a work contract/program, as in (200). The classifier -ku 'path' also associates with nighttime and daylight alternations, as in (201) and (202), respectively. In these cases, it is unclear whether the path metaphor applies to the sky or the passing of time.

(195) choyoroku
*choyoro-ku*
round-CLF:*path*
'a round hole' [elicited]

(196) nuti nkowsa oni te' to 'tsekrereku
nuti n-k-owsa oni te' to 'tsekre-re-ku
1SG 1SG-VZ-village there PREP.NH ART.NH Sécure-NZ-CLF:*path*
'I live there on the Sécure river.' [T33.002]

(197) nowku'o te pkure
*n-ow-ku-'o* te *pkure*
1SG-live-CLF:*path*-ACT PREP.NH canoe
'I am in the canoe.' [elicited]

(198) aay tkutim'i tyuusamrepo, kuch... tyuchku'po
aay t-kuti-m'i ty-uusamre=po ty-uch-ku-'=po
whoa 3-be_like-CLF:setting 3-be_happy=PFV 3-exit-CLF:*path*-ACT=PFV
'Whoa, it looks like he is happy, now that he is out (of jail).' [T40.211]

(199) to año sinkuenta y sinko nuchku'po, nchoopo te pjoka Trinra nnospo.
to año 55 n-uch-ku-'=po
ART.NH year 55(Sp) 1SG-exit-CLF:*path*-ACT=PFV

n-choo=po te p-jo-ka Trinra n-nos=po
1SG-go_back=PFV PREP.NH DEM-NH.SG-PROX Trinidad 1SG-stay=PFV
'In the year 1955, I left (military service), I came back here to Trinidad and stayed.'
[T09.017]

(200) tsikurich'o to pemtone
t-si-ku=rich'o to p-emtone
3-be_much-CLF:*path*=still ART.NH 2SG-work
'Your work takes a long time' [T28.067]

(201) tuprik'o yoti
tupri-k-'o yoti
be_in-CLF:*path*-ACT night
'middle of the night' [T25.041]

(202) te las sey tyurimuirisrapo tyjarakuyrepo to sache.
te las sey ty-urimuirisra=po
PREP.NH o'clock six 3-dawn=PFV
ty-jara-ku=yre=po to sache
3-be-light-CLF:*path*=FUT=PFV ART.NH day
'At six o'clock it was not dark anymore, the day became clearer.' [T25.041]

The -muri 'group' classifier originally comes from the obligatorily prefixed noun illustrated in (203), whose possessor must consist of discrete entities. Consequently, this noun is not compatible with mass noun possessors, as demonstrated in (204). As a classifier, it is also often used to qualify a referent consisting of discrete animate entities, as in (205), but its meaning also extends to quantities in general, including that of mass entities, as in (206), and even abstract ones, as in (207). This is most notable on its use with the adjective 'chope 'big', as is the case in (206) and (207).
(203) tyarekono no namuriono
*ty-are-ko-no* no *na-muri-ono*
3-resume-ACT-PL ART.PL 3PL-*group*-PL
‘Their groups are reorganizing.’ [elicited]

(204) * tamuri to une, * tamuri to wsufrichwo
*ta-muri* to *une* *ta-muri* to *w-sufrich-wo*
3NH-*group* ART.NH water 3NH-*group* ART.NH 1PL-suffer-MID
Intended meaning: ‘a lot of water, a lot of suffering’

(205) pnokro 'chañono te mpeno 'chopemuriono
*p-no-kro* 'chañ-ono *te* *m-peno* 'chope-*muri*-ono
DEM-PL-POT.LOC person-PL PREP.NH 1SG-house big-CLF:*group*-PL
‘The people in my house are numerous.’ [T19.007]

(206) tmopuikono ene etjorich'o 'chopemuri to mopji to nakuumutko
*t-mopuiko-no* ene *et-jo=rich'o* 'chope-*muri* to *mopji*
3-collect_honey-PL and 3NH-EXIST=still big-CLF:*group* ART.NH wax

to *na-k-uumut-ko*
ART.NH 3PL-CAUS-meet-ACT
‘They were making honey and there was still much wax to gather.’ [T06.044]

(207) 'chopemuurich'o to vsufrichwo te to vitorisra
'chope-*muu*=rich'o to *v-sufrich-wo* te to *v-itori-s-ra*
big-CLF:*group*=still ART.NH 1PL-suffer-MID PREP.NH ART.NH 1PL-live-ACT-EV.NZ
‘There was much suffering in our lives.’ [T23.025]

