Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language: An ethnolinguistic study

(I c: c: ~ "'a... :l r- "' :l (ll:l c: "' (ll:l n c "'n Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan C...

Author: Svenja Völkel

13 downloads 773 Views 16MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

(I

c: c: ~

"'a...

:l

r-

"'

:l (ll:l

c:

"'

(ll:l

n

c

"'n

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language

Culture and Language Use Studies in Anthropological Linguistics C'LU-SAL publishes monographs and edited collections, culturally oriented grammars and dictionaries in the cross-- and interdisciplinary domain of antropologicallinguistics or linguistic anthropology. 1he series offers a forum tor anthropological research based on knowledge of the native languages of the people being studied and that linguistic research and grammatical studies must be based on a deep understanding of the function of speech forms in the speech community under study.

Editor Gunter Senft Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen

Volume 2 Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tcmgan Culture and Language. An ethnolinguistic study by Svenja VCilkel

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language An ethnolinguistic study

Svenja VOlkel University of Mainz

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam i Philadelphia

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.-48--1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Volkel, Svenja.

Social structure, space and possession in Tongan culture and language : An ethnolinguis· tic study I Svenja Viilkel. p. em. (Culture and Language Use. ISSN 1879-5838; v. 2)

Includes bibliographical references and index. Sodolinguistics-- Polynesia. 2. Tongan language--Soda! aspects. 3· Space a:nd time i language. 4· Cognition and culture--Polynesia. I. Title. P.to.45.P65V65 306440996· · dn2 ISBN 978 90 2.72. 0283 3

201002.8220

(Hb; alk. paper)

ISBN 978 90 272 8772.4 (Eb) @ 2010 - John Benjamins B. V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm., or any other means, witlwut \-\Titten permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co.· P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 ME Amsterdam-The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· P.O. Box 27519 ·Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 ·usA

Table of contents

List of maps, figures and tables

IX

Acknowledgements

XIII

Symbols and abbreviations

XV

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Ethnolinguistics 1 1.2 Fieldwork and research methods 3 1.3 The ethnographic setting 6 1.3.1 Tonga 7 1.3.2 The village ofNiutoua 15 1.4 The Tongan language 20

1

1.1

PART I. Anthropological

issues

CHAPTER 2

Social structure Kin and the personal social status within the kin group 27 2.1.1 Social units 28 2.1.2 Kinship terminology 30 2.1.3 Social status and corresponding behaviour within the kin group (kainga) 34 2.1.4 Kinship terminology and social status within the kainga 2.2 Societal ranking 43 2.2.1 Classes or societal groups 43 2.2.2 Ha'a ranking 49 2.2.3 Speech preludes 51 2.3 Interaction of a person's social status within thekainga and their societal rank 54 2.3.1 Social status within the kainga of the Tu'i Tonga 54 2.3.2 Situations of conflict 56

27

2.1

41

VI

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language CHAPTER

3

Land and the symbolic meaning of space Land tenure 57 Local groups 64 The geography of the islands and the use of land and sea Land shortage and migration 67 'Ihe symbolic meaning of space 68 3.5.1 Seating order in a kava circle 69 3.5.2 Seating order and spatial symbols for special rank or status 74

3.1 3.2 3·3 3·4 3·5

CHAPTER

57

66

4

Possession and gift exchange 'Ihe economy 78 4.1.1 Agriculture, livestock and fishing 79 4.1.2 Production and use of koloa 82 4.2 Gift exchange 85 4.2.1 Gift exchange and private events 87 4.2.2 Gift exchange and civic events 89 4.2.3 Gift exchange and church events 91 4·3 Remittances and the role of money 92

77

4.1

CHAPTER

5

Conclusion: Connecting remarks on social structure, space and possession

97

Photo illustrations PART

101

n. Linguistic issues

CHAPTER

6

Spatial descriptions Different frames of reference 106 Peculiarities of spatial reference in the Oceanic language family 112 6.3 Tongan spatial markers 113 6.4 The use of different frames of reference in Tongan 6.4.1 Spatial representation ofNiutoua 124 6.4.2 Non-linguistic perception of space 126

105

6.1 6.2

124

Table of contents vu

Spatial descriptions 129 6-4-3.1 Linguistic realisation of the frames of reference 6-4-3.2 Linguistic use of the frames of reference 138 6.4.4 Linguistic and non-linguistic coding of space 144 6.5 Space as a social component 147 6.6 Conclusion 153 6.4.3

131

CHAPTER 7 A- and 0-possession 7.1 Terminology and definitions concerning linguistic possession 15.5 7.2 Tongan possessive markers (morphosyntax) 158 7·3 The semantics of A- and 0--possession 164 7.3.1 Theories explaining the dillerence between A- and 0-possession 165 7.3.2 A semantic analysis of A- and 0-possession in Tongan 176 7.3.2.1 Defining A and 0 in Tongan 176 7.3.2.2 The use of A and 0 with Tongan kinship terms 182 7·4 Conclusion 193 CHAPTER

155

8

The language of respect 8.1 Social deixis: Honorifics 196 8.2 Western Polynesian languages of respect 198 8.3 'Ihe Tongan language of respect (compared to Samoan) 200 8.3.1 Defining lexical levels in Tongan 203 8.3.2 The Tongan vocabulary of respect (semantic fixms) 213 8.3.3 'Ihe use of Tongan respect forms (context) 223 8.3.3.1 The use of the language of respect at a village level (Niutoua) 229 8.3.3.2 The use of the language of respect within the royal family 232 8.4 Conclusion 237

195

CHAPTER9

Conclusions

239

References

245

APPENDIX l

Question catalogue of the Niutouan inquiry (in English and 'Iongan)

253

vm Social Structure, Space and Possession in 'lbngan Culture and Language

APPENDIX 2

Lists of A- and 0-possessed semantic categories and single items in different Polynesian languages

257

APPENDIX3

List of A- and 0-possessed semantic categories and single concrete nouns in Tongan according to Churchward (cf.1953: 81-87)

261

Glossary of Tongan terms

267

Index

271

List of maps, figures and tables List of maps Map Map Map Map Map Map

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 3.1 6.1

South Pacific and the Polynesian Triangle 8 Islands ofthe Kingdom ofTonga 9 Tcmgatapu island n The village ofNiutoua (town allotments) 16 Estates on Tongatpu 61 Mental map of Niutoua (exercise 2 of the inquiry)

125

List of figures Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.1 Figure 6.1a hgure 6.1b Figure 6.2 hgure 6.3 l~igure 6.4 Figure 6.5 l~igure

6.6 Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10 hgure 6.11 Figure 6.12

The Polynesian subgroup 21 Social status within the kainga from a male perspective 37 Social status within the kainga from a female perspective 37 Genealogy of royal title holders 45 Ha'a affiliation of nopele titles 51 Kava circle of the Tu'i Kanokupolu 71 Spatial situation of Example 1 (relative reading) 107 Spatial situation of Example 1 (intrinsic reading) 107 Spatial situation of Example 2 (absolute frame of reference) 108 Feature distinction according to Levinson 108 Underlying design of the non-linguistic experiment 111 Underlying design of the non--linguistic experiment (exercise 3 of the inquiry) 127 Spatial situation during the description of Example 48 136 Spatial situation of the interview 137 Continuum of the use of the absolute and relative frames of reference 145 Spatial coordinates of a Tongan house 148 Spatial coordinates of a Tongan church (a. basic; b. reflection) 149 Spatial coordinates of the hall of the Wesleyan church in Niutoua (at a big feast) 151 Spatial coordinates of a Tongan village 152

x


hgure 7.1 Figure 7.2

Bennardo's illustration of his spatial definition of A· and 0--possession 175 Reciprocal kinship relations (a.fakafotu-mehekitanga relationship; b. ilamutu-fae tangata!tu'asina relationship)

186

List of tables Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9 Table 7.10 Table 8.1 Table 8.2

Population and size of island groups 10 Tongan kinship terminology 32 Kinship terms and corresponding status (for kin who are related through not more than one connecting relative) 43 Nopele and matiipule titles and their hereditary estates (tofia) Visualisation of social and societal structures 99 The di11erent frames of reference and the deictic versus non--deictic distinction 109 Tongan spatial prepositions 113 Tongan directionals 117 Tongan spatial nouns 119 Use of the different frames of reference f()f non-linguistic spatial perception 129 Use of different linguistic structures in various kinds of spatial descriptions 141 Frames of reference in short distance descriptions 142 Use of the absolute and relative frames of reference for linguistic and cognitive coding 146 Tongan articles 159 Tongan personal pronouns 159 Tongan A-possessive pronouns (set 1: premodifying) 161 Tongan 0-possessive pronouns (set 1: premodifying) 161 Tongan possessive pronouns (set 2: predicative) 163 Tongan benefactive pronouns 164 A- and 0-possessed semantic categories (according to Churchward) 172 A· and 0-·possessed terms describing kinship relations and other personal relationships in T)

"

" "'

SAMOA ••

"

a

•.

ROTUMA'

!6

.g'

~

:!UVALu-:;.OKELAU

'

"

I I

: .• •MARSHALL

··~·,s~

PALAU

(")

a

.,.., ..........

EASTER ISLANDS

/

/

I

~

a~ §

0.. t-'

§ ~

~

Chapter 1. Introduction

south and the Vava'u group in the north. The regional capital of the Vava'u group (which is bigger than the Ha'apai group) is Neiafu, famous for its natural harbour. The regional capitals (Neiafu as well as Pangai) are the politico-juridical, cultural, commercial, educational and administrative centres of each island group accommodating local markets, secondary schools, hospitals, police stations and post offices, etc. The Vava'u group also includes Niuatoputapu and Niuafo'ou which are also called the Niuas. These remote islands are located about 300 km north of Neiafu and they are administered from Nuku'alofa 176°

Tonga ONiuofo'ou

* National capital

• Tafahi Niuatoputapu

16°

NIUAS (administered from Nuku'alofa)

® lntenal administrative capital

0

--

0

--- ---

100 Kilometers

50 50

100Miles

172°

V)

s

0

p A 0

u

..o Toku

cI

T H ,(i_ Vava'u

c

F

c EA

0

Neiafu

Late

- --- -- --

N

t.:.\.

Ha'ano

• Kao

Tofua

0

..

Foa

~!'rig ~ifuka

::l

legend ~

D [gj

0

e 1 2 3 4 5 6

allotment without house house empty house shop closet shop community watertank Mormon church Free Church of Tonga Free Wesleyan Church Catholic church 7th Day Adventist church Church of Tonga Hou'eiki

Map 1.4. The village ofNiutoua (town allotments)

~

atil ~

0.. tP>

Jg ~

~ BUSH

Chapter I. Introduction

There are different types of houses: Most are European style rectangular houses with wooden walls and corrugated iron roofs, some even have walls of laid brick, and a very few traditional oval shaped houses with walls and a roof constructed of woven coconut palm leaves (pola). Traditionally, besides the sleeping house (jale mohe), there was a separate kitchen shelter (peito) and a bath/toilet house (jale kaukau/jale miiiOlo) on a town allotment. This housing structure was useful to keep the vermin out of the sleeping house. However, today most of the European style houses have the kitchen and even sometimes the bath/toilet attached to the house (which also may consist of several sleeping rooms). Most of the houses with corrugated iron roofs have a water tank (sima) in which the rain water is tapped from the roo[ As this is the only potable water, households without a water tank have to get drinking water from a relative's tank. Before single houses got their own water tanks (mostly from overseas funds), the village had three big community tanks. Today, these tanks are not used anymore and at least one is broken. Within the village all houses have tap water used for washing, water·· ing the garden, etc. Since the eighties most houses have electricity (there are very few exceptions) and by November 2003 most houses had cable telephone (before only about lO houses in the village had telephone via antenna). Besides the village allotments with houses, there are several other build·· ings and areas within the village setting that are important for the social, political and economic activities of the community. 'Ihese are the churches (jale lotu), the cemetery (jaitoka), the village (play)ground (mala'e vainga) with the village hall/community house (jale kautaha), the primary school (tale ako) and the shops (jale koloa). The six church buildings belong to the three Methodist churches (the Free Wesleyan Church, Free Church of Tonga and the Church of Tonga), the Roman Catholics, the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists. The three Methodist churches have a church hall and the minister's house next to the church building, the Mormons have the same church complex as elsewhere in Tonga (but the two ministers live on their own allotments within the village), while the smaller religious groups (for example the Catholics and the Seventh Day Adventists) each have a priest/minister who is living in another village (Kolonga or Vaini) and who looks after several villages in the eastern district. 10 In November 2004, I collected information regarding church membership. 'Ihe biggest groups are the Wesleyans

10. 'Ihe ministers of the Methodist chw·ches generally live in a village for three years and then (after a chw·ch conference) are transferred to a new village and a new minister is sent from somewhere else - moving into the same house where the former minister lived.

17

t8


with 325 members and the Mormons11 , followed by the Church of Tonga with 102 members (19 families), the Free Church of Tonga with 82 members, the Catho-lics with 61 members and finally the Seventh Day Adventists with 19 members (four families). Like most villages, Niutoua has a government primary school (G.P.S.) which is situated opposite the Ha'amonga. In November 2004, there were six teachers (including the principle) and 149 pupils (65 boys and 84 girls) fi-om form one to six. Except for one of the teachers who was from Hoi, the others all lived in Niutoua. About six more teachers from Niutoua taught at other schools and 66 more pupils went to other schools on Tongatapu; most of them were pupils of the government schools Trmga Side School (kindergarten, primary school and middle school in Nuku'alofa with lessons in English), Tonga High School (secondary school in Nuku'alofa with lessons in English) and Tonga College (secondary school in ~tele), and some attended secondary schools run by the dillerent churches, such as Tupou CollegeiToloa (Wesleyan, only for boys), Queen Salote College (Wesleyan, only for girls) and Liahona (Mormon). 'Ihe closest secondary school for Niutouans is in Kolonga. There are 13 shop buildings, or rather kiosks, in Niutoua. They sell wash-ing powder, toilet paper, soap, and other hygiene products, tins of corned beef~ canned fish, sugar, salt, milk, butter, flour, oil, noodles, bread and other (mostly non-perishable) food products, pencils, candles, cigarettes, matches, aluminium foil, etc. Most of the shops are run by private owners and they are generally situ-ated on the owner's allotment, but one of the shops in Niutoua is from the Tonga Communication Federation. In November 2004, six of the shops within the village were open while seven had been closed. One of the closed shops was open in 2003 and reopened in December 2004, and two had closed in 2004 because their owners migrated to New Zealand. The village ground is used for sports events and the 'Happy Day: a community event to honour sportsmen and to celebrate peaceful and harmonious village life. 12 In 2004, there was a village project to fix the fence around the village ground and the community hall that is used for several community activities, such as painting tapa and drinking kava. However, the monthly village meeting (jono) is held in

n. It was difficult to get any concrete numbers, but finally the ministers mentioned more than 450 members. Although the number of Mormons is constantly growing in Tonga (cf. Tongan Government 1999: xxiii), I doubt that the Mormons in Niutoua really have more members than the Wesieyans. 12. The 'Happy Day' was a creation of some Niutouan villagers and it was celebrated the first time in January 2000. Since then it has become an annual event.


