentation of Papuan languages restricts this approach largely to pronouns. Nonetheless, Ross believes that he has been able to validate much of Wurm's classification, albeit with revisions to correct for Wurm's partially typological approach. (See Trans–New Guinea languages.) Ethnologue (2009) largely follows Ross.
It has been suggested that the families that appear when comparing pronouns may be due to pronoun borrowing rather than to genealogical relatedness. However, Ross argues that Papuan languages have closed-class pronoun systems, which are resistant to borrowing, and in any case that the massive number of languages with similar pronouns in a family like Trans–New Guinea preclude borrowing as an explanation. Also, he shows that the two cases of alleged pronoun borrowing in New Guinea are simple coincidence, explainable as regular developments from the protolanguages of the families in question: as earlier forms of the languages are reconstructed, their pronouns become less similar, not more. (Ross argues that open-class pronoun systems, where borrowings are common, are found in hierarchical cultures such as those of Southeast Asia and Japan, where pronouns indicate details of relationship and social status rather than simply being grammatical pro-forms as they are in the more egalitarian New Guinea societies.)
Ross has proposed 23 Papuan language families and 9–13 isolates. However, because of his more stringent criteria, he was not able to find enough data to classify all Papuan languages, especially many isolates that have no close relatives to aid in their classification.
Ross also found that the Lower Mamberamo languages (or at least the Warembori language—he had insufficient data on Pauwi) are Austronesian languages that have been heavily transformed by contact with Papuan languages, much as the Takia language has. The Reef Islands – Santa Cruz languages of Wurm's East Papuan phylum were a potential 24th family, but subsequent work has shown them to be highly divergent Austronesian languages as well.
Note that while this classification may be more reliable than past attempts, it is based on a single parameter, pronouns, and therefore must remain tentative. Although pronouns are conservative elements in a language, they are short and utilise a reduced set of the language's phonemic inventory. Both phenomena greatly increase the possibility of chance resemblances, especially when they are not confirmed by lexical similarities.
Papuan families proposed by Ross (2005)
|
|---|
Sorted by location north Irian:
Former isolates classified by Ross:
Languages reassigned to the Austronesian family:
Unclassified due to lack of data:
Unaccounted for:
|
Wichmann (2013)
Søren Wichmann (2013) accepts the following 109 groups as coherent Papuan families, based on computational analyses performed by the Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP) combined with Harald Hammarström's (2012) classification.[12] Some of the groups could turn out to be related to each other, but Wichmann (2013) lists them as separate groups pending further research.
9 families have been broken up into separate groups in Wichmann's (2013) classification, which are:
- Biksi (2 groups)
- Dibiyaso-Doso-Turumsa (2 groups)
- Kwalean (2 groups)
- Lower Sepik-Ramu (5 groups)
- Morehead-Wasur (2 groups)
- Nuclear Trans-New Guinea (16 groups)
- Pauwasi (2 groups: Western and Eastern)
- Sentanic (2 groups)
- Sko (2 groups)
An automated computational analysis (ASJP 4) by Müller, Velupillai, Wichmann et al. (2013)[15] found lexical similarities among the following language groups. Note that some of these automatically generated groupings are due to chance resemblances.
Selected Papuan family groupings in the ASJP World Language Trees of Lexical Similarity (version 4)
|
|---|
|
Palmer (2018)
Bill Palmer et al. (2018) propose 43 independent families and 37 language isolates in the Papuasphere, comprising a total of 862 languages.[16] A total of 80 independent groups are recognized. While Pawley & Hammarström's internal classification of Trans-New Guinea largely resembles a composite of Usher's and Ross' classifications, Palmer et al. do not address the more tentative families that Usher proposes, such as Northwest New Guinea.
The coherence of the South Bird's Head, East Bird's Head, Pauwasi, Kwomtari, and Central Solomons families are uncertain, and hence are marked below as "tentative."[17][18][19][20]
Papuan families proposed by Palmer (2018)
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Glottolog 4.0 (2019)
Glottolog 4.0 (2019), based partly on Usher, recognizes 70 independent families and 55 isolates.[21]
Papuan families proposed in Glottolog 4.0
|
|---|
|
المصادر
انظر أيضاًوصلات خارجية
|