## 4.5 Semantics and the frequency of individual classifiers

To wrap up this section on the semantics of classifiers, it is interesting to note that the semantic extension of the various sets of classifiers nicely correlates with their frequency of use in discourse. Figure 5 illustrates the frequency of use of individual classifiers in the corpus, over all morphosyntactic contexts. Frequency of use in specific morphosyntactic contexts will be examined in Chapter 5. The first remark to be made relates to the great variability in the use of various classifiers: from no occurrence at all for the -ño ~ -ñe ‘tube’ classifier in the corpus, to 251 occurrences of -na ‘human/generic’, i.e., more than a fourth of the 889 occurrences of classifiers in the corpus.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Frequency of individual classifiers within the corpus</figcaption></figure>
Four groups of classifiers can be distinguished, albeit subjectively, based on their frequency, and these correlate well with the sets identified in Section 4.3. The most frequent classifier is -na ‘human/generic’, the classifier that has been described as having a general meaning.<fnref n="43" /> A second group consists of classifiers with 40 to 100 occurrences. These mostly comprise classifiers which have been noted in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 as having wider semantics than simple shape classifiers. This group consists of the two classifiers for intangible entities, -mu'i for ‘space and time, visual experience’ and -'i ‘atmosphere, intangible’; two shape classifiers with abstract extensions, -pi ‘filiform’ and -ku ‘path’; the -ji ‘amorphous’ classifier, whose meaning has been described as not very specific; the -muri ‘group’ classifier, that extends over animates and inanimate entities; and also the shape classifier for ‘bare ground’, -pa'i that is particularly commonly used. The third group of classifiers, those with 10 to 40 occurrences, mostly consists of shape classifiers, the ‘manioc’ unique classifier -pa, and one body-part unique classifier: -miro ‘face’. Finally, the fourth group of classifiers, with fewer than ten occurrences, comprise the other five body-part unique classifiers, as well as some rare shape classifiers.

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Note that among the 211 occurrences of -na in the text corpus, 204 occur on numerals, i.e., in its generic use, and only seven in other contexts, with its ‘human’ meaning.</footnote>
5
Morphosyntactic distribution of the classifiers

The Mojeño Trinitario classifier system is a multilocus one: the same set of 32 classifiers appears in four different kinds of morphosyntactic environments: on numerals, nominals, adjectives, and verbs.<fnref n="44" /> As such, it constitutes a very typical Arawak multilocus classifier system (see Dunn & Rose to appear). Classifiers are not found on articles, interrogatives,<fnref n="45" /> nor in locative phrases and possessive constructions. Note that only on numerals are classifiers obligatory in most circumstances (see Section 5.1). Table 17 summarizes the basic information on the morphosyntactic distribution of classifiers. It also accounts for an irregularity within the multilocus system: the classifier -na ‘human/generic’ does not incorporate into active verbs, and is the default classifier used on numerals in spontaneous speech.

<table><caption>Table 17. Morphosyntactic distribution of classifiers</caption><thead><tr><th>host</th><th>optional/obligatory</th><th>comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>numerals and numeral-like morphemes</td><td>obligatory</td><td>-na generic and default classifier</td></tr><tr><td>nouns and demonstratives</td><td>optional</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>adjectives</td><td>optional</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>verbs</td><td>optional</td><td>-na not on active verbs</td></tr></tbody></table>