the hall of the Free Wesleyan church which is situated close to the big crossroads, within easy reach for everyone. Apart from that, the halls of the three Methodist churches are used f()r church events (such as feasts) and similar occasions to the community hall on the village ground. The only person of higher societal rank in Niutoua is the chief (one of the traditional hou'eiki), although he is not a noble (nopele) (cf. §2.2.1). The present chief of Niutoua is Mohenoa Lolomana'ia who is known by his chief name Tamale. He is the eighth Tamale and inherited this title in 1999 from his grandfather when he died. Normally, the title is passed from the father to the oldest son, but his father had already died in 1997. There is no special task the chief has to fulfil, but he is expected to be present at important events (feasts, funerals etc.) and to look after and support the village (cf. §.U). Tamale as chief has two chief attendants (matiipule) in the village, Fainga'a and Tt)favaha. These are the matapule names of Malu Lolomana'ia (Fainga'a) and Fotu Fisi'i Ahi (Tofavaha) who are the present matapule. They were named by Tamale, and when one of the matiipule dies, Tamale will decide if the title is passed to the matapule's oldest son or if he chooses another person. 'Ihese matapule are the official speakers of the chief in public, especially at ceremonial events, and at important village events they sit next to Tamale. The interesting situation in Niutoua is that the rnatapule Fainga'a is not only Tamale's rnatiipule but also Nuku's matiipule, the nopeie of the nearby village Kolonga with estate in Kolonga and 'Eua.ln this context, his matiipule name is Makafeo and as such he is also a royal matapule participating in the royal kava circle in which Tamale is not present (cf: §3.5.1). Tamale and Painga'a live in Niutoua, while Totavaha lives in Nuku'alofa and visits the village on all kind of occasions. Their chief or matapule names are used if they are addressed or talked about at official events and in public (for example in church, at a fono, wedding or funeral), but in private contexts, Loseli (Fainga'a's daughter's husband) and other family members call Fainga'a by his civil name Maht Apart from them, there is one town officer (ofisa kolo) in the village, Tangitau Liku. He was elected by the village population and as the people approve of his work they have re-elected him a few times, so that by November 2004 he had held the position of town officer for almost twelve years. 13 'Ihe town officer is in charge of everything concerning the village and has to pass information from Nuku'alofa on to the village people. He therefore holds at least one fono meeting where every

13. Since 1965 the town and district officers are elected by the population, however, previously they were appointed by the prime minister (cf. van der Grijp 1993: 21 ). Every three years, the villagers elect a new town officer.

19

20


adult ofNiutoua should participate. Apart from the town officer, the district officer of the Hahake district is also expected to be present at the fono. Further people in the village who are treated with great respect are the minis·· ters/priests (ja~fekau) of the different churches, their stewards (setuata) if there are any, and the elderly people, for example Malakai. He is not related to Tamale but was given the name and title of'Tamale's brother' Loloa. As such, he can represent Tamale (at a kava circle or in a fono) if he is absent. Niuila would be a further representative of Tamale. In Niutoua, many households have at least one family member with a government job. In December 2004 about 48 villagers had jobs at government schools, with the police, hospital or infirmaries14, ministries, the national bank, the military and the ferry service. These jobs provide a stable income like other salaried jobs at church organisations, banks and other companies. For most of these jobs people have to travel to Nuku'alofa, either by bus or in private cars.l 5 Apart from salaried jobs, most people in Niutoua live off agricultural products of their plan·· tations supplemented by fish and seafood from irregular fishing activities. Fish especially is mostly caught for private consumption, while part of the agricultural and handicraft products are sold at the market ofNuku'alofa.

1.4

The Tongan language

Tongan is (alongside English) the official language of'Ibnga.lt belongs to the Oceanic languages, a subgroup ofthe Malayo-Polynesian branch ofthe Austronesian language family. 16 All Oceanic languages have numerous linguistic features in common

14. The only hospital on Tongatapu is in Vaiola, next to Nuku'alofa, and the closest infirmary for the people ofNiutoua is in Kolonga. 15. There is a bus connection between Nuku'alofa and Niutoua. The bus ride (one way) which takes about an hour costs 1.40 T$ for adults ..As is the case for all the buses in Tonga, there is no timetable and the people simply wait along the road. In 2002/03, two to three buses drove to Niutoua, and in December 2004, there were five. However, none of the buses were owned by someone from the village. In Niutoua, most households have a car, but for most people it is too expensive to drive the long distance to town daily because of rising petrol prices. In any case, whenever someone does actually drive, he/she usually gives a ride to others. 16. The position of the Oceanic subgroup within the Austronesian family tree (showing that the Austronesian subgroups west of the Oceanic languages split orr first) and the fact that the closest relatives of Oceanic are its western neighbours indicate that the speakers of Proto Oceanic migrated from Southeast Asia to the Pacific region (cf. Lynch 1998: 51-53).


but the closest relatives of Tongan are other languages of the Polynesian subgroup (cf. Figure l.l). On an intermediate level, the Polynesian languages, together with Rotuman and Fijian, f()rm the Central Pacific subgroup (cf. Lynch 1998: 45---53). In Tonga there is very little dialect diversity. Besides Tongan, there is the language of Niuafo'ou which politically belongs to Tonga. While Tongan (together with Niuean) is a member of the Tongic branch, historically Niuafo'ou belongs to the Samoic--Outlier languages (cf. Figure 1.1). Today, there are only a few difter-ences between Tongan and Niuafo'ou (cf. Tsukamoto 1988; Broschart 1994: 38). Tongan is still the dominant language, although English as the second official language is taught in all schools after Tongan.

Proto Polynesian

---~ ----

Proto Nuclear Polynesian

Proto Tongic

Proto Samoic-Outlier

Proto Eastern Polynesian

/\

Proto Central-Eastern Polynesian

Tongan, Niuean

Samoan, Tokelauan, Tuvaluan, East Uvea, East Futuna, Niuafo'ou, Pukapuka, Nukuoro, Kapingamarangi, Takuu, Nukuria, Nukumanu, Luangiua, Sikaiana, Rennellese, Pilen!, Tikopia-Anuta, Emae, Ifira-Mele, West Futuna, Fagauvea

Figure 1.1. The Polynesian subgroup

Hawaiian, Marques an, Tahitian, Tuamotuan, Mangareva, Rap a, Penrhyn, Rarotongan, Maori, Moriori

\ \

\

Rapanui

21

22


So far, the linguistic standard works of Tongan are Churchward's grammar (1953) and dictionary (1959). Since then, however, numerous approaches regard-ingvarious linguistic issues and further dictionaries (Tu'inukuafe 1992b; Schneider 1996; 'Ihompson 1996) have been published. Tongan has an inventory of five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and makes a phonemic distinction between short and long vowels (lengthened vowels: orthgraphically a, e, I, 6, tl). The consonant inventory consists of twelve phonemes: p, t, k, v, £; s, h, m, n, 1, a glottal stop (orthographically') and a velar nasal (orthographically ng). The syllable structure is (C)V, as Tongan allows only open syllables and does not permit consonant clusters. Stress is normally on the penultimate vowel and is only marked orthographically (') if it is shifted to the last (short) vowel, such as the definite accent (cf. Churchward 1953: 1-14)_17 Tongan has a stem isolating character. Complex lexemes are formed by derivational processes. Like most Oceanic languages, Tongan has a large amount of reduplication with various functions (such as intensification, moderation, repeti-tion, etc.) and affixes (cf. Churchward 1953: 238-267). Allomorphy is quite common - some articles, personal pronouns, TA-particles and spatial prepositions consist of a set of different morphological variants with the same meaning but complementary distribution. The pronouns are marked for number, person, but not gender. Concerning number, Tongan distinguishes not only singular and plural but also dual forms, and concerning person, the first person dual and plural make a distinction between inclusive (referring to speaker and addressee(s)) and exclusive (refer-ring to speaker and some other person(s) but not the addressee(s)) forms (cf. Churchward 1953: 126-145). Tongan is a split ergative language whereby nominal NPs show an ergative pattern marked by the particles ,, (absolutive) and (ergative), while preverbal pronominal NPs are nominative (cf. Broschart 1994: 34; Dixon 1994: 41-42). 18 Tongan is a verb-initial language with the basic sentence structure VSO. However, the order of arguments is relatively free. The first element of a verb phrase is the TA--particle which contains temporal and aspectual information.

e

17.

Por more detailed information about the definite accent see Schutz (2001).

This means that the ergative particle marks the nominal subject of an intransitive verb as well as the nominal object of a transitive verb while the absolutive particle introduces the nominal subject of a transitive verb (cf. Dixon 1994: 1,42). In pronominal NPs, the same set of (preverbal) pronouns is used to describe subjects of intransitive as well as transitive sentences while the object of transitive sentences is described by another set of (postverbal) pronouns (cf. Churchward 1953: 126). 18.


Lexically, Tongan makes no distinction between parts of speech, such as nouns and verbs (cf. Tchekhoff 1981: 1; Broschart 1994: 8, 34). However, syntacti-cally, nominal constructions (Artx) and verbal constructions (TAx) can be distin-guished (cf. Broschart 1997). 19 1his can be demonstrated by 'uha (lexical meaning: 'rain, to rain, rainy') in the following examples. In Example 1, 'uha occurs in a verbal position in contrast to a nominal position in Example 2. (1)

Na'e TA:PAST

'ulm. v:to rain

It rained. (2)

'Oku

momoko

V:(to be) cold The rain is cold. TA:PRES

'a

e

'ulla.

ABS

ART

N:rain

In contrast to verbal sentences, nominal sentences do not contain verbs (TA x constructions) such as Example 3. They consist of a nominal predicate (presentative particle ko + NP) that precedes the subject (cf. Broschart 1994: 35-37; Lynch 1998: 148---150). (3)

Ko

e

PR

ART

ji1iako au. teacher SUBJ:l SG 1am a teacher.

The main linguistic foci of this research are the honorific system, spatial descrip-tions and possessive constructions. These three linguistically rather complex phenomena show features which are characteristic of Polynesian languages (cf. Krupa 1982: 111, 113---116, 154---165; Besnier 1992: 248---249) but differ strongly from the Indo-European language pattern. Tongan has an honorific system, called language of respect, that distinguishes between three sociolinguistic language levels: one for the king, one for the chiefs and one fix the commoners. These language levels are not based on grammatical but only on lexical distinctions. In Tongan, spatial descriptions are based on the use of spatial prepositions, directionals and spatial nouns. For linguistic (and cognitive) encoding, Tongan

Thus, Broschart (1997) defines Tongan as a 'type/token language: i.e. a language which makes the major distinction rather between non-referential lexical 'types' which are neither tense- nor article- marked [-ref] and referential phrasal 'tokens' which are either tense- or article-ma1ked [+ref]. 'Ihese languages are in contrast to 'noun/verb languages' which make distinctions between items that are tense- marked but not ma1ked by case, gende1~ number or article [+pred] and those that are not marked for tense but which combine with case, gende1~ number and article [-pred].

19.

23

24


makes use of different frames of reference: the relative left-right orientation, the absolute cardinal directions and a further absolute system, the upwards-downwards axis. The Tongan possessive constructions make a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. 'Ihe alienable series is marked by the vowel a while the inalienable series is marked by o. Thus, the distinction is also called A- and 0--possession. It is based on the nature of the semantic relationship [± control] between the possessor and the possessee or (the initiation of) the possessive relationship.

PART I

Anthropological issues

The objective of this part is subdivided into three chapters: a general survey of Tr)ngan social structure (Chapter 2), aspects of space and place (Chapter 3) and possession (Chapter 4). Concerning the aspect of space, the focus will be on land tenure and the symbolic meaning of space. Finally, in the chapter on possessive structures, I will mainly concentrate on traditional wealth items, their production and use, and their social function in the system of gift exchange. The description of these aspects contains information about Tongan society in general which is supplemented and illustrated by detailed examples of a specific Tongan village, Niutoua. It will become clear that social structure, land tenure and gift exchange are closely interrelated in Tonga and have been throughout Tongan history. However, there are further correlations between space, possession and social structure that will be considered in Chapter 5. Furthermore, the anthropological issues provide background information for specific linguistic structures which will be presented in the second part of this book.

CHAPTER 2

Social structure

Tonga belongs to the chiefly societies in Western Polynesia. Chiefly societies are wellknown for their extensive social stratification which is obviously well-expressed by the Tc)ngan statement: 'In Tc)nga nobody is equal'. 1 In Tonga, two kinds of hierarchical structures exist, one which governs the rank of a person in terms of the societal class they belong to, and another which socially positions them in relation to the members of their family. Kaeppler (cf 1971: 174) calls this distinction 'social status' versus 'societal ranking' according to the level on which people are connected, that is in the first case within the kin group or domestic sphere and in the second within the society as a whole. A plethora of further terminology is used to distinguish these two hierarchical structures; Evans (2001: 33) calls it "social and political raniift to Kalaniuvalu because Kalaniuvalu is the nopeie of the Ha'a Tu'i Tr)nga, the line to which Tamale belongs.

Chapter 4. Possession and gift exchange

In 2005, Tamale's matiipule Fainga'a and Tofavaha and the town officer Tangitau brought two baskets of vete on behalf of Tamale to Kalaniuvalu in Lapaha. As the f()rmer Kalaniuvalu title holder was living in New Zealand, the vete was then given to the king instead ('Eseta Lolomana'ia, Tamale's wife: personal communication, 21.7.2007).

4.2.3

Gift exchange and church events

Church events vary according to the church an individual belongs to. I will focus on the ceremonial events of the three Methodist churches (Siasi Uesiliana, Siasi Tonga Hou'eiki and Siasi Tonga 1/:m'ataina). They celebrate 'uike lotu (lit. 'week of prayer/worship'), misinale (collecting money for the church, named after the English term 'missionary'), an annual conference and other feasts such as Easter, Christmas and Mother's Day. During the 'uike lotu single families give feasts for the church members (jakaafe) as a gift to God. In addition to the gift exchange component of this and the other events, money donations to the church are collected quarterly and monthly ( cf. van der Grijp 1993: 200-210; Evans 2001: 58, 135-142; own observations). With the growing influence of Christianity, people also show respect by providing gifts to the church and thus to the Christian God at several church events, and in return, God shows his love by blessing them. Where previously the Tu'i Tonga as spiritual leader and the chiefs were the main focus of ceremonial gift exchange with commoners, the churches have gradually come to share this function (cf. Bott 1981: 62). The church donations are generally made by the nuclear family but they may be organised in larger units (cf. Evans 2001: 52). For misinale, money is collected by support groups (kalasi: lit. 'classes') which are assigned for this purpose. In Niutoua, these are four kalasi, each comprised of the villagers who live in one village quarter divided by the big crossroad. Within thekalasi, single families try to fulfill expectations and, further, the kalasi compete themselves as the amount of their money donations is openly announced during the collection. An even larger unit of competition during misinale are the villages or districts as the donation sums are finally broadcast over Radio Tonga (cf. van der Grijp 1993: 205-206). The families of villagers who have passed away during the last year are expected to donate even bigger amounts of money and apart from that they provide fine mats and tapa. In this case, the whole kiiinga (including relatives who do not belong to this church) helps to gather a sufficient amount of money for the blessing of the deceased and his family. The fakaafe are primarily organised by nuclear family. 1he households that are closely associated with the organising household will assist and they help with

91

92


the preparations and contribute food or other resources (cf Evans 2001: 58). These feasts are organised during the 'uike lotu, in the first week in January, to ask for God's blessing during the new year. The network of gift exchange at church events is often extensive and includes more exchange processes than those between God, the church ministers (fa~fekau) as representatives of God, and the faithful. However, these groups are the main par-ticipants in the circular exchange process in which the faithful give material goods (food, koloa or money) to the church or its ministers who pass the gift on to God in form of prayers. Tongans ultimately see their gifts to the ministers or the church as gifts to God either in return for the land they may use (gift fi-om God) or in order to gain Gotfs blessing. If they are blessed with health and prosperity, they will again thank God in form of gifts to the church. Besides this exchange cycle, other people may be integrated in the gift exchange at church events. Gifts that a faithful person makes to the church minister are seen by other people, providing the giver (and his social group) with prestige and possibly power (cf. van der Grijp 1993: 207---209). Certain gifts to the church and God (such as food at afakaafe) are also gifts to the participants who ask God in prayers during the feast for the blessing of the sponsoring family. If the feast is in fact given in honour of a child of the sponsoring family, then this child is the primary f()cus of such blessings. The feast is therefore a gift of the parents to show love to their child. Other exchange parties in this process are the friends and relatives of the sponsoring tamily who demonstrate their support by helping with the organisation and preparation of the feast and people in the village who receive the food that is left over after the feast (cf. Evans 2001: 58·--59). Those who give food and services in this process can be certain to receive support in the future when they ask for it and those receiving will provide gifts in their turn. In conclusion gift exchange is a reciprocal process of giving and receiving in which giving is the requirement f()r receiving. However, it is not always a process of immediate reciprocity. Donors do not always receive in return exactly from those to whom they have presented their gifts (cf. van der Grijp 1993: 207). 'Ihis is the case, f()r example, at church events in which the faithful make &rifts to the church ministers who translate these gifts to God who gives the faithful blessings in return.

4·3

Remittances and the role of money7

The modernisation reforms of King Tauta'ahau Tupou IV led to a number of economic developments, including the rise in waged labour, migration and market

7. Currency was introduced into the Tongan economy by European missionaries in the 19th century as a means of interaction between Tongans and Europeans (cf. Small1997: 35).


activity (cf. Evans 2001: 53). Today, a lot of Tongans encourage their children to seek a better education, employment in government jobs or other paid employ-ment. Theref(He many mit:,>Tate within Tonga (mostly to Tcmgatapu) or even over-seas with the hope of rising socially through education and income.8 Even though many people, especially on the outer islands, still live mainly from subsistence (agriculture, fishing, etc.), money has become more important for school fees, taxes and registration fees for allotments and even in gift exchange processes (such as misinale). The primary source of monetary income for most households are remittances fi-om relatives who migrated overseas or within Tonga for employment. 9 Monetary remittances are mostly sent from children to their parents but also from husbands (to wives), siblings or siblings' children. They are sent for specific purposes to close relatives who request money for school fees, funerals, church donations (especially at misinale), building a house or other projects f(H which financial help is needed. These can also be larger projects in which a number of people are involved (cf. Bott 1981: 61; James 1997; Evans 2001: 20-21, 120-122; Morton Lee 2003: 30-32). Migration and remittances are not just a one-way monetary flow, but rather form part of a complex network of mutual aid and support. Tongans living overseas help to accommodate expatriates who arrive looking fix work, and send money and material goods home which are difficult to acquire in Tonga. In return 'Iongans send traditional goods from home to expatriates, and foster children from Tongans living overseas so that these children learn the Tongan way (anga jakatonga) (cf. James 1991; Morton Lee 2003: 86---91). Remittances show social support and are expressions of love and affection. Besides remittances, further sources of monetary income for most households are the wages of household members, the sale of women's koloa, agricultural

8. Bott (1981: 69) describes those who have a better education and thus occupations in church, education, medicine, law and government as a new 'middle class: They earn more money and as a result they can afford better education abroad for their children and new status goods (cf. Bott 1981: 69-79), such as bigger Western-style houses and cars. However. this can create problems v;1.th the traditional obligation to give (fatongia). They are expected to support relatives, friends, the church, and even the village and by doing so, they acquire prestige and even power. Well educated men (especially those in government positions) even have the d1ance to marry women of high rank (ct: §2.3.1). 9· The economy of most Pacific island states depend on migration, remittances, aid dona-tions, and government bureaucracies (MIRAB model) (Bertram & Watters 1985). Immigration and aid donations are generally a concern of the Pacific rim countries, such as New Zealand, Australia and the United States (ct: James 1991: 1). For Pacific islanders, overseas migration is an interesting economic alternative to agriculture (cf. §3.·4) as long as the overseas economy provides a good source of monetary income (cf. Evans 2001: 18---21).

93

94


and fishing products, and to a small extent trade. The salaries paid in Tonga are small compared to Western standards but compared to other sources of income in Tonga, they are high (cf Evans 2001: 122·--123). Money and commodity production (for example, koloa for sale) are not necessarily markers of a market economy, for money is also seen as a new kind of gift that expresses social relationships. In a lot of gift exchange processes, besides traditional wealth items, modern items and money have become important as a result of the influence of the international markets. However, as long as these items express the relationship between the transactors, they are more gifts than commodities (cf. Evans 2001: 51--·56). This was apparent in several examples that I observed in Niutoua. Firstly, a brother living overseas (USA) was asked to send money for the school fees of his sister's children. As tu'asina of his sister's children, he is expected to show love and support his sister's children with everything they ask f(n·. Therefore he sent the money as a gift. Secondly; parents and siblings living overseas (New Zealand) sent a freezer to help to preserve food as a gift to their close relatives in Tonga.ln return, the family in Tonga sent them traditional Tongan goods (such as koloa) which Tongans rarely produce in New Zealand. Thirdly, a group of female kainga mem -· hers helped a relative to gather a large amount of money for misinale. His wife had died during the previous year and his donation was supposed to be particularly generous as it is also regarded as a gift to God to bless his wife. To raise this money the women met and produced tutu that they then sold in the market. The tutu was a commodity production in order to get the money as a gift for the relative and his deceased wife. Finally, during a Jono meeting at the end of 2002, I observed that the chief was expected to financially support the village when part of the water and diesel invoices were still outstanding. In this case the payment of the outstanding invoices can be regarded as a sign of the chief's caring f(n· his village. These four examples demonstrate that money or modern wealth items (such as a freezer) can function as gifts and that commodity production has to be regarded as a subordinate process to gift exchange. However, while the gift exchange in the first three examples serves to maintain the social relationship between relatives and neighbours, the fourth example focuses on the societal network. A further example in which money is regarded as a gift has already been presented in connection with land (cf. §3.1). Although the Tongan law prohibits the sale ofland, it is occurring with increasing frequency. However, the participants do not regard money as payment but as a b>ift in return for the b>ift of a plot ofland. This combination of capitalist elements such as commodity production, waged labour, private ownership and the use of money; and the traditional elements of subsistence and gift economy in today's Tongan economy can also create problems at the interface of the two economic systems. These problems, f(H example, can


be observed in small shops within the villages. Tongans who have earned some money while they lived overseas come back to Tonga with the plan to set up a small shop with their funds. Their project often fails because they are the connect-ing link between the traditional system of]Cltongia (duty to give) and capitalism (cf. van der Grijp 1993: 225). As capitalistic entrepreneur, the shop owner buys the products that he wants to sell in his shop; the products are commodities and he is the private owner. However, within the village he is part of the social network and thus obliged to give if relatives request money and goods from the shop. The goods are then gifts and after a while he is not able to buy new products for his shop. Similar cases occur with other jobs at the interface between capitalistic monetary economy and traditional gift exchange, such as bus drivers. They buy a bus to earn money by transporting people but ultimately their relatives or even friends do not pay for the service as they regard it as a gift (cf. van der Grijp 1993: 220, 224-226). Generally those entrepreneurs who survive economically are not linked to a village or are part of a co--op or a larger company. In Niutoua, for example, I observed that shops of several private owners closed or reopened during 2002 and 2004 but the shop of the Tonga Communication Pederation was successful (cf. §1.3.2). At this shop the villagers were willing to pay for the products because the Federation introduced a refund system. At the end of the year everybody received a (monetary) gift depending on the amount of money that they spent at the shop during the year.

95

CHAPTER

5

Conclusion: Connecting remarks on social structure, space and possession

As the previous chapters have demonstrated, social structure, space and possession are closely related features of Tongan culture. This becomes apparent in several phenomena. Firstly, in the land tenure system which is anchored in the societal hierarchy and in which land is part of an exchange structure, and secondly, in the seating order or other spatial arrangements which reflect hierarchical struc·· tures. Apart from the seating arrangements, access to land and the flow of mutual support and gifts in exchange processes, the social and societal stratification is expressed by and reflected in further cultural and linguistic structures, such as clothing, special behaviour, the order of serving kava, speech preludes and even the classification of kinship terminology. The sociocultural structure of this highly stratified society, which is anchored in its conceptualisation of the world (that is the concept of mana), therefixe has an impact on the spatial, possessive and linguistic structures ofTongan society. In the traditional land tenure system the access to land was determined by the social status and societal rank, and this access (which was the basis for agriculture) was not only important for subsistence, but was regarded as being part of a gift exchange process. Conversely, the basic function of gift exchange was (and still is) to visualise and thus stabilise the social relationships and hierarchical structures. All the land belonged to the Tu'i Tonga, that is the spiritual leader and highest ranked member of the f()rmer Tongan society. It was given to him as a gift of the gods. The Tu'i Tonga then assigned estates to the chiefly title holders who again allocated parts of their land to the heads ('ulumotu'a) of the extended families (ja'ahinga) living on their estates. In return for this societal downwards distribution oflandfrom the Tu'i Tonga (or even the gods) through the chiefs to the people, there was a flow of obligations in the opposite direction. Gifts of fc)od, products of the land and the people's labour, were offered through the chiefly title holders to

98


the king and thus the gods. These gifts again insured the gods' protection of land and people. 1 In the modern land tenure system, the highest ranked Tcmgan (the king who holds the title ofTu'i Kanokupolu) is still the owner of all land, and chiefs (nopele) hold hereditary estates. As Tamale ofNiutoua is a traditional chiefbut was not officially appointed as nopele, the village land is owned by the government and is not an hereditary estate. In contrast to the traditional system, the new land laws assure every adult male Tongan direct access to land on a government or a noble estate and officially free them from tributes. Moreover, agriculture is not the only source of income in modern Tonga (development of a better educated middle class with salaried jobs), and so not everybody requires access to land fix cultivation. For a lot of families this is important because not every male Tongan receives his officially granted tax allotment due to a land shortage. In spite of all these changes, land is still the basis of a subsistence economy f()r f()l)d supply, and the production of traditional wealth items (koioa). These are still the fundamental items of gift exchange. Therefore land is still regarded as a gift, but in a new way, for example in the exchange of money for land. Apart from the hierarchical network and reciprocal exchange in the land tenure system, social structure, space and possession are linked in other ways. In a society with a strongly developed social stratification (in Tonga nobody is equal - based on descent), it is considered important to honour the differences in rank or status of its members. Theref()re the hierarchical structures are visual-ised and maintained in various ways. We have seen so far that in ceremonial acts societal rank (including the ha'a ranking) is spatially expressed by seating order (especially in kava circles), the order of serving the kava, the flow of mutual support and gifts (at civic events), tapu, and linguistically by the order of mentioning members of the audience in speech preludes. By contrast, the social status within the kiiinga becomes visible by clothing (especially at weddings and funerals), behaviour (tasks, privileges and tapu), the flow of gifts and spatial seating arrangements. linguistically, the classification of kinship terminology is adjusted to the tu'a/'eiki system. Table 5.1 provides a survey of all aspects reflecting underlying structures of social and societal stratification.

In her analysis of honorific possessive classifiers, Keating (c£ 1997) displays the same connection between social structure, distribution of land (that is a source of nourishment) and obligations of providing food (that is products of land) in Pohnpei (Micronesia). It is a hierarchical network in which the chiefs distribute the land to the people oflow status and get fruits of the land in return. 1.

Chapter 5. Conclusion:

Table 5.1. Visualisation of social and societal stntSsive relationship which requires the use of an A-possessive.

18.

t8o Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language

(huo) can occur in A- and in 0-contexts in Tongan (cf. Note 12), as well as broom

(taufaie). It follows the same pattern that applies for house and table (in Examples 47 and 48), and consequently, 'initial control theory' also explains Example 54. (54)

a. eku huo

'my-A hoe' (i.e. the hoe that I have made); 'my-A hoeing' (activity) b. hoku huo 'my-0 hoe' (i.e. the hoe that I own)

Taumoef()lau's statement that all Tongan nouns can occur in A and O··contexts (which she proves only for a small sample of concrete nouns) is not supported by several other Tongan native speakers, such as Vatau (personal communication, 26.2.2003) and 'Aisea Hingano (personal communication, 21.10.2004). They claim that certain words (such as 'eku me'alele 'my··A vehicle' 19; hoku mokopuna 'my--0 grandchild') can only occur either in A- or in O-constructions.20 Excursus: A· and O-possessio11 with landmarks The research data focusing on landmarks shows that all places and landscapes are 0-possessed while only the terms for garden and earth oven are A-possessed. The 0-possessed places and landscapes are: 'uta 'inland!bush: mo'unga 'mountain: tele'a 'valley: vaitaje 'riveT, ima 'cave: vaota 'foresf, motu 'island: tahi 'sea; matatahi 'beadl, liku 'cliftbound coast: hakau 'reef:Janga 'bay/ lagoon: mamani 'world: langi 'sky:Jonua 'land: 'api 'household land/allotment: kelekeie 'ground! soil: kolo 'village/towll,ja'itoka 'cemetery:Jeitu'u 'place: etc. Even this can be explained according to 'initial control theory: A possessor has no control over the initiation of the relationship with all the above mentioned 0--possessed places and landscapes. All these places are given, such as the land/country (jonua) where one is born. Even the household land ('api) which is normally determined through inheritance (or traditionally, it was given to a commoner by his chief) is 0-possessed as the possessor has no control over the initiation of this relationship. Consequently, the village (kolo) and its cemetery (ja'itoka) are determined as well. For women, their new village and allotment after a marriage is normally determined through residential rules (such as virilocality), and the village and allotment of dlil· dren is given by bilth (i.e. their parents' village and allotment). Only the areas which are created by the possessor on their land, like the garden (ngoue) or the earth oven ('umu), are A--possessed because the possessor has control over the initiation of these relationships.

Modern items (such as ka 'car') are treated similarly to comparable traditional items ('eku ka 'my-A car'); in this example traditional vehicles. This shows that the possessive category is

19.

applied in a consistent productive way (d Mulloy & Rapu 1977: 2·4). However, it is possible that they (although being native Tongan !>peakers) were simply not a-w-are of other contexts if lhese are rare (see Note 17; d: Taumoefolau 1996: 301-302).