The four environments will be described in detail in the following subsections: numeral and numeral-like items in Section 5.1, nouns and demonstratives in Section 5.2, adjectives in 5.3, and verbs in 5.4. In each of these sections, the frequency of individual classifiers in each of the four environments in the sample of 48 texts will be summarized in a figure and discussed. The entirety of the frequency data is given in Table 18. A general analysis comparing the four environments is elaborated below.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>V</th><th>N</th><th>ADJ</th><th>NUM</th><th>total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>all</strong></td><td><strong>368</strong></td><td><strong>169</strong></td><td><strong>40</strong></td><td><strong>312</strong></td><td><strong>889</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-cho ~ -che</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>-gi ~ -gie</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>-giwu</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>-je ~ -ju'e</td><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>-ji</td><td>45</td><td>22</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>-ku</td><td>59</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>-miro</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>-mo ~ -me</td><td>17</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>-muri</td><td>13</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>62</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>-mu'i</td><td>26</td><td>26</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>-na</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>244</td><td>251</td></tr><tr><td>-no ~ -ne</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>-ño ~ -ñe</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>-omo ~ -e</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>-pa 'manioc'</td><td>1</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ For the two classifiers that have only been uttered in elicitation sessions (-ño 'tube', -pu'i 'island') as well as -ve 'pointed', the full set of loci is not attested.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ Classifiers are actually found on the interrogative oyo, but only when this has the quantitative meaning of ‘how many’. I consider this use as classification on a numeral-like quantifier (see Section 5.1).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 18. Frequency of each classifier on different parts of speech in the corpus</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>V</th><th>N</th><th>ADJ</th><th>NUM</th><th>total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-pa 'mass'</td><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>12</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pa 'needle'</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pa'i ~ -pue</td><td>33</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>44</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pe</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pewo</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>7</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pewo'u</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pi</td><td>17</td><td>28</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td><strong>46</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-pu'i</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-si</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td><strong>22</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-ugi</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-ve</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-'a</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td><strong>4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-'e</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td><strong>3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-'i 'atmo'</td><td>36</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td><strong>49</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-'i 'fruit'</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td><strong>11</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-'o</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td><strong>31</strong></td></tr><tr><td>-'ugi</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td><strong>5</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The distribution of classifiers in the four environments in discourse is given in Figure 6, again based on the sample of 48 texts. Among the occurrences of classifiers in these texts, most classifiers are found on verbs or numerals, fewer on nominals, and the fewest on adjectives.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Morphosyntactic distribution of classifiers in discourse</figcaption></figure>

Given the disparity of frequency of different parts of speech in discourse, Figure 6 is not telling on the share of potential hosts that actually take classifiers. To account for this, the number of potential
hosts has been extracted from the 48 texts, i.e., the total number of verbs, nouns, adjectives, and numerals.<fnref n="46" /> The actual number of occurring classifiers in each environment in that sample is then compared to the number of potential hosts. Results are given in Table 19.

<table><caption>Table 19. Distribution of classifiers by parts of speech of hosts</caption><thead><tr><th>parts of speech</th><th>occurring classifiers</th><th>share of all classifiers</th><th>potential hosts</th><th>share of potential hosts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>V</td><td>368</td><td>41%</td><td>6564</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>169</td><td>19%</td><td>5058</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>ADJ</td><td>40</td><td>5%</td><td>416</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>NUM</td><td>312</td><td>35%</td><td>399</td><td>78%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The results given in Table 19 give some perspective to the picture in Figure 6. Most occurrences of the classifiers are indeed found on verbs (almost half of them). However, verbs are the most frequent parts of speech in the texts among the potential classifiers host: they represent more than half of them. As a matter of fact, the share of verbs that host a classifier in the texts is actually low: about 6% of them. Classifiers on nouns, which represent almost a fifth of all classifiers in the texts, similarly attach to only a very small share of the nouns of the sample, about 3%. In contrast, classifiers on adjectives and numerals constitute respectively about 5% and 35% of all classifiers in the texts, but given that adjectives and numerals are relatively rare in the Mojeño Trinitario speech, they are actually found rather often on adjectives (10% of adjectives) and extremely often on numerals and numeral-like quantifiers (78% of numerals and numeral-like quantifiers). This last number may seem surprisingly low given the fact that classifiers are almost obligatory on numerals, but remember that numerals starting at ‘four’ are loan-words from Spanish and do not require classifiers. To sum up, most tokens of classifiers in discourse are found on verbs, but they are proportionally more frequent on numerals, when the relative frequency of different parts of speech in discourse is taken into account.

As a final general note on the frequency of classifiers on different hosts, it should be noted that there is considerable variation in the frequency of different classifiers, as evident in Figure 7, which compares the frequency of a selection of classifiers (those with more than 40 tokens in the 48-text corpus) across hosts. For this reason, in each of the four following sections, which focus on the morphosyntactic environments in which classifiers appear, the frequency of each of the 32 classifiers will be compared graphically via bar plots that order classifiers from most to least frequent.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. Distribution of a selection of classifiers on different hosts</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Note for the ‘nouns’ as potential hosts, only common nouns have been counted, excluding proper names and demonstratives. NUM covers numerals proper (including loanwords) and numeral-like quantifiers.</footnote>
## 5.1 On numerals and numeral-like items

Mojeño Trinitario numerals never occur bare. Most often they take classifiers, which can be said to be obligatory on numerals, except when certain other morphemes, described below, attach to them. This generalization holds, regardless of the function of numerals: as modifiers, as in (208); as NP heads, as in (209); as predicates, as in (210); or in the counting routine exemplified in (211).