20.

Chapter 7. A- and 0-possession Howeve1~ Taumoefolau (personal communication, 22.4.2003) argues that 'api, for example, cannot only occur with O·possessives but also in A··Contexts. If it is the land in a game (for example Monopoly) which I can acquire, 'eku 'api 'my--A land/lot' has to be used. Taun10efolau explains the use of A-possession with 'api according to her definition The possessor (ego) is the 'doer' because he/she has to acquire the land. and the possessee ('api) is the 'activity: IfO is used (hoku 'api 'my-0 land'), it is the land whid1 the possessor owns and lives OIL Consequently. Taumoeiolau argues that the possessor (ego) is the 'whole' and the possessee ('api) is 'part' of the possessor. However, Taun10etolau's example of'api (that is 'api as minimal pair) can also be explained by Wilson's 'initial control the..1ry'; in the case of ~ku 'api 'my-A allotment: the possessor has control over the initiation ofthe possessive relationship by acquiring the possessee. \Nhereas the possessor has no control over the initiation ofthe relationship to his own real land (hono 'api 'his-0 allotment') because land is generally inherited in Tonga (cf. §3.1). In this conte>.i, Wilson's definition is even more precise than Taumoelolau's because Taun10efolau can only describe 'api in 'ene 'api 'his-A allotment' as a metaphorical 'activity: Furlhermore, the possessor is not only a 'doer' but, more concretely, an initiator of the A-possessed relationship. Terms for natural materials like sand ( hneone) or stone (maka) can be A- and 0-possessed. If it is sand or stone which is used for building, A is used, and if the sand or stone is just on my land, 0 is used. To explain this use both Wilson's and Taumoefolau's approaches are appropriate. The possessor has control over the initiation ofthe relationship and at the same time is the 'doer' ifhe uses the sand or stone for building; this control is absent if the sand or stone is just 'part' of the possessor's land without his agency. Therefore A and 0 are used in the same way as with plants and buildings (ct Examples 46 and 47). Another context in which hono rnaka 'his/her-O stone' occurs is in reference to a memorial stone, such as in a cemetery. According to the Q. possessed examples of story and report (in Examples 51 band 52b), the memorial stone is about the possessor and he cannot have control over the initiation of the possessive relationship because it is made after his death.

To sum up the use of A·· and 0--possession in Tongan, Wilson's control theories (preferably the 'initial control theory') including the default principle are the most precise and productive definitions. If the possessor has control over the initiation of the possessive relationship, A is used,whereas 0 is used if this control is absent or unspecified. Churchward's and Taumoefolau's definitions of A and 0 are not as precise as the 'initial control theory'. In all A-possessed cases in which the possessor has control over the initiation of the possessive relationship, he is automatically 'active, influential or formative' towards the possessed and can be called a 'doer'. In some 0--possessed cases, Churchward's definition is even inappropriate because it does not include the initial control idea (Examples 46 to 49), and Taumoefolau can explain several possessees only as metaphorical 'parts' or metaphorical 'activities' (Examples 51 to 53) which is a diffuse definition, and in those cases, the use of A or 0 seems to be unpredictable and arbitrary.

181

182

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language Wilson's 'initial control theory' is even more productive than described in most approaches because even body part terms (prototypically inalienable pos-sessees) form minimal pairs according to the semantic context. This seems to support Taumoefolau's claim that each noun can be A- and 0-possessed but to prove it, a larger sample of possessees must be investigated. Taumoefolau's claim would only be upheld if all f()rm minimal pairs (including prototypical A- or 0--possessees). 7·3-2.2 The use ofA and 0 with Tongan kinship terms 'Ihe semantic category of kin is generally described as inalienable (cf Heine 1997: 10-11) but in Polynesian languages only some kinship relations are 0-possessed while others require A-constructions. Most studies about A- and 0--possession in Polynesian languages struggle to explain the selection of A or 0 with kinship terms according to the semantic definitions of A and 0 that work for other possessive relationships (cf. §7.3.1). In particular Tongan kinship terms provide examples that seem to contradict semantic rules (cf Clark 2000: 266), f()r example most of Churchward's exceptions involve kinship terms (cf. Appendix 3). In contrast to most approaches which describe single kinship terms as either A- or 0-possessed (cf. Churchward 1953: 82, 84; Wilson 1982: 30-35), Taumoefolau has shown that they form minimal pairs like other concrete nouns.21 Fae 'mother' who is mostly A-possessed (Example 42: 'my mother') can also occur in a more specific and less frequent 0--context (Example 43: 'mother of the year'). However, the possessive construction in 43 does not describe a kinship relation but is used metaphorically. So an explanation for the kinship relation between ego and his/her mother being A--possessed remains to be found. In this section, I will explain and discuss several approaches which might deter-mine the use of A and 0 with Tongan kinship terms describing kinship relations: the 'simple control theory: the 'initial control theory' and further considerations. The distribution of A and 0 with Tongan kinship terms (describing kinship relations) and with terms for other personal relations is listed in Table 7.8. 22 This data forms the basis for the following analysis.

21.

Similar examples can also be fow1d in other Polynesian lallbruages, such as Hawaiian

(cf. Wilson 1982: 17, 20): ke keiki a ka makuahine 'the child of-A the mother' versus ka keiki o ka 'aina 'the child of-0 the land: In both examples, a kinship term (child) is the possessee

but only the lirst example describes a kinship relation. Therefore both Tongan and Hawaiian examples show that kinship relations are either A-- or 0--possessed. 22. This information is based on Church'A'llrd (cf. 1953: 82---86), Wilson (cf. 1982: 34) and inten-iews with ~isea Hingano (19.11.2002 and 13.3.2003) and 'Inoke Folau (3.12.2004).

Chapter 7. A- and 0-possession 183

Actually, most A-possessed terms (tangata, ta'ahine, ]~fine, tamasi'i, fiinau and pepe) are primarily not real kin terms (for example tamasi'i 'child') but they may be used as such (for example 'eku tamasi'i 'my··A child'). Table 7.8. A and Q ..possessed terms describing kinship relations and other personal relationships in Tongan

kinship terms

A-possessed

0-possessed

kui 'grandparents' kui tangata 'grandfather' kui fefine 'grandmother' motu'a 'parent'; matuil 'parents' tamai, 'eiki* 'father' fa'e,fehuhu* 'mother' fae tangata 'male mother' (= tu'asina) tama 'child of a woman' fakafotu 'child of tuonga'ane'

kaiuga 'e>.iended family, relative' famili 'core family'

tangata 'man' fefine 'older girl/womaii ta'ahine 'younger girl/woman' tamasi'i 'child, young person/boy' tamasi'i pusiaki'i 'son, who

tu'asina 'mother's brothers' mehekitanga '(eldest) father's sister' tokoua 'same sex sibling' ta'okete 'older same sex sibling' tehina 'younger same sex sibling' tuofefine 'sister of a boy' tuonga'ane 'brother of a girl' foha 'son of a man; his real son' (~f"efine 'daughter

of a man'

'ilamutu 'child of tuofefine' mokopuna 'grandchildren' rnali 'husband or wife'; hoa 'mate'

lives at my home, may be adopted' fiinau 'd1ildren'

pepe'baby' uitou 'widow' fahu 'to be in an 'eiki position at special occasions' (= rnehekitanga or her d1ildren) other personal relations

taha ngaue 'employee' ofisa kolo 'town officer' matapule 'chief's attendant and spokesma1f

taki ngaue!pule ngaue 'employer' 'Otua!'Biki 'God' tu'i 'king, sovereign'; kuini 'queen' nopele 'noble'; hou 'eiki 'chief' kakai 'ordinary people' 'ulumotu'a 'head offiunil.y' kaume'a 'friend' fiii 'ememy'

'Honorific forms: These are conspicuously as'ribed to the same possessive category as their ordinary equivalent, that is kakai (cf. Chapter 8). This means that each person (no matter if it is a commone1~ a chief or even the king) is regarded as fulfilling the same semantic criteria (such as control) vis· a· vis his own father/mother or the relationships.

a. 'Simple cotJtrol theory' (kinship relatio11s) Based on the fact that social status among relatives is extremely important in Tongan society and that there is always a status difference expressed in the tu'a-'eiki dichotomy (cf. §2.1.3), I expected this cultural background to be a determining factor in the selection of A· or O··possession in kinship descriptions.

184


Relatives who are 'eiki (those of higher status than ego) have control over the (those oflower status than ego) are possessive relationship while those who are controlled. According to 'simple control theory' which defines A and 0 by presence or absence of control from the possessor's point of view, this means that in a possessive construction of the form 'my-A X' or 'my-0 Y' in which the possessor (ego) has control over the possessee (kin X), A-possessives are used while 0--possession signifies that the possessor (ego) has no control over the possessee (kin Y). Based on Section 2.1.3, Table 7.9 summarises both relatives of lower status than the possessor (that is the possessor has control over them, and A is expected) and relatives of higher status than the possessor (that is the possessor has no con-trol over them, and 0 is expected). A third group of kinship terms describes relatives who are neither clearly 'eiki nor tu'a, or terms which subsume 'eiki as well as tu'a relatives. In this group the choice of A- or 0-possession might be relatively arbitrary for each term, but 0 is more likely as it is the default case.

tua

Table 7.9. Kinship relations and 'simple control theory' tu 'a relatives ~

expected to occur with A-possessives

tu'asina (O),jae tangata (A) tuonga'ane (0) tehina (0) foha (0) 'ofefine (0) jakafotu (A) uitou (A)

'e-iki relatives ~ expected to occur with 0--possessives

mehekitanga (O),jahu (A) tuoj~tine (0)

ta'okete (0) tamai (A) 'ilamutu (0)

neither 'eil.:-i nor tu'a relatives or both summarised in one term ~ expected to occur with 0- rather than A-possessives

tokoua (0) kui (A) fa'e (A) tama (A) mokopuna (0) rnali (0) kainga (0) famili (0)

It is also worth noting that the Tongan kinship terms are classificatory which means that for example the term for siblings also applies to cousins (cf. §2.1.2). As a consequence, it is possible that the relationship to one relative (e.g. one's own grandchild) can be regarded as involving control or agency, while this is not the case fix the relationship to another relative (e.g. a sibling's grandchild) who is


described by the same term (mokopuna). Such cases could potentially result in different marking but actually, all collateral kin occur with the same possessive category (A or 0) as the lineal kin (cf Wilson 1982: 30···31). In Table 7.9, it becomes apparent that not all 'eiki relatives are 0-possessed (for example 'eku tamai 'my-A father') and that most tu'a relatives are actually O··possessed although 'simple control theory' predicts the opposite. The terms that summarise 'eiki and tu'a relatives (such as the general term kainga including all relatives) are in most cases 0-possessed but most of the relatives that are neither clearly tu'a nor 'eiki (such as kui 'grandparentS,fae 'mother' and tama 'child of a woman') are actually A·possessed. Theref(He the 'simple control theory' (that is the relative hierarchy among relatives) can only explain the use of A- and 0-possession with some kin terms. One example is the relationship among affinal kin, i.e. spouses. The possessor does not have control over his/her spouse if both married partners are still alive, and therefore the term maii (describing 'husband' as well as 'wife') is 0--possessed (such as hoa 'mate'). However, if one married partner dies, the deceased is 'eiki with regard to the survivor (cf §2.1.3). In this case, the possessor (the deceased) has control over the widow (uitou) which is expressed by A-possession. Further examples according to 'simple control theory' include fakajotu and mehekitanga (cf. Figure 7.2a) as well as 'ilamutu and fae tangata/tu'asina (cf. Figure 7.2b); these are the two reciprocal relationships with the most significant status differences. Firstly, the possessor (a female ego) has superior status com· pared to her brother's children (jakajotu). This means that the possessor controls the relationship, and therefore A is used ('eku fakafotu 'my-A brother's child'). 'Ihe relationship between the same two individuals is 0-possessed from the opposite point of view (hoku mehekitanga 'my--0 father's sister') because in this case, the possessor (ego) has no control over his/her mehekitanga who is ego's highest ranked relative. Secondly, the possessor (a male ego) has lower status than his sister's children ('ilamtutu) and thus no control over them. In accordance with 'simple control theory: 0-possession occurs (hoku 'iiamutu 'my-0 sister's child'). From the opposite point of view, the relationship between these two individuals should then be A-possessed (my-A mother's brother) as ego has higher status than his mother's brother (jae tangata or tu'asina). Althoughfae tangata is in tact A-possessed ('eku fae tangata 'my-A mother's brother'), its synonym tu'asina is 0-possessed (hoku tu'asina 'my--0 mother's brother') which contradicts 'simple control theory'. It is remarkable that two synonyms actually occur with different possessive categories but this may result from the fact that fae tangata (lit. 'male mother') is a compound of fae 'mother' and therefore treated similarly (A-possessed). This would mean that the mother's brother (tu'asina) is regarded as not being con·· trolled (0-possessed) which cannot be explained by 'simple control theory'.

186 Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language

Another case which is to be mentioned in this context is Jahu. It means 'to be in a superior position (above the law) at special occasions' (cf. §2.1.3) and therefore refers either to the father's sister (mehekitanga) or one of her children ('ilamutu) who holds this position. Although mehekitanga and 'ilamutu are 0-possessed (signifying that the possessor has no control over them),fahu is A-possessed. This may be explained by Taumoefolau's more general definition of A-possession as 'active': ko 'eku fahu 'my-A being in a fahu-position' indicates a certain behaviour or acting which is related to this task or position on special occasions; mehekitanga or 'ilamutu act asfahu.

a.

b.

~

~

fa'e tangata/ tu'asina

'ilamutu Figure 7.2. Reciprocal kinship relations (a.fakafotu-mehekitanga relationship; b. ilamutu-fa'e tangata/tu'asina relationship)

Mulloy & Rapu (cf. 1977: 11-13) and Thornton (cf. 1998: 382-389) trace the idea of control back to the hierarchy among the members of Polynesian societies and ultimately the concepts of mana and tapu. In ancient Polynesian societies, each individual had a unique rank or status so that he was higher or lower ranked than another person. The social status and power of an individual derived from the genealogical position into which he was born (cf. Chapter 2 for Tongan), and depending on this position, they had more or less mana. Mulloy & Rapu as well as Thornton finally draw the conclusion that A-possession is used with social inferiors and indicates the superior mana of the possessor, while 0-possession occurs with social superiors who have more mana than the possessor and who are surrounded by more tapu (cf. Table 7.9). Thornton (cf. 1998: 385-386) mentions the sister's child (iriimutu) as a person of great mana in Maori but in contrast to Tongan ('ilamutu), it is A-possessed (tiiku 'iriimutu 'my-A sister's child'). This example is in fact an exception to the rule in Maori while it supports the rule in Tongan. Mulloy & Rapu (cf. 1977: 8-9) remark that those possessive relationships which are not predictable may be due to gradual language internal changes or Ianguage contact (such as lexical borrowing in Rapanui from Spanish- in this context the culturally determined kin categories have also changed). Only the first kind of change might explain the different treatment of iriimutu in Maori and 'ilamutu in Tongan, as it is the same lexical item and no lexical borrowing from a language with different kin categories and concepts of social control has occurred.


b. 'Initial control theory' (kirtship relations) The 'initial control theory' claims that A--possession implies the possessor's control over the initiation of the possessive relationship. Most approaches (such as Wilson 1982: 30ft) treat spouses and children as typically A-possessed kin, being relationships initiated by the possessor. Men and women (at least among commoners today) have control over the choice of their marriage partner, and parents control the initiation of the relationship with their children. Accordingly, in Tongan mali 'husband or wife: hoa 'matt\ tama 'child of a woman: foha 'son of a man' and 'ofefine 'daughter of a man' are expected to be A-possessed and 'initial control theory' predicts 0--possession for all other kin relations (those which are characterised by an absence of the possessor's control over the initiation of the relationship). In fact, of all expected A-possessed kin terms only tama seems to confirm the rule (cf. Table 7.8). Concerning the relationship of husband and wife, the Tongan terms maii and hoa are 0--possessed while the same affinal kin relations are A--possessed in East-· ern Polynesian languages, such as Maori, Rapanui and Hawaiian. In Samoan and Tokelauan, there are A-possessed as well as 0-possessed terms describing spouses and even in East Uvean (which has been strongly influenced by Tongan), the term f()r spouse ('ohoana) is A-possessed (cf Appendix 2). Therefixe Tongan is the only Polynesian language in which spouses are completely 0-possessed; either spouses are not regarded as having control over the initiation of the possessive relationship (f()r example in former times and within higher ranked classes people in fact were not free to choose their marriage partners) or they defy 'initial control theory'. However, 'simple control theory' correctly predicts 0-possession (see above). Concerning the relationship with children, it is conspicuous that a mother's child (tama) is A-possessed while a son (joha) or daughter ('ofefine) fi-om a male perspective is 0-possessed. This classification prevails in non-Eastern Poly11esian languages such as Samoan, Tokelauan, East Uvean and Tongan (cf. Appendix 2). It can be argued that in those societies, only the woman is regarded as having control over the initiation of the relationship; she is the one who conceives, is pregnant and gives birth (cf. Nress 2000: 313). In contrast, in the Eastern Polynesian lan-· guages all children are A-possessed, both from a female and male perspective. Given this pattern the 'initial control theory' seems to apply more consistently to the use of A-and 0-possession with kinship relations in Eastern Polynesian languages than in the non--Eastern Polynesian languages ( c[ Wilson 1982: 30---35). In Eastern Polynesian languages, the kinship relations in which the possessor has control (also described as acquired, non-inherited or chosen kin in Appendix 2), that is affinal kin (spouses) and kin oflower generations than ego (offspring), are A-possessed while all other kin relations occur with 0--possessives. In contrast, the non-Eastern Polynesian data shows a group of kin terms (such as *ma!okupuna 'grandchild' and *qila(a)mutu 'nephewiniece') that are 0-possessed although the


'initial control theory' predicts A-possessionP Consequently, the languages of the Samoic--Outlier branch (i.e. non--Eastern Polynesian except the Tongic languages) use 0--possession with all true kin terms and A-possession only occurs with terms which are primarily not kin terms but may function as such, for example *faanau 'children' or *tama 'child'. However, in Tongan, there is a further group of A--possessed kin terms which also contradicts 'initial control theory' (cf. Wilson 1982: 33--- 34): Why are kui 'grand-parentS, miitua 'parentS,fae 'mother' and tamai 'father' A-possessed although the possessor does not control the initiation of the relationship? In spite of the exceptions I will demonstrate that in Tongan the 'initial control theory' nevertheless seems to be the basic underlying concept. Besides, there are in fact more kinship relations which can be explained according to the 'initial control theory' than Wilson realises, such as 'ilamutu which does not have to be regarded as exceptionally 0-possessed kin. In fact, taking cultural background knowledge into account actually confirms 'initial control theory'. For kin within ego's generation, 'initial control theory' is clearly the more appropriate underlying concept compared to 'simple control theory'. 'Ihis means that in these cases, the tu'a-'eiki system does not seem to determine the choice ofA-- and 0--possession. The reciprocal relationship between same--sex siblings (tokoua) is 0-possessed from both perspectives although the older same sex sibling (ta'okete) has higher status and control over the younger one (tehina). 'Iherefore 'simple control theory' fails as it predicts A-possession f()r tehina (cf. Table 7.9). 'Initial control theory' instead correctly predicts 0--possession for both because neither of them has control over the initiation of the kinship relation with a sibling. For the same reason, opposite-sex siblings reciprocally use 0-possession although tuofofine 'sisters of a male ego' are higher ranked and control their tuongacme 'brothers of a female ego: Further, the reciprocal relationships between mehekitanga 'father's sister' and fakafotu 'brother's child of a female ego: and between tu'asina 'mother's brother' and 'ilarnutu 'sister's child of a male ego' which have been explained above according to 'simple control theory' also serve as examples of 'initial control theory'. The mehekitanga has control over the initiation of the possessive relationship with her brother's children ('ene fakafotu) which is expressed by the A-possessive 'ene because she has the power to control the birth (i.e. she can curse them to death just as she can provide a healthy birth) and she gives them their names (cf. §2.1.3). In contrast, the tu'asina does not control the initiation of the relationship with his sister's children (hono 'ilamutu) which is therefore 0--possessed, just as the inverse relationships (hoku mehekitanga 'my-0 father's sister'; hoku tu'asina

However, in Tongan at least the 'simple control theory' correctly predicts 0--possession tor 'iiamutu because the possessor has lower status and thus no control (see above).

23.


'my-0 mother's brother') because a possessor of a younger generation has no control over the initiation of the relationship. From this point of view, the synonym of tu'asina, tangata, contradicts 'initial control theory' because it is A-possessed although the relationship is not initiated by the possessor. Fae tangata (as a compound ofja'e) is treated in the same way as fae 'mother' and tamai 'father' that are also irregularly A--possessed according to 'initial control theory'. Concerning children, we have seen above that only the mother (and not the father) is regarded as having control over the initiation of the relationship with her own children. In this context, it is interesting to observe how adopted children are linguistically treated in comparison to the parents' biological children. Tamasi'i is actu-ally not a real kinship term as it is a general description fr)r 'child/young person' but it is also used in the sense of'adopted son/daughter' (tamasi'i pusiaki'i). In accordance with 'initial control theory: the adopted child is A-possessed as the possessor (father and mother) has control over the initiation of the relationship by adopting the child. The reciprocal kinship relation between relatives two generations above and below ego seems to contradict 'initial control theory' as welL Kui 'grandparent' belongs to the small group of exceptionally A-possessed cases as the possessor (that is the grandchild) does not control the initiation of the possessive relationship. Instead mokopuna 'grandchild' can be regarded as supporting 'initial control theory'. As in Tongan only the mother and not the father is ascribed control over the initiation of the relationship >'r'ith their children, the grandparents do not control the initiation of the relationship with their grandchildren either. Accordingly; mokopuna 't,'Tandchild' is 0--possessed. Summarising, for most kinship relations (even for some of Churchward's excep·· tions listed in Appendix 3), the use of A- or 0-possession can be explained by control theories, especially 'initial control theory: However, in Tongan, there is a small group of kinship relations that contradicts this semantic rule. Table 7.10 gives an overview

jae

Table 7.10. Kinship relations and 'initial control theory' Genet·at.ion Kin term

G:O

tokoua ta'okete tuonga'tme

G:+/--1

jilt~

tamai

G:+f.-2

affines

mehekitanga tu'asina ja't' tangata kui mali

Initial control theory Reciprocal kin tenn Initial control theory 0 0 0 exceptional A exceptional A 0 0 exceptional A exceptional A 0 (exceptional, but not from a traditional chiefly perspective)

tokuoa tehina tuofefine tam a toha -hfefine .fizkajotu 'iiamutu

0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0

mokopuna mali

0 0 (exceptional, but not from a traditional chiefly perspective)

190


of the reciprocal kinship relations which can be explained according to 'initial control theory' (A or 0) and those which contradict the rule (exceptional A or 0). It becomes obvious thatjae, tamai and kui are A-possessed although 'initial control theory' (as well as 'simple control theory') would clearly predict 0-possession as the possessor has no control, neither over them nor over the initiation of the relationship. The f()llowing analysis of other personal relationships will show that control theories (especially 'initial control theory') can be regarded as the underlying concept of A and 0-possession in Tongan. In the final section, I will present further considerations which may lead towards an explanation of the exceptional cases. In this context, it is interesting that 'mother: 'father' and 'grandparents' are actually A-possessed in Tongan (and a few languages which have been strongly influenced by Tongan) in contrast to most other Polynesian languages. c. 'Simple' or 'initial control theory' (other perso11al releltiot~ships) The relationship between employee (taha ngir.te) and employer (taki ngaiiue or pule ngaue) can be explained according to both control theories. A possessor has control over his employee as well as over the initiation of the relationship (by employment) which is expressed by A-possession. Accordingly, the opposite relationship is 0-possessed as the possessor has no such control over his employer and the initiation of the relationship. As we have seen so far, 'initial control theory' is preferable to 'simple control theory' (cf. §7.3.2.1). Yet, is this also the case for the following personal relationships? Most personal relationships in Table 7.8 describe members of Tongan society with different positions and rank (cf. §2.2.1). God and the king or queen (as clos-· est descendants of the divine line) have the most mana and are the highest ranked members of the Tongan society. Therefore no possessor has control over them and 'simple control theory' correctly predicts 0-possession. However, in this case the commoners should not be 0--possessed as they are the lowest ranked members of the Tongan society and a possessor is likely to be ranked more highly. Moreover, the linguistic treatment of chiefs (hou'eiki and nopeie) provides a further problem in reference to 'simple control theory'. From the king's perspective (that is a higher ranked possessor), A--possession should be used as he has control over his chiefs but from a commoner's perspective, there is no such control over the chief which would have to be expressed by 0-possession. However, the relationship between chief and possessor is, in tact, always expressed with an 0-possessive regardless of the possessor's status. In contrast, 'initial control theory' correctly explains the use of all personal relations listed in Table 7.8. God ('Otua or 'Eiki), the king or sovereign (tu'i) and

Chapter 7. A- and 0-possession

the queen (kuini) are 0-possessed because the possessor has no control over the initiation of the relationship; they are determined through the presence of mana (which is inherited, given by birth) and the possessor does not choose or elect them (cf. §2.2.1). 'Ihe possessor does not control the initiation of the relationship with his chief (hou'eiki or nopele) as it was traditionally determined through the land (belonging to a chief) on which one has lived (cf. §2.2.1 ). From the opposite point of view, a chief could not choose the people (kakai) who lived on his land either because residence was a matter of choice for the people (cf. §3.1 ). 'Iherefore hou'eiki, nopele and kakai are all 0-possessed. Finally, the use of 0-possession with 'ulumotu'a 'head of family' can be explained accordingly as the possessor has no control over the initiation of the possessive relationship, that is the 'ulumotu'a is not chosen or elected but the title is passed on according to a fixed pattern within the family (cf. §2.1.1). In contrast to all these personal relations, ofisa kolo 'town officer' and matiipule 'chief's attendant/spokesman' are A-possessed which indicates the possessor's control over the initiation of these relationships. In fact, a town officer is elected by the village people and a rnatiipule is appointed by the chief to whom he is associated (cf §2.2.1). The only exceptions to 'initial control theory' are kaume'a 'friend' and fili 'enemy' because they are 0--possessed although the possessor has control over the initiation of the relationship by making friends or enemies. However, in these cases, 'simple control theory' could explain the use of 0-possession. A possessor does not necessarily have control over his friends or enemies who might be of higher as well as oflower status than himself.

d. Further explanatory considerations (kinship relations) According to Wilson (cf. 1982: 30), it is not surprising that there are irregularities concerning the use of A- and 0-possession with kin terms in Polynesian languages because kin relations are treated differently from other possessions in most Oce-anic languages. Most Oceanic languages use direct possessive constructions with all or at least some kin terms (cf. Lynch 1998: 122-130; cf. §7.1). At the time when Polynesian languages lost this possibility of direct possession, the kin relations were consequently assigned to one of the two kinds of indirect possession (i.e. A or 0-possession). During this process, dillerent semantic criteria might have been taken into consideration just as at a later stage, their emphasis might have changed within the various Polynesian languages or language subgroups. Wilson (cf. 1982: 37) reconstructs the f()llowing terms fix Proto-Poly11esian as occurring in direct constructions with the independent suffix ~--na: ~tahi-na 'younger same-sex sibling: *tuaka-na 'older same-sex sibling: *tina-na 'mother: *tama-na 'father: *makupu-na 'grandchild' and *tupu-na 'grandparent'. At least for Tongan, it can be observed that this group of kin is not entirely assigned

191

192


to one of the two possessive categories (cf. Wilson 1982: 35) although Lynch (cf. 2000: 239·-- 241) assumes that kin generally merged with the 0--category. Tehina 'younger same--sex sibling: ta'okete 'older same--sex sibling' and mokopuna 'grand-parent' are 0-possessed, the others are A-possessed. However, in Tongan the only kin terms still ending -na (although it no longer functions as independent possessive suffix) aretehina and mokopuna which are actually both 0-possessed. In this context, it is remarkable that the Tongan kin terms for 'mother' and 'grandparent' which are A-possessed (in contrast to the predictions ofboth control theories) have changed over time as they differ lexically from the Proto-Polynesian terms. All Polynesian protolanguages as well as most present Polynesian languages still use the term *tupuna to describe grandparents but in Trmgan, grandparents are called kui. The Tongan term for mother (jae) is also quite different from Prato-Polynesian (*tinana) and its derivations in other Polynesian languages (f()r example tina in Samoan).24 However, tamai 'father: the third exceptionally A--possessed kinship term, can be traced back to the Prato--Polynesian form of *tarnana (cf. Marek 1996: 198-199, 209-215). It is conspicuous that Tongan and East Uvean25 (cf. Appendix 2) both use the terms kui, fae and tamai, and that these are the only Polynesian languages in which 'mother: 'father' and 'grandparents' are A-possessed in contradiction to 'control theories'. This leads to the assumption that the possessive category might have shifted as a consequence oflexical changes (from Proto-Polynesian). This may explain the exceptional use of A-possession with kui and file but without linguistic and cultural information from that time (that is diachronic data), it is impossible to consider whether the possessive category was originally 0 and whether this shift was determined by cultural factors. Concerning Tuvaluan, Besnier (2000: 322---323) suggests that affection or emo-tional colouring may play a part in these shifts (cf. Clark 2000: 266): "inalienable possession appears in some contexts to be affectively more charged than alienable possession~ that is 0-possession expresses, for example, greater respect towards the possessee. This is coherent with the general concept that alienable relations (for example my car) express more distant relations than inalienable relations (for example my own head) in which the possessor and possessee form a closer unit

24. Only in Maori we lind a similar lexical.item ior'mother'like in Tongan (whaea). However, in contrast to Ja'e, whaea is 0--possessed (d. Appendix 2). 25. East Uvean has been strongly influenced by Tongan since the end of the 17th century with kinship terms borrowed from Tongan, such as (kui) Jaftt~e 'grandmother: tamai 'fathef, tu'asina 'mother's brothef, mahikitanga 'father's sister: tehina 'younger same--sex sibling: etc. (ct: Marek 1996: 210, 215---216, 222). Along v.i.th these lexical borrowings, they probably also adopted the possessive categories tor these terms.