(208) **enjo** no apinano 'chañono, 'seno ene 'jiro terono to une te to woteya
en-jo no api-na-no 'chañ(e)-ono 'seno ene 'jiro
3PL-EXI ART.PL two-CLF:GNR-PL person-PL woman and man
t-ero-no to une te to woteya
3-drink-PL ART.NH water PREP.NH ART.NH bottle
'There are two persons, a woman and a man, they are drinking water in a bottle.'
[Path.M.011]

(209) **no** sinkónano tyonono te pjo tachusi pjo kogiure
no sinkó-na-no t-yono-no te pjo ta-chusi
ART.PL five-CLF:GNR-PL 3-go-PL PREP.NH DEM.NH 3NH-ravine
pjo kogiure
DEM.NH lake
'The five people go to the ravine of the lake.' [Path.S.019]

(210) **juiti** kuatrunawokovi, viti 'senono
juiti kuatru-na-wokovi viti 'seno-no
now four-CLF:GNR-1PL 1PL woman-PL
'Now we are four women, us.' [T33.015]

(211) **pkeyre:** etona, apina, mopona
p-ke-yre: eto-na api-na mopo-na
2SG-say=FUT one-CLF:GNR two-CLF:GNR three-CLF:GNR
'[I will teach you how to speak our language], you are going to say: one, two, three.'
[T20.041]

There are two other types of morphemes that may suffix to a numeral root instead of a classifier. First, a nominal root can be compounded with the numeral, as in (212), forming a construction that is very rare in discourse but is often produced in elicitation sessions focusing on classifiers on numerals, as is the case with (213) — see Section 2.6. Second, the multiplicative -'e suffix can attach to a numeral root, adverbializing it with the meaning 'n times', as in (214). Finally, a special case where a numeral may occur bare is that of numerals borrowed from Spanish, which are used for numbers from 4 on: they usually do not take classifiers, as in (215), with some exceptions, like (210).<fnref n="47" /> Language contact has thus affected the usual distribution of classifiers on numerals.

(212) **la** ochoyoti
la ocho-yoti
o'clock eight-night
'eight in the evening' [T28.030]

(213) **apipgienu**
api-pigienu
two-neck
'two necks' [elicited]

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ The same situation has been reported for other Arawak languages, such as Yukuna (Schauer & Schauer 2000:521) and Warekena (Aikhenvald 1998:298–299).</footnote>
(214) eto'e vniko eto?

eto-'e v-ni-ko eto

one-MULT 1PL-eat-ACT NH

‘Have we eaten that once?’ [T27.069]

(215) te kuatrupuiji to ñi'añura eñi ñi 'moyo

te kuatru=pu=iji to ñi'añura eñi ñi 'moyo

SUB four=PFV=RPT ART.NH 3NH-age-POS 3M ART.3M child

‘When the boy was four years old…’ (lit. ‘When the age of the boy was four…’) [T19.128]

In addition, there are three roots that are not numerals, strictly speaking, but behave like numerals, in that they normally appear with a classifier.<fnref n="48" /> Moreover, just like numerals, they most often take the classifier -na, which is then not restricted to its ‘human’ meaning, as will be discussed below for numerals in general. The first of these numeral-like elements is the interrogative word oyo ‘where, when, how, how many’, which systematically takes classifiers when it has the quantitative meaning of ‘how many’, as in (216), and only optionally otherwise, as in (217).

(216) oynapka... ocho diapuka, ocho sache najicho to nakemtonera...

oy-na=pka ocho dia=puka ocho sache

INTER-CLF:GNR=DUB eight day=DUB eight day

na-jicho to na-k-emtone-ra

3PL-do ART.NH 3PL-VZ-work-EV.NZ

‘How many (days) could that be... maybe eight days, during eight days they do the work...’ [T21.011]

(217) nwoo'o to nimom'ikyoo'i oypuka takoyemri'i oyim'ipka

n-woo-'o to n-imo-m'i-ko=yo=o'i

1SG-want-ACT ART.NH 1SG-watch-CLF:setting-ACT=FUT=IPFV

oy=puka ta-koyem=ri'i oy-im'i=pka

how=DUB 3NH-happen=IPFV how-CLF:setting=DUB

‘I want to see how it will be, what it will look like.’ [T29.030]

The other two numeral-like entities are the quantifiers 'muiri 'all' and 'po 'other'. The root 'muiri 'all' always occurs with a classifier, as in (218), where it occurs with the classifier -muri 'group', yielding 'muiimuri 'all (the people)'.<fnref n="49" /> The root 'po 'other' also always occurs with a classifier, either the classifier -muri 'group' (often followed by the plural suffix), yielding 'pomri(ono) 'others' as in (219), or the classifier -na in its generic sense. The resulting form 'pona 'other' can be used with either human or nonhuman referents, as in (220) and (221), respectively. It can combine with plural referents, as in (222), but in practice is mostly used for singular referents in the corpus, as in (220) and (221). The numeral-like behavior of 'po may be related to its reconstructed etymon being the numeral 'one'. The cognate sets for 'one' and 'other' in Arawak languages are clearly related, and have been reconstructed as *ba and *bayina (Payne 1991:414–415).<fnref n="50" />

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ Several examples of the quantifier movera ‘many’ have been elicited with a classifier, but it is never attested with classifiers in the text corpus.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ The form 'muiimuri is the result of regular syncope, /t/ deletion, and vowel lengthening on the underlying form 'muiri-muri (Rose 2019a).</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Aikhenvald (2020) notes that in the Arawak family, the root meaning ‘one’ is also used in the meaning of ‘other’. Baure, a language closely related to Mojeño, has two cognate forms, po- ‘other’ and po-CLF-š ‘one’ (numeral), considered by Danielsen (2007:159) to be adjectives, the latter derived from the former.</footnote>
(218) 'muiimuri trinranono eno tparaakono.
'muii-muri trinran-ono eno tparaa-k-ono
all-CLF:group Trinitario-PL 3PL charge-NPOS-PL
'The persons in charge were all Trinitarios.' [T24.002]

(219) pno 'pomriono techjirikwono...
p-no 'po-mri-ono t-echji-ri-k-wo-no...
DEM-H.PL other-CLF:group-PL 3-speak-PLURACT-ACT-MID-PL
'The others discuss...' [Path.S.023]

(220) taniikworepuiji ñomuire eñi ñi 'pona 'chane
ta-nii-k=wore=pu=iji ñ-omuire eñi ñi 'po-na 'chane
3NH-eat-ACT=once_again=PFV=RPT 3M-also 3M ART.M other-CLF:GNR person
'It ate this other man too.' [T19.049]

(221) nñompo nkemtone te' to 'pona ranchogra.
n-ñom=po n-k-emtone te' to 'po-na rancho-gra
1SG-go=PFV 1SG-VZ-work PREP.NH ART.NH other-CLF:GNR ranch-DIM
'I went to work in another small ranch.' [T36.028]

(222) enjopri'i 'ponano yporapenviono,...
en-jo=pri'i 'po-na-no y-porape-nviono
3PL-EXIST=DISTR other-CLF:GNR-PL 1PL-brother-KIN.PL
'There are several other brothers' (who want to create problems).' [T32.011]

Elicitation shows that all classifiers can occur on numerals, with their usual semantics. Example 0 illustrates the numeral ‘one’ with a sample of classifiers. At the same time, the -na classifier, restricted to human referents in other morphosyntactic contexts, associates with any referent when on numerals, and not just with human referents, as exemplified in (224) to (226). Consequently, this morpheme is glossed as a ‘generic classifier’ when on numerals and numeral-like morphemes. The same referent can thus potentially be categorized either by a specific classifier or the generic one on a numeral.<fnref n="51" />

(223) a. étopi
*éto-pi*
one-CLF:fili
'one (speaking of, for example, a belt, snake, candle, thread, song, or story)'

b. étogi
*éto-gi*
one-CLF:cyl
'one (speaking of, for example, a tree).'

c. étosi
*éto-si*
one-CLF:sphere
'one (speaking of, for example, a ball)'

(224) étona
*éto-na*
one-CLF:GNR
'one (speaking of, for example, a person, knife, table, face, or ball)'

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Aikhenvald (1998:298–299) describes a similar situation in the Nazaré dialect of Warekena, where the paradigm of six numeral classifiers alternates with the generic use of the human masculine classifier.</footnote>
(225) tyjuukopo takripo etna añu, apina añu.
ty-juu-ko=po ta-ke=ripo et-na añu api-na añu
3-grow-ACT=PFV 3NH-be.so=PFV one-CLF:GNR year two-CLF:GNR year
'It grows, it is like that one year, two years.' [T21.057]

(226) to vgiekrupe mopona.
to v-giekrupe mopo-na
ART.NH 1PL-spirit three-CLF:GNR
'Our spirits (ghosts) are three.' [T30.113]