However, regarding Tongan kinship relations, this approach does not seem to provide any explanation as fae 'mother' and kui 'grandparents' are exceptions with their A· possession although they are emotionally close to ego. Actually, most A-possessed kin (especially the exceptional A-possessed ones) are members of the core family which is (because of Western influence - in contrast to the traditional extended family) the present unit of close contact in daily life. Control over each other in daily life may therefore be regarded as a criterion for A-possession in some of these cases (for example betw·een a mother and her children).2 6 Another explanation for these shifts may be a general gradual change in Polynesian languages fi·om 0--possession to A--possession. In Niuean which only has A-possessive fr)rms left, language change even resulted in the complete loss of the A/0 distinction (cf. Lynch 1998: 130; Clark 2000: 267).27 In Tongan, this might explain the exceptions of A-possessed kin relations (for examplefae, tamai and kui). ~isea Hingano (personal communication, 21.10.2004) has observed another tendency among Tongan pupils which might be analysed as gradual change; meheki·· tanga (which is 0-possessed according to both 'control theories') and other Tongan 0-possessed kin terms are sometimes misused with A-possessives. According to ~isea Hingano, this use of A-possession might be explained by the Western attitude that individuals think they have influence or control over nearly everything. In the case of mehekitanga, he has observed that A-possessives are used if a child derides his mehekitanga.28 This might be regarded as a conscious choice and instrumentalisation of control theory because, in such a context, the mehekitanga is not respected (in her traditional position) and the A-possessive indicates her lack of control.

7·4

Conclusion

In Tongan (as in other Polynesian languages), two different possessive categories (A· and 0--possession) are used to describe possessive relationships. This Chapter

26. This explanation is even applicable to the opposite kind of relationships, such as the relationship between siblings of opp
231

232


1he use of the language of respect within the royal family The use of hou'eiki vocabulary is even more complex as the information about the

8.3.3.2

use of the honorific system within the royal family will show (Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita: personal communication, 21.1.2003, 19.10.2004 and 2.11.2004). Normally, two people of higher rank (hou'eiki or tu'i) will not both use respectful vocabulary if they address or refer to each other. Either they both speak kakai or the higher ranked of them addresses or refers to the lower ranked with kakai while the other uses the adequate respect vocabulary (lur.t'eiki or tu'i) in return, such as in Example 26P 'Ihe king must always be addressed or referred to by tu'i words (cf. Example 16) but in return, he uses kakai to address or refer to a hou'eiki person. In this way, the use of honorific vocabulary towards each other is avoided. (26)

Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita (Interview, 2.11.2<X>4): [a possible dialogue between the king's son, nopele Ma'atu, and the king's daughter, Princess Pilolevu; nopele Ma'atu about Princess Pilolevu]

Na'e

me~'

a

Piloievu ki

Hou'EIKI:go ABS Pilolevu Pilolevu went to New Zealand.

TA:PAST

P:ALL

Nu'u Sila. New Zealand

Princess Pilolevu and nopele Ma'atu are both members of the royal f~nnily but Princess Pilolevu is relatively higher ranked than her brother mipele Ma'atu. Consequently, he uses hou'eiki vocabulary addressing or referring to her (cf. Example 26) but if she uttered the same sentence about him, she would have used the kakai word 'alu instead: Na'e 'alu 'a Ma'atu ki Nu'u Sila 'Ma'atu went to New Zealand: However, to be polite, especially if people are around, and to make it less complicated, she would also use hou'eiki language towards him but this is actually not what she is expected to do. Wben the king is outside of Tonga, for example during his stays overseas, there is a special hierarchical order of who represents him in Tonga during this time. Firstly, it is his oldest son the crown prince, and if he is absent as well, the king's other son, the prime minister, is the second in the line of substitution. If they were all absent from Tonga the king's daughter, Princess Pilolevu, would represent the king during this period. Whoever is representing the king is also addressed or referred to by tu'i language. In Example 27, it is Princess Pilolevu, as at that time the king, the crown prince and the prime minister were away from Tonga.

Similarly. Tamale (the traditional chief of Niutoua) would use hou'eiki terminology with Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita while she would address and refer to him by kakai terms.

17.

Chapter 8. The language of respect 233 (27)

Newspaper Talaki (15.10.2004):

'I

he

.folofola-fakaava

a

P:l.OC ART Tll'I:speak-open P:POSS

e ART TU'I:>'i'Oman

Tr/i Fakale'o regent (performing the work, normally done by the king) In the opening speech of regent (here: Princess Pilolevu) ...

As a member of the royal family, Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita is addressed and referred to by hou'eiki vocabulary whenever commoners and even some hou'eiki people (mainly chiefs) talk to or about her. However, she recognises that younger people in particular switch more and more to English if they talk to her. l~rom her point of view this happens because they learn less and less about the language of respect. Although it is taught at school, a lot of traditions are still passed on orally in Tongan society, and when the older generation dies some of the knowledge dies with them. Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita has learnt the respect vocabulary and the respectful behavioural patterns towards people of higher rank since childhood within her family. Most children with higher ranked family members gain their knowledge during their early socialisation. If a commoner talks to Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita, they use kakai words referring to themselves and hou'eiki words addressing and referring to her. On the other hand, she uses kakai referring to them as well as to herself. Even her friends and the people she works with use hou'eiki vocabulary when addressing or refer·· ring to her. This can lead to strange situations. Her boss at work, for example, uses hou'eiki with her. In this way, the boss shows the demanded respect according to the absolute Tongan hierarchy but at the same time, it is the job of a boss to be in command of his people at work, even a member of the royal family. This situation is therefore difficult to handle. Within the royal family, everybody uses tu'i words to address or refer to the king. As the language of respect creates distance, it is impossible to be personal with the king. Consequently, Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita has never had a normal 'grandfather-granddaughter' relationship with the king. The only way to be less formal is to switch to English. 'Ihe king, on the other hand, can choose whatever lexical level he likes to use (even with his 'eiki relatives, i.e. his father's side, which he acknowledges in other ways, such as tapu). Normally he uses kakai words if he addresses or refers to members of his family. His choice of kakai instead of hou'eiki vocabulary seems to avoid the strange situation of two people both using respect vocabulary to and about each other. Similarly, two members of the royal family do not both use hou'eiki vocab·· ulary if they talk to or about each other. Tongan people are never exactly of


the same rank (cf. §2.2.2), so this relative ranking within the group of hou'eiki people, such as chiefly title holders and the members of the royal family, deter·· mines who is supposed to be addressed and referred to by hou 'eiki terminolo gy. 18 Therefore there are several people of higher rank that Hon. Panetupouvava'u is supposed to address and refer to by hou'eiki while they use kakai words with her, but if she has higher rank she is supposed to use kakai while they use hou'eiki terms with her. Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita addresses or refers to her parents by hou'eiki terminology while her parents in return use kakai words if they talk to or about her. With her brother, her sister and more distant relatives, she uses kakai terms. The ministers of parliament and the m>pele are supposed to use hou'eiki words addressing or referring to the grandchildren of the king (such as Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita) while the Icing's grandchildren normally talk in kakai to or about them. Only since HRH Princess &ilote Mafile'o Pilolevu (the king's daughter) asked her children to use hou'eiki words towards the ministers and nobles to show respect has the problematic situation developed of two people using hou'eiki to and about each other. Even Hon. Fanetupouvava'u Tuita's parents avoid both speaking ha-.t'eiki to or about each other. They use kakai vocabulary in private contexts but if one of them talks in public about the other, they use hou'eiki terminology. 1his again demonstrates that the choice of the lexical level does not only depend on the referent but also on the situation such as 'public talk' versus 'private talk'. Summarising, all these examples and information have revealed that the hou'eiki vocabulary is not only used to address or refer to the chiefs and that even chiefs are not always addressed or referred to by hou'eiki vocabulary. There are also examples of extended use of tu'i vocabulary besides its application to the king. Table 8.13 gives a final overview ofthe use of different lexical levels.

Bott (1981: 11, 19-20) describes that during her research in the reign of the late Queen Salote, people also used the language of respect for title holders who were not of aristocratic blood (cf. §2.2.1) but not when a person of higher rank was present. People also showed deference by using the chiefly terminology with aristocrats who did not hold a title (cf. §2.2.1 ), howeve1~ in the presence of an aristocrat with title, ordinary vocabulary was used with aristocrats without title and chiefly vocabulary with title holders who were considered 'more chiefly~ It would be interesting to see what happens if the relative ktH11ga status between two hou'eiki people conflicts \-\'i.th their ha'a rank: Which hierarchical structure would then be decisive? 18.

Chapter 8. The language of respect 235

Table 8.13. Specific rules according to which of the three lexical levels are used kakai

vocabulary used to address or refer to a commoner (even Jesus) vocabulary used by every kind of speaker to refer to themselves (and if a commoner refers to his close hou'eiki relative and thus would raise himself indirectly vis-a-vis another commoner) vocabulary used to address or refer to at least one 1:ou'eiki person (the one of relatively higher rank) if two hou bki persons are talking to or about each other vocabulary used in situations of informality, friendship or intimacy

hou'eiki

vocabulary used to address or refer to a d1ief and all members of the royal family (because they all have a blood relation to the king) - normally only if the speaker is oflower rank than the referent vocabulary used by some to address or refer to churCh ministers (to show respect; non-traditional use) vocabulary sometimes used to address or refer to people in non-traditional positions of high authority inside Tonga (to show respect; non-traditional use) vocabulary used to address or refer to people in positions ofhigh authority outside Tonga, especially royalty of foreign countries (to show respect; non-traditional use) vocabulary used to raise the level of formality and politeness in public discourse (oratorical speeches and literature like newspaper articles, tales and poems); or tor joking in informal situations

tu'i

vocabulary used to address or refer to the king (or his representative inside Tonga ifhe is overseas) vocabulary used to address or refer to God

Generally, the different lexical levels represent the three levels of rank within the present Tongan society, or more precisely its absolute hierarchy. In the special case of two people of higher rank talking to or about each other, the choice of the lexical level is determined by their relative rank towards each other (as in Tonga no two people are of exactly equal rank). However, the use of respect vocabulary as presented in Table 8.13 cannot only be explained by the rank of the referent, more precisely the referent's rank in relation to the speaker. It also varies depending on the context. In formal situations, such as a fono meeting, a kava session or whenever a member of the royal family is present, the language of respect is more strictly used according to the general regulations than in an informal context, such as private talk or kin relations and friendship between a commoner and a chief Furthermore, there are also situations (mostly informal ones) in which the language of respect is instrumentalised. This means that the hou'eiki vocabulary is not used to address or refer to chiefs or members of the royal family but with commoners to raise the level of formality and politeness either seriously or for humour.

236


The factors that determine the use of respect vocabulary that have been described so far for Tongan, that is the referent's rank, the context and even its instrumentalised usage to raise the level of politeness and formality, are simi-lar to what other studies surmise about the use of Samoan respect vocabulary. Milner (1961: 297) generally remarks that besides the general principles for the use of Samoan respect vocabulary (cf. §8.3), there are "many modifications and individual variations according to the temperament of the speaker and his rela-tionship with the people addressed" Duranti (cf. 1992: 83-93) analyses these modifications and variations in detail and mentions the following features which determine the use of the respect vocabulary. He calls the general prin-ciples 'context-features: that is the referent's societal rank. But these principles only determine the choice of respect vocabulary in some contexts, especially in formal meetings. Respectful vocabulary is further used "with anyone when the intention is to signal or support a formal interaction" while "the use of everyday vocabulary signals intimacy and commonness" (Shore 1977: 457). As a further special context that determines the use of respectful terminology, Duranti (cf. 1992: 86) describes 'temporal and spatial boundaries'. Even at official events, such as fono meetings, the use of respectful vocabulary is stricter if people are 'on stage' rather than in 'back stage' situations. In other situations, the choice of the lexical level even defines the context, for example the role of the referent. A speaker uses respectful words with a person in a special situation to point out his role as a chief In another situation, the speaker uses common words with the same addresseeireferent to stress his role as brother. In this way, the choice between respectful or common words even defines the situation (chief or brother), so that the language of respect is instrumentalised. In this way respectful words can even function as an instrument to manipulate others because their use obliges the addressee/referent to behave in a certain way appropriate to the role and rank expressed by the honorific vocabulary (cf. Duranti 1992: 93-94), for example a chief is supposed to be generous (cf. ~.3 ). In Tonga, the context is not decisive for all kinds of lexical levels. While the 'formal/on stage' versus 'informal/off stage' distinction may influence the use of hou'eiki terminology with chiefs, nearly all situations involving members of the royal family are inherently formal (see above) due to their presence and thus demand hou'eiki vocabulary. On the tu'i level, there is no choice at all, that is whenever someone (no matter who and in which situation) addresses or refers to the king, tu'i terminology has to be used. In the same way, instrumentalisation of respectful terminology (i.e. the use of a lexical level to define the context, such as raising the level of formality and politeness) is possible with hou'eiki but not with tu'i terminology.

Chapter 8. The language of respect 237

8.4

Conclusion

This chapter about language of respect has shown at various points that there is a strong connection between language and culture. The language of respect can be classified as a referent honorific system, encoding the difference in rank between speaker and referent according to the absolute societal hierarchy. It is restricted to lexical items and consists of three lexical levels: kakai, hou'eiki and tu'i. Kakai is the language of the common people and hou'eiki and tu'i are two limited sets of respectful terms which are either used to refer to chiefs, members of the royal family and non-traditional authorities inside and outside of Tonga (such as foreign royalty) if the speaker is oflower rank than the referent (hou'eiki) or to refer to the king or God (tu'i). The Tongan language of respect has probably developed as a linguistic avoidance system in close association with the ritual avoidance system of tapu, as both systems protect and respect the high rank of chiefs and especially the king, thereby stabilising the societal stratification. The semantic analysis of terms which have respectful equivalents supports this connection between the language of respect and the mana-tapu system. 'Ihe people of higher rank are surrounded by a plethora of tapu to avoid people oflower mana coming into physical contact with them. There is a striking correspondence between the tapu items and the words with respectful equivalents, that is items/ activities which represent higher ranked people or with which they come into close contact (such as body parts, name, actions, clothes and other personal possessions). Therefore the language of respect can be regarded as a linguistic avoidance or tapu system. The metaphorical character of the respectful terms prevents the tapu items from being linguistically touched in a direct way. 'Ihe speech preludes (cf §2.2.3) which are even explicitly composed of the formula 'tapu mo ' to mention the higher ranked people are a similar linguistic means of respecting societal rank. On most formal occasions (such as the kava ceremony of a royal coronation), the language of respect and the speech preludes occur in combination with further visualisations of the hierarchical order, such as sitting order (a spatial representation; cf. §3.5) and gift exchange components (possessive networks; cf. §4.2). These different structures respect the sovereign in various ways, and they all serve to introduce him into his new societal position and to maintain the societal hierarchy.

CHAPTER

9

Conclusions 1his ethnolinguistic study has revealed the close connection between culture and language for several social, spatial and possessive features. Tonga is a highly stratified society in which no one is of equal social status or societal rank. The two hierarchical structures, that is relative status (tu'a versus 'eiki relationships) within the family (kiiinga) and absolute rank (tu'i, hou'eiki and kakm) within the society, are anchored in the conceptualisation of the world. The more closely someone is related to the divine descent line, the more spiritual power (mana) they have and the higher their rank is. People with superior rank or status, such as the king, the chiefs, the father's sister (mehekitanga) or the father (tamai), are surrounded by various taboos ¢apu) in order to prevent others from getting in touch with more mana which is regarded as dangerous. This idea also protects the hierarchical structures. Stratification is an important and central aspect of Tongan culture and therefore it is expressed in various ways. It forms the underlying structure of the following social, spatial and possessive features: land tenure system, seating order and other spatial arrangements (i.e. social space), flow of mutual support and gift in exchange processes (i.e. possessive network structures), other tasks and privileges, special behaviour and clothing, speech preludes, kinship terminology, language of respect, spatial coordinates and terminology, and at least partly A- versus 0-possessed kinship relations and other personal relationships. The detailed analysis of the linguistic features has shown that they are deeply anchored in the sociocultural system and that their structure and usage can only be analysed in this context. 1he linguistic structures are perfectly designed to express the sociocultural categories adequately and therefore they are apparently associated with corresponding cognitive patters. The usage of these linguistic

240


means/tools even maintains and reinforces the underlying sociocultural (and cognitive) system. Firstly, the kinship terminology is adjusted to the relative tu'a/'eiki system, whereby each kinship term unequivocally subsumes relatives who are all in the same status position towards ego. 1 'Ihe distinctive semantic features with relevance for the kinship terminology are the same as those of the underlying social principles which determine the status within the family (kainga). In this way, the cognitive classification of relatives subsumed under the same term is in alignment with the mental representation of the relative hierarchy, and therefore kinship terminology even implicitly reflects differences in status. This becomes particularly apparent when Tongans use the English kinship terminology in which the classification of relatives differs strongly from Tongan. Mostly, Tongans use the English terms according to the Tongan kinship classification, for example, both cousins and siblings are called 'brother' or 'sister' and the term 'father' is not only used to describe the father but also the father's brother. These interferences demonstrate that English does not provide an adequate linguistic means to describe the culture-specific social structures in the same unequivocal and non··redundant way as the Tongan kinship terminology. Consequently, the Tongan kinship terminology is not only anchored in the sociocultural system, but it can be considered a perfect linguistic means to express and thus maintain the social structure within the family (kainga). Secondly, speech preludes are introductory formulas of speeches which express and honour the societal hierarchy. The audience is welcomed and addressed in order of absolute rank, that is the highest rank person or those with most spiritual power (mana) is mentioned first. The formal structure of speech preludes is 'tapu mo +title/name' which can be translated as 'my respects to .. :. As it is taboo (tapu) to directly name or address higher ranked people, the formula can be regarded as an apology and a kind of name avoidance; such as the metaphorical and respectful circumscriptions used in reference to people of high rank. Thirdly, the language of respect is another linguistic means of expressing societal rank. More precisely, the language of respect is a referent honorific system which encodes the difference in rank between speaker and referent by the usage of different lexical items (tu'i, hou'eiki and kakai). 'Ihe fact that the tu'i vocabulary

1. Cognitive anthropologists and linguists have analysed and discussed the underlying principles of kinship terminology in both universalistic and relativistic schools of thought (cf. Poley 1997: 131-149; Barnard 2000: 115-117). This study has shown that although the Tongan kinship terminology can be classified as an 'Hawaiian type' according to universalistic approaches, however the semantic structure represents the culture-specific social hierarchy.

Chapter 9. Conclusions

is only used for God and the king, considered the closest descendant of the divine line, demonstrates that this linguistic system is based on societal structure and the way the world is conceptualised. The language of respect has probably deve·· loped as a linguistic avoidance system in close association with the ritual avoidance system of tapu as both systems protect and respect the high rank (and mana) of the king and other people of special rank within the societal hierarchy. Similar to other linguistic avoidance systems, the respectful terminology substitutes com· mon words referring to the king's person, his actions and his personal possessions, or those of other higher ranked people, by more metaphorical or general equivalents. Therefore the tapu people or items are not even linguistically 'touched' in a direct way. This shows that the language of respect is a linguistic structure based on the sociocultural system and a tool for honouring and thus maintaining the social stratification. This function of honorific vocabulary becomes particularly clear in situations in which Tongans refuse to accept their lower societal position and thus avoid using the language of respect. '!hey negotiate the stratification by S\Vitching to English which does not encode societal rank of the referent. 'Ihe use of honorific vocabulary therefore contributes to the collaborative construction of hierarchical relationships. The analysis of situations in which several higher ranked people talk about or to each other reveals that the use of honorific forms not only reflects the three general levels of rank (king, chiefs and commoners) but also more complex hierarchical structures (i.e. differences of rank between two hou'eiki people; for example ha'a ranking). Whenever changes of the societal structure have occurred, new authorities have been integrated into this linguistic honorific system, demonstrating that the language of respect can display multiple situations of societal stratification. Apart from purely reflecting the hierarchical structure between speech act participants, the language of respect may also be context-dependent or even instrumentalised (i.e. its usage to create a specific context or atmosphere). Just as the seating order is stricter at official kava circles, the language of respect is particularly used in f()rmal situations.2 At important societal occasions, such as a royal coronation, the new hierarchical order is visualised and reinforced by vari·· ous cultural and linguistic means: the seating and serving order at the kava ceremony, gift exchange components, speech preludes and the language of respect. Fourthly, space is a central aspect in the representation, creation and communication of status and rank relations in Tonga. The seating order of a kava circle as

2. This connection between linguistic forms, the context of their use and hierarchical relationships between the social actors has been investigated in several ethnolinguistic studies, such as Keating (cf. 1998) for Ponapean and Dw·anti (c£ 1994) for Samoan.

241

242


well as other seating arrangements are spatially organised according to the rank and status of its participants; 'higher situated' and 'front' positions are associated with higher societal rank or social status. Linguistically, mu'a 'front' is even defined by sociocultural parameters - in contrast to rnata which describes an intrinsic 'front; such as the area in front of the receiving door of a building. Por the inside of a spatial area, rnu'a describes the part where the highest ranked or most prominent member of the event is seated, and all other coordinates apply accordingly. In this context mu'a does not allow a relative reading. Apart from this close relation between linguistic and cultural features (i.e. the influence of cultural structures on linguistic definitions), the analysis of spatial descriptions has also revealed connections between language and landscape as well as between language and cognition. Within the village area which descends towards the sea, the absolute 'up/inland-down/sea' axis is often used in route descriptions. This orientation pattern which is determined by the typical landscape of islands occurs in numerous Oceanic languages. Apart from this absolute axis, the route descriptions within Niutoua also contain relative 'left-right' elements. Comparing the usage of these two reference systems, it is conspicuous that the relative 'leftright' axis is used to describe directions on the weak traverse (i.e. an undifferenti-· ated axis orthogonal to the 'up--down' axis) while directions on the 'up--down' axis are more often specified by this absolute system. In Tongan, these two frames of reference are not only used in spatial descriptions but also for cognitive spatial orientation. However, this study does not demonstrate a more systematic correla-tion, i.e. the fi-ame of reference which is predominantly used by a single speaker in the spatial description does not necessarily correspond with the cognitive spatial orientation of this speaker. Fifthly, possessive structures, such as the gift exchange processes, represent and renew social and societal hierarchies and networks. As is the case f()r most Polynesian languages, Tongan has two possessive categories, A- and 0-possession. 'Ihis distinction is based on an underlying semantic structure which is clearly revealed by the analysis of minimal pairs. While A-possession implies the possessor's control over the posses see ('simple control theory') or the initiation of the pos·· sessive relationship ('initial control theory'), 0-possession is used elsewhere. As the concept of'control' is closely related to 'power, rank and statuS, I have assumed that the choice of the possessive category in descriptions of kinship relations (and other personal relationships) is based on the hierarchical nature of the relation-ship between the two relatives (possessor and possessee). If the possessor is in a higher social or societal position than the possessee, they have more mana and control over the possessee and therefore A-possession is used. This consideration corresponds to 'simple control theory'. However, some cases can be explained even better by 'initial control theory: and in a few cases both control theories fail to

Chapter 9. Conclusions 24..'-1

provide an explanation. These exceptions might only be explained by a shift of the possessive category especially due to the observation that other Polynesian Ian·· guages behave differently; they use the possessive category in accordance with the control theories.1herefore single exceptions in Tongan do not disprove the whole theory. I still proceed from the assumption that cultural or cognitive structures based on the concept of 'control' determine the linguistic usage of the two pos·· sessive categories. Although the distinction between A· and 0--possessed kinship relations is obviously only partly based on 'simple control theory' and thus the relative hierarchy, the system of A-and 0-possession also reflects other social concepts. The mother, for instance, is considered as having control over the initiation of the relationship with her children in a way the father is not. Summarising, the way of dealing with, perceiving and expressing social structure, space and possession in Tonga demonstrates in various ways that language, cognition and culture influence each other. Firstly, language is a means or even a tool to express important cultural (and thus cognitive) concepts in a culture·· specific way. '!hereby a culture's 'world views' are encoded in linguistic forms/ structures.3 However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain all linguistic particularities by under!y;ng cultural concepts, as has been shown to a certain extent by the analysis of A-and 0--possession in relation with certain kinship terms. Secondly, the use of specific linguistic forms also maintains and stabilises important cultural and cognitive structures and therefore even (re)constructs culture. Consequently, language use is a tool for negotiating cultural values. Based on these results it is important and necessary to specify and analyse linguistic structures in their cultural context or as Duranti (1997:4) says to examine "language through the lenses of anthropological concern': In this way both disciplines, linguistics and social anthropology, gain a wider knowledge and under·· standing of linguistic and cultural structures and connections between language and culture.

3· Ochs (1990: 291) who has conducted research on language socialisation in Samoa states that ''the greatest part of sociocultural information is keyed implicitly, through language use': Moreover, this ethnolinguistic study on Tonga has shown that sociocultural information is not only expressed by discow-se structures but also by linguistic forms (e.g. kinship terminology).

References Aoyagi, Machiko. 1966. Kinship organisation and behaviour in a contemporary Tongan village. .Toumal of the Polynesian Society75(2): 141-176. Arbeit, Wendy. 1994. Tapa in Tonga. Honolulu HI: Palm Frond Productions. Bain, Kenneth. 1954. 11:e Official Record of the Royal Vi$it to 11mga. London: Pitkin Pictorials Limited. Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and 1heory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Barnes, Shawn & Hunt, Terry. 2005. Samoa's pre-contact connections in West Polynesia and beyond. Journal of the Polyne$ian Sociefcv 114(3): 227-266. Bataille, Marie-Claire. 1976. Le salon de !'agriculture aux lles de Tonga et sa relation avec le passe. Journal de la Socilite des Oceani$tes 32: 67-86. Bataille-Benguigui, Marie-Claire. 1994. Le cote de Ia mer. Quotidien et irnaginaire aux fles J(mga Polyne$ie occidentale [lies et archipels 19]. Bordeaux-Talence: CRET. Bauer, Winifred. 1993. .Maori. London: Routledge. Bauer, Winifred. 1997. 1he Reed Reference Grammar ofMaori. .Auckland: Reed. Bellwood, Peter. 1978. Afan's Conquest ofthe Pacific. 1he Prehistory ofSoutheast Asia and Oceania. Auckland: Collins. Bennardo, Giovanni. 1999. The conceptual content of Tongan directionals. Rongorongo Studies 9(2): 39-61. Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000a. Language and space in Tonga. 'Ihe front of the house is where the Chief sits. Anthropological Linguistics 42(4): 499-544. Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000b. .A Conceptual .Analy$i$ of Tongan Spatial Nouns. From Grammar to Mind [Languages of the World 12]. MUII.chen: Lincom. Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000c. Possessive markers in Tongan: A conceptual approach. Language Typology and Universals 53(3/4) [special issue: Possessive Markers in Central Pacific Language~: 269---280. Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000d. A conceptual approaCh to possession: Space and possessives in Tongan_ In Leo Pas~fika. Proceedings of the fourth International Cat~ference on Oceanic Linguistics. Niue, 5th--9th July 1999, 44---59. Auckland: The Institute of Polynesian Languages and Literatures. Bertram, Geoffrey & Watters, Ray. 1985. The MIRAB economy in South Pacific microstates. Pacific Viewpoint 26(3): 497--520. Besnier, Niko. 1992. Polynesian languages. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol.3, William Bright (ed.), 2·15--251. Oxford: OUP. Besnier, Niko. 1997. Sluts and superwomen_ The politics of gender liminality in urban Tonga. Ethnos62(1--2): 5--31. Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvalu an. London: Routledge. Biersack, Aletta 1982. Tongan exchange structures: Beyond descent and alliance. Journal of the Polynesian Society91: 181--212. Biggs, Bruce. 1969. Lets Learn Afaori. Wellington: Reed. Blust, Robert. 1997. Semantic change and the conceptualization of spatial relationships in Austronesian languages. In Referring to Space. Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Language$ Gunter Senft (ed.), 39-- 52. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

246 Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language Bott, Elizabeth. 198L Power and rank in the Kingdom ofTonga. Journal of the Polynesian Society 90(1): 7-81. Bott, Elizabeth. 1982. 11mgan Society at the Tirne of Captain Cook5 Visits: Discussions with her Majesty Queen Salote Tupou. Nuku'alofa: Taulua Press. Broscha1t, Jtirgen. 1994. Prapositionen im Jbnganischen. Zur Varianz rmd Invarianz des Adpositionsbegriffs[Bochum-Essener Beitrage zm Sprachwandelforschung 16]. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Broschart, Jurgen. 1995. The social perception of space. Non--spatial determinants of the use of directionals in Tongan (Polynesia). In Spatial Information Theory. A Theoretical Basis for GIS [Lecture Notes in Computer Science 988], Andrew Frank & Werner Kuhn (eds), 443--·162. Berlin: Springer. Broschart, Jurgen. 1997. Locative classifiers in Tongan. In Referring to Space. Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Language~ Gunter Senft (ed.), 287---315. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Brown, Penelope. 199·1. The INs and ONs ofTzeltallocative expressions: The semantics of static descriptions oflocation. Linguistics 32(-4/5): 743---790. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Buck, Peter (Te Rangi Hiroa). 195-4. Vikings of the Sunrise. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs. Burley, David. 1994. Settlement pattern and Tongan prehistory reconsiderations from Ha'apai. Joumal ofthePo~ynesian Society 103(4): 379---411. Campbell, Ian. 2001. Island Kingdom. Tonga Ancient and Modern. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press. Churchward, Clerk 1953. Tongan grammar. Oxford: OUP. Churchward, Clerk.1959. Dictionary Tongan··· English, English--- Tongan. Nuku'alofa: Government of Tonga Printing Press. Clark, Herbert. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, Timothy Moore (ed.), 28-64. New Yo.rk NY: Academic Press. Clark, Ross. 1981. Inside and outside Polynesian nominalizations. In Studies in Pac~fic Languages and Cultures in Honour ofBruce Biggs, Jim Hollyman & Andrew Pawley (eds), 65-81. AuCkland: Linguistic Society ofNew 7...ealand. Clark, Ross. 2000. Possessive markers in Polynesian languages. Language Typology and Universals 53(3/4) [special issue: Possessive Markers in Central Pactfic Languages]: 258-268. Collocott, Ernest Edgar Vyvyran. 1927. Kava Ceremonial in Tonga. journal of the Polynesian Socie~v 36: 21-47. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Linguistic politeness axes: Speaker-addressee, speaker-reference, speaker-bystander.Pragmatic Microfiche, 1.7, A3-B 1. Cook, Kenneth William. 2000. Possessive markers inHawaiia.n. Language Typology and Universals 53(3/4) [special issue: Possessive Markers in Central Pacific Languages]: 345-356. Crane, Ernest. 1991. Geography of the Tropical Pacific. Nuku'alofa: Taulua Press. Crowe, Donald. 1994. "Iongan symmetries. In Science of Pacific Island People, Vol.4: Education, Lang-uage, Patterns & Policy, John Morrison, Paul Geraghty & Linda Crowl (eds), 79-106. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, USP. Deektor Korn, Shulamit. 1974. Tongan kin groups: 'Ihe noble and the common view. Journal of the Polynesian Society 83( 1): 5-13. Deektor Korn, Shulamit. 1975. Household composition in the Tonga Islands: A question of options and alternatives. Journal of the Polynesian Society 31: 235--259.