In discourse there is a strong preference for the generic classifier over any specific classifier. It stands out from the corpus study that -na is overwhelmingly the favored classifier on numerals. In the texts, it is found in 244 cases out of the 312 occurrences of classifiers on numerals and numeral-like quantifiers. Only four other classifiers are found in that environment in the text sample, as visible in Figure 8. Only one of them, -muri 'group', is found more than marginally.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8. Frequency of individual classifiers on numerals and numeral-like elements</figcaption></figure>

Figure 8 details which classifiers are found on numerals and numeral-like morphemes in the texts. The huge variety of examples with -na shows that it can be used for any type of referent, although it is not attested on the numeral-like host 'muiri 'all'. Figure 8 also shows that the only other classifier that really competes with -na CLF:GNR is -muri 'CLF:group', mostly found on the 'po 'other' root, as discussed above. In that very specific environment, -na happens to occur mainly with singular referents, and -muri only with plural ones: compare (220) with (219).

<table><caption>Table 20. Classifiers on numerals and numeral-like quantifiers</caption><thead><tr><th>classifier</th><th>gloss</th><th>number of occurrences</th><th>host</th><th>referent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-pi</td><td>CLF:fili</td><td>1</td><td>numeral</td><td>rope</td></tr><tr><td>-'i</td><td>CLF:fruit</td><td>2</td><td>numerals</td><td>oranges, bottles</td></tr><tr><td>-ji</td><td>CLF:amorph</td><td>3</td><td>'muiri 'all'</td><td>fabric, meat, forest</td></tr><tr><td>-muri</td><td>CLF:group</td><td>62</td><td>po 'other', 'muiri 'all', numerals</td><td>people, animals, artifacts, abstract concepts</td></tr><tr><td>-na</td><td>CLF:GNR</td><td>244</td><td>numerals, po 'other'</td><td>anything</td></tr></tbody></table>
The reasons for the use of classifiers other than -na on numerals in discourse are not obvious. If we focus on numerals per se, there are only three such cases in the texts and one in a description of a stimulus, presented in (227) to (230). In all four examples, the numeral is not used as a modifier adjacent to the nominal expressing the referent. In example (227), there is a placeholder after the numeral, so that the classifier is informative in the temporary delay of the head noun (here a finite verb nominalized through its position as a head noun in the noun phrase starting with the article *to*). In example (228), the numeral is used as an NP head, and the selection of a specific classifier helps tracking the antecedent of the anaphora by disambiguating the interpretation of the referent: the speaker was talking about both plants and fruits in the preceding stretch of discourse, and the classifier -i for 'sphere with protrusion' solves this ambiguity in favor of 'fruits'. In example (229), the numeral is the predicate and the classifier has a high semantic contribution, because it is used as a measure term. In example (230), the numeral seems to be used as a secondary predicate. The use of the -mo 'fabric' classifier makes it clear that the numeral refers to the result of the action described by the verb phrase, i.e., 'cutting in two pieces'. In brief, disambiguation seems to be the motivation for the rare use of a specific classifier on a numeral.

(227) trotowo to (...) tavechtikpuiji to etopi manje'e taettiti'oo'i
t-rotowo to ta-vechti-k=pu=iji eto-pi
3-succeed-MID ART.NH 3NH-detach-ACT=PFV=RPT ART.NH one-CLF:fili
manje'e ta-ettit-i'o=o'i
PH 3NH-tie-APPL=IPFV
'They managed to untie the rope.' [T06.030]

(228) wo takajnono to api'ina
wo t-a-kaj-n-ono api-'-ina
g NEG 3-IRR-share-1SG-PL ART.NH two-CLF:fruit-IRR
'And they don't give me two (fruits) when they come to Trinidad.' [T38.216]

(229) tyutekpo eto sera 'attaji, to serari'i apimri
ty-ute-k=po eto sera 'attaji to sera=ri'i api-mri
3-come-ACT=PFV 3NH silk fabric ART.NH silk=IPFV two-CLF:group
'The silk arrived, the silk was of two types.' [T25.089]

(230) ñiyustiko pñigia 'chane pjuena 'attaji apimo
ñi-yusti-ko p-ñi-gia 'chane p-ju-ena 'attaji api-mo
3M-cut-ACT DEM-M-PROX person DEM-NH.SG-DIST fabric two-CLF:fabric
'This man cuts that fabric in two.' [C&B.F.042]

## 5.2 On nominals

We have seen that nouns rarely bear classifiers. When they do, they can be used as NP heads (231), modifiers (232), or predicates (246). Morphology then attaches to these nouns bearing classifiers as with any nominal stem. This is so for both inflectional suffixes, such as the plural suffix -(o)no in (234), and TAME clitics, such as the clitic = (ri)ch(o)'o 'still' in (231). In terms of semantics, nominal stems formed with classifiers mostly denote nonhuman entities, as in (231) and (232), but some denote humans, such as (233). Note also that classifiers can be found on proper nouns (235).