References 247 Dixon,Robert.l972. TheDyirbalLanguageofNorth Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. Dixon, Robert. 1988. .A Grarnmar ofBournaa Fijian. Chicago I L: University Press of Chicago. Dixon, Robert. 1994. Brgativity. Cambridge: CUP. Douaire-Marsaudon, Fran~oise. 1996. Neither black nor white: 'Ihe father's sister in Tonga. journal of the Polynesian Society 105(2): 139-164. Douaire-Marsaudon, Fran~oise. 1997. Nourriture et richesses: Les objets ceremoniels comme signes d'identite a Tonga et a Wallis. In Le Pacifique-Sud aujourd'hui. Identites et transformations culturelles, Serge Tcherkezoti & Fran~oise Douaire.Marsaudon (eels), 261··287. Paris: CNRS Editions. Douaire-·Marsaudon, Fran~oise. 1998. Les premiers fruits. Parente, identite sexueile et pouvoirs en Polynesie occidentale (Tonga, Wailis et Futuna). Paris: CNRS fditions. Duranti, Alessandro. 1981. The Samoan Fono: .A Sociolinguistic Study [Pacific Linguistics B 80]. Canberra: School of Culture, History and Language, ANU. Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. Language in context and language as context: The Samoan respect vocabulary. In Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds), 77··99. Cambridge: CUP. Duranti, Alessandro. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic .Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. Los Angeles CA: University of California Press. Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic .Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Elbert, Samuel & Pukui., Mary Kawena. 1979. Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press. Evans, Mike. 2001. Persistence of the Gift. Tongan Tradition in Transnational Context. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Feinberg, Richard & Macpherson, Cluny. 2002. The 'Eastern Pacific: In Oceania . .An Introduction to the Cultures and Identities of Pac~fic Islanders, Andrew Strathern, Pamela J. Stewart, Lawrence L. Carucci, Lin Poyer, Richard Feinberg & Cluny McPherson (eds), 100···179. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press. Feldman, Harry. 1980. Informal kava drinking in Tonga. Journal of the Polynesian Society 89(1 ): 101-103. Ferdon, Edwin 1987. Barly Tonga. As the Explorers saw it 1616-1810. Tucson AZ: University of Ari1.ona Press. Fillmore, Charles. 1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis, .1971. Mimeo IN: University Linguistics Club. Firth, Raymond. 1985. 1ikopia-Bnglish Dictionary. Oxford: OUP. Fischer, Steven Roger. 2000. Possessive markers in Rapanui. Language Typology and Universals 53(3/4) [special issue: Possessive Markers in Central Pacific Languages]: 333-344. Foley, William. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics. r\n Introduction [Language in Society, 24]. Oxford: Blackwell. Fox, James. 2005. Ritual languages, special registers and speech decorum in Austronesian languages. In 7he Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eels), 87-109. London: Routledge. Fran~ois, Alexandre. 2004. Reconstructing the geocentric system of Proto-Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics43(1): 1-31. Frimigacci, Daniel, Keletaona, Muni, Moyse-Faurie, Clair & Vienne, Bernard (eds). 1995. Ko le fonu tu'a limulimuaiLa tortue au dos moussu: Textes de tradition orale de Futuna. Paris: Peeters.


Fukofuka, Viliami. 1994. New directions in land development policies in Tonga. In Land Issues in the Pacific, Ron Crocombe & MalamaMeleisea (eds), 145-149. Suva: :Institute of Pacific Studies, USP. Gailey. Christine. 1987. Kinship to Kingship. Gender Hierarchy and State Formation in the Tbngan Islands . .Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Gifford, Edward. 1929. Tongan Society [B.B.M. Bulletin 16]. Honolulu HI: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Godelier, Maurice. 198;press degrees of tapu? journal of the Polynesian Society 107(4): 381-393. Tongan Government (ed.). 1999. Population Cen$us 1996 .Adrninistrative Report and General Table.~ Nuku'alofa: Statistics Department. Tongan Government (ed.). 2001. Ki.1 e tohi kalama moe lea Tonga. Nuku'alofa: Government of Tonga Printing Press. Tsukamoto, Akihisa. 1988. The Language of NiuafO'ou Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University. Tupouniua, Penisimani. 1977. A Polynesian Viilage. The Proce$$ of Change. Suva: South Pacific Social Sciences Association. Tu'inukuafe, Edgar. 1992a. An Introduction to the Tongan Language. Auckland: Pacific Islanders' Educational Resource Centre. Tu'inukuafe, Edgar. 1992b. A Simplified Dictionary ofModern Tongan. Auckland: Pasifika Press. van der Grijp, Paul. 1993. Islandersofthe South. Production, Kinship and Ideology in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga. Leiden: KITLV Press. van der Grijp, Paul. 1995. Made in Tonga. Manufucture and art objects from leaves, bark and wood. In Pacific Material Culture, Sdirk Smidt, Pieter ter Keurs & Albert Trouwborst (eds), 200--218. Leiden: Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde. van der Grijp, Paul. 200·1. Identity and Development. Tongan Culture, Agriculture, and the Permniality of the G!fr.Leiden: KITLV Press. van der Grijp, Paul. 2005. Development Polynesian style: Contemporary Futunansocial economy and its cultural features. }oumai of the Polynesian Society 114(4): 311·--338. Wassmann, Jurg. 1997. Finding the right path: The route knowledge ofthe Yupno ofPapua New Guinea. In Referring to Space. Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, Gunter Senft (ed.), 143-174. Ch.ford: Clarendon Press. Whistler, VV. Arthur. 1992. Tongan Herbal Medicine. Hawaii HI: University of Hawaii Press. Whittaker, Graeme. 1982. 1he Niuean Language: An Elementary Grammar and Basic Vocabulary. Alofi: Niue Ce.ntre, USP. Whorf, Benjamin. 1956. Langr..wge, 1hought, and Reality. Selected Writtings of Benjamin Lee Wharf Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Wiemer, Hans }tirge.n. 1985. Agrarstrukt 48, 51, 62, 85, 91, 94, 181, 185, 188, 203, 212, 216, 220, 222, 224, 226; see also "Funeral (putu) •

kiiinga

F Fiji/Fijian 7f, 14, 21, 40, 55, 156f, 199, 219 Funeral (putu) 19, 28, 36, 4of, 51, 56, 69, 731f, 82, 831f, 87, 89, 93, 98f, 102, 212, 216)220

Futuna/Futunan 21, 199f, 218f, 257

28-30, :11, 34ft; 4lff, 46, 5¢, 72, 8sf, 8iff, 91, 94, 98f, 183ff, 234, 239f Political kiiinga 28, 46, 50, 57f, 62, 65, 90 kakai 183, 191, 20o·--219, 223f, .22611; .232ft; 237> 239f kava 18, 69, 79f, 90, 97i, 102, 147, .21of, .214, .22o, .227, 235, 237, 241 kava circle 19f. 38, 48, 50f, 57, 68, 69···7 4> 75, 89f, 101, 150, 210, 241 King see "tu'i (kingisovereign)" 13,

39, 44> 52, 57, 88, 90f, 97, 176, 186, 190t~ 194, 221··223, 22,if, 237, 2391f, see also "tapu" Maori 21, 166tf, 186f, 192,259 MarquesasiMa.rquesan 8, 21, n2C 143. 199 Marriage see "Wedding" Cross cousin marriage 36, 38i,54f, Ssf matapule 19, 47--49, 53f, 58tf, 70ff, 76, 91, 101, 152, 183, 191, 2o8f:f, 223,225 Mats 4> 18, 29, 62, 74, 79, 82---85, 87f, 90f, 102

272

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language mehekitanga (father's sister) 13, 29, 31···37, 39-43, 55f, 69, 72, 74, 86-89, 183ff, 188f, wzf, 222, .226, 231, 239

N Niue/Niuean 7f, 21, 68, 157, 193,199 Niutoua 1, .¢", 10f, 15-20, 25, 29f, 40, 47, 5of, 53f, 58, 62-68,73fl;;9,82-8),87, 90f, 94. 98,101, 103,106, 124-147> 149ft; 2.24f, 227, 2.29lf, 242, 2531f nopele 19, 46-47, 48f, 51, 52f, 55. 58-··62, 65, 70ff, 75. 77> 86f, 90, 98f, 183, 190f, 200,206, 224, 2281f, 232, 234; see also "Chiefly titles"

p Possession 1-6, 24f, 62,77-95, 97ft; 103, 121, 155-194. 201, 219ff. 224, 237> 2411f A-tO-possession 2f, 24,103, 121f, 155···157, 158, 16of, 16:)[, 164-194. 221, 239. 2¢,257-265 Possessive markers 43, 122, 15sff, 158-164, 170f

s

tapu 4, 13, 36, 39f, 51f, 72, 74,

San1oa/Samoan 7f, 14, 21, n2f, 157, 166, 18;f~ 192, 195, 199ft; 204, 207, .218f, 222, .226, 230, 236, .241, 24:1.257 Seating/sitting order 1f, 50, 57,68-76,86,89,97ff, 147···153. 212, 220, 237. 239. 241f Social hierarchy see "Status" Societal hierar~hy see "Rank" Space 1ff, 25, 57, 68-76, 97ft; 103, 105-153> 239, 241,243 Social space see "Seating/ sitting order" Spatialframes of reference 2, 23f, 105··113, 1191f, 124··153. 242 Spatial markers 22t~ 105, 11.2, 113-124, 130-1:19, 148ft" Speech preludes .2, 50, .51-54. 68t~ 72f, 97ft; 237, 239ft" Status 2, 13.27f, 34··43· 54ff, 721f, 84-89, 97f£ 147f, 155, 18 3ff, 188, 19of, 193£ 222f, 231, 234, 239ff; see also "tu'a!'eiki dichotomy" Succession see "Inheritance"

82, 87, 89f, 98f, 151, 176, 186, 109f, 198, 221-223, 224, 231, 233, 237, 239ft" Brother-sister tapu 36, 37-39,79 Tokelau/Tokelauan 8, 21, nS, 160,166,187,257f Tuvalu/Tuvaluan 8, 21, 192, 199,257 tu'a/eiki dichotomy 34··37, 4oft; 49, ssf, 74C 84, sse 98, 102, 152, 18Jff, 188, 194. 205ft: 2 31, 239f tu'i (king/sovereign) 6, 14, 23, 30, 43-46, 47ft; 51if, 57f, 6d; 65, 67, 69·· 75. 77, 85f, s9f£ 9;if, 149, 152, 183, 190f, 19.5, 200··217, 219f. 222·· 225' .226, 228f, 2;12-234. 2 35ff, 2 391f Tu'i Tonga 13-14, 15, 44-46, 49-51, 52, 54-55. 57, 69, 73. 78, 89ft; 97, 131, 205t~ 209f, 218, 2221f

R

T

Rank 2, 6, 13f, 19, XJ, 3+ 39, 43··51, 52·· 62, 68··-?5, 8¢, 891f, 93. 9iif, 131, 147··153, 155. 186f, 190f, 19¢, 200-237, 239ft" Rapanui/Easter Island 7f, 21, 167, 186t~ 259f

Tamale t9··:w, 29, 47, sof, 53, 58, 67, 7Jff, 82, 9of, 98, 101, usf, 150, 225ff, 2291f Tapa 4, 18, 29, 62, 74f, 79, 82-85, 8 ;t~ 90f, 10.2,178

u Uvea/Uvean 21,187, 192, 199f, 218f, 258

w Wedding 19, 28f, 31, 35C 38ff, 4s:f, 51, 54lf, 62ff, 69' 71··-;6, 8Jf, 87ff, 93, 98f, 102, 180, 185, 187, 21tl, 2191f, 227

'ulwnotu'a lS-29, 39, 57f~ 65, 97, 183, 191

In the series Culture and Language Use (CUJ) the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: GIVON, T.: Ute Reierence Grammar. xxi, 429 pp. + index. Expe1ted Ja11uary 21ii1 VOLKEL, !>'venja: Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language. An ethnolinguistic study. 2010. J.:v. 2.72- pp. FLORES FARFAN, Jose Antonio and Fernando R RAMAUO (eds.): New Perspectives on Endangered Languages. Bridging gaps between sociolinguistics. documentation and language revitalization. 2010. v, 156 pp.

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language: An ethnolinguistic study

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language: An ethnolinguistic study (Culture and Language Use)

Language, Culture and Identity: An Ethnolinguistic Perspective (Advances In Sociolinguistics)

An Essay on Culture: Symbolic Structure and Social Structure

Language, Space, and Social Relationships: A Foundational Cultural Model in Polynesia (Language Culture and Cognition)

Social Structure and Emotion

Social Structure and Personality

Language and Space (Language, Speech, and Communication)

Language and Space

Ethnolinguistic Chicago: Language and Literacy in the City's Neighborhoods

Language and Power (Language in Social Life)

Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (Language Culture and Cognition)

Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds (Language Culture and Cognition)

Language and Gesture (Language Culture and Cognition)

Language and Gesture (Language Culture and Cognition)

Race, Language, and Culture

Language and Social Relations

Clause Structure and Language Change

Language: structure, processing, and disorders

Culture and Social Behavior

Language: Structure, Processing, and Disorders

Language and Social Identity

Language and social behaviour

Faufaua! An Introduction to Tongan

Readings in kinship and social structure

Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development (Language and Space)

Social Theory and Social Structure (Enlarged Edition)

Texts and Contexts: An Introduction to Literature and Language Study

Tongan grammar

Religion, Culture, and Sacred Space

Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language: An ethnolinguistic study