(231) te to chkotemu'rich'o
te to chkote-mu'=rich'o
PREP.NH ART.NH whip-CLF:setting=still
'in the times of slavery' (lit. 'in the times of the whip') [T02.045]

(232) tyutekpo eto tkijare eto to proremo 'attaji.
ty-ute-k=po eto t-k-ijare eto to prore-mo 'attaji
3-come-ACT=PFV 3NH 3-VZ-name 3NH ART.NH flower-CLF:fabric fabric
'What is called the flowery fabric arrived.' [T25.089]
(233) 'chane'oo'iji to ñog'e
'chane-'o=o'i=ji to ñ-og'e
person-CLF:body=IPFV=RPT ART.NH 3M-body
'His body was a human body'. [T19.070]

(234) tkowsano te to 'chope smeno, ymomojono, kogiurekono
t-k-owsa-no te to 'chope smeno ymomo-j-ono
3-VZ-village-PL PREP.NH ART.NH big forest marsh-CLF:amorph-PL
kogiurek-ono
small_lake-PL
'They live in the big forest, in the marshes, in the small lakes.' [T30.056]

(235) (to piesta) Trinram'i
(to piesta) Trinra-m'i
ART.NH festival Trinidad-CLF:setting
'the festival of Trinidad (city)' [T29.071], [T25.103]

Some nominal roots never occur without a classifier. If the nominal root of this type occurs always with the *same* classifier, I do not segment them, since there is no evidence for the root as independent morpheme. In such cases, I consider the given N+CLF combination to be synchronically lexicalized, as with *úkoji* 'cloud' and *wkugi* 'tree'. If nominal roots can occur with various classifiers, resulting in nominal stems referring to entities of different kinds, I consider them to be derivations, as with the 'bee-related' nouns based on *mopo* in (236) (see Section 6.4 about the derivational function of classifiers).

(236) a. moposi
mopo-si
bee-CLF:round
'bee'

b. mopomo
mop-omo
bee-CLF:liquid
'honey'

c. mopji
mop-ji
bee-CLF:amorph
'wax'

The nominals to which classifiers can attach include demonstratives. The corpus shows several examples of the classifier -mu'i 'setting' on the adverbial demonstrative ene 'here, there, this way', as in (237); (238) is likely an example of the atmospheric classifier on an adnominal demonstrative.

(237) taa takoyemri'i to emen'iwokouri'i?
taa ta-koyem=ri'i to ene-m'i-wokow=ri'i
NH.INDET 3NH-happen=IPFV ART.NH ADV.DEM-CLF:setting-1PL=IPFV
'Why are we like that?' (lit. 'What happens that we are like that?') [T19.046]

(238) tako'e pjokni'i, to nim'ogne to nye'e 'chojriikowo pjoka nitorisra.
ta-ko'e p-jo-kni-'i to n-im-'o-gne
3NH-be_like_this DEM-NH.SG-NVIS-CLF:atmo ART.NH 1SG-watch-ACT-GNR.P.NZ
to n-ye'e 'chojriikowo p-jo-ka n-itori-s-ra
ART.NH 1SG-GPN story DEM-NH.SG-PROX 1SG-live-ACT-EV.NZ
'That's how it (i.e., life at that time) was, what I have seen, my story of my life.'
[T15.025]
Importantly, classifiers are also found on some derived nominal expressions. There are three types of nominalizing constructions in Mojeño Trinitario: (i) finite clauses used in the position of a noun, often preceded by a determiner; (ii) nonfinite nominalizations, marked by one of nine nominalizing suffixes; (iii) a rarer nominalizing construction, involving a nominalizer -rV and a classifier (see Section 2.11). In the first two types, it is either the whole clause, the verbal word or the verbal stem that is nominalized. Because classifiers are common in verbal stems (Section 5.4), classifiers may appear in these two types of nominalizations, where they behave as classifiers in verbs. Example (239) shows a verb stem including a classifier *nitta-gie* that is nominalized with the nominalizer -ru, and marked as possessed with the *na-* prefix. Example (240) shows a verb form *tijromo*, which includes a classifier and is nominalized without dedicated nominalizing morphology, but rather by virtue of occupying the head noun position following a determiner. These two nominalizing constructions also occur without classifiers.

(239) to nanittagierujono
*to* na-nitta-gie-ru-jono
ART.NH 3PL-bite-CLF:cyl-SP.PAT.NZ-PL
‘the cylinders (bones) that they had gnawed’ [T19.112]

(240) to tijromo
*to* t-ijr-omo
ART.NH 3-be_hot-CLF:liquid
‘the breakfast/dinner’ (lit. ‘the hot liquid’) [elicited]

In contrast, the contribution of classifiers is crucial to the third type of nominalizing construction. These nominalizations are marked with the semantically empty nominalizer -rV followed by a classifier, whose semantics crucially contributes to the meaning of the derived nominal stem. The basic root in such derived nominal stems can be of many types: a noun, as in (241), a verb, as in (242), an adjective, as in (243), a demonstrative, as in (244), and even the negative auxiliary, as in (245). In this construction, the classifier functions as a nominal marker. It plays an important role in facilitating the flexibility among parts of speech by indicating the nominality of the derived stem, of which it is the semantic head.

(241) eto pjuena sachere'yore
*eto* p-ju-ena sache-re-'=yore
3NH DEM-NH.SG-DIST sun-NZ-CLF:atmo=FUT
‘This is the dry season (the time of the sun).’ [T14.021]

(242) tejapuekpo te pjo sepajiimo.
*t-eja-pue-k=po* te *p-jo* *s-epaji-i-mo*
3-sit-CLF:ground-ACT=PFV PREP.NH DEM-NH.SG 3F-lie_down-NZ-CLF:fabric
‘She sits on the blanket.’ [Path.C.074]

(243) je'e, titowopo pjoka 'chosioropi, rusrupaya.
*je'e* *t-ito-wo=po* *p-jo-ka* 'chosi-o-ro-*pi* *rusrupaya*
VALD 3-finish-MID=PFV DEM-NH.SG-PROX old-?-NZ-CLF:fili thank-you
‘All right, the old story is over, thank you.’ [T39.011]

(244) nawoo'oo'i to napuegne'a pjokniripii'i
*na-woo-'o=o'i* to *na-puegne'-a* *p-jo-kni-ri-*pi*=i'i
3PL-want-ACT=IPFV ART.NH 3PL-follow-IRR DEM-NH.SG-NVIS-NZ-CLF:fili=IPFV
‘They want to follow this topic (of the elections).’ [T29.076]

(245) te wo'iripi
*te* wo'i-ri-*pi*
PREP.NH NEG-NZ-CLF:fili
‘about negation’ (Ibáñez Noza et al. 2007:216)
Two morphonological observations can be made regarding classifiers in this third type of nominal-
izing construction. First, the -rV suffix harmonizes with the preceding underlying vowel, as visible by
comparing its surface form in the different examples. Second, because of syncope and consonant se-
quence repair (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4), the -rV suffix sometimes surfaces as vowel lengthening only,
as in (242) and (246). Another interesting point is that the classifier -pi 'filiform' is particularly fre-
quently used in this construction. It then often categorizes abstract entities related to speech and cogni-
tion, as well as events, as in (247). In example (245), the classifier -pi is used with a nominalizer on the
negative auxiliary to derive a noun stem for a linguistic concept, a neologism found in the bilingual
grammar by Ibañez Noza et al. (2007:216).

(246) eti wosareenano
eti wosare-e-na-no
2PL village-NZ-CLF:H-PL
‘You are villagers.’ [T01.009]

(247) nitkowre to v'animárapi
n-it-ko=wre to v-'animá-ra-pi
1SG-know-ACT=onceAgain ART.NH 1PL-host-NZ-CLF:fili
‘I also know how to host/facilitate (religious ceremonies)’. [T09.026]

A final example comes from another neologism for a grammatical concept from the bilingual gram-
mar by Ibáñez Noza et al. (2007:120): *juiti-mu'i* ‘present tense’. This nominal is derived from the adverb
*juiti* ‘now, today’ with the assistance of the classifier *-mu'i* ‘setting’, but without a nominalizer.

Figure 9 illustrates the frequency of different classifiers on nominals. The classifiers -pi, -mu'i and -ji are the most frequent ones, probably due to the extensions yielding abstract meanings for -mu'i and -pi, and the broad meaning of -ji 'amorphous'. The classifier -pa 'manioc' is also fairly frequent, essentially due to its presence on the nominal form kuj-pa manioc-CLF:manioc for 'manioc root'. Other classifiers found on nominals are mainly shape classifiers.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. Frequency of individual classifiers on nominals</figcaption></figure>
## 5.3 On adjectives

Classifiers are regularly found on adjectives (on about a quarter of them in the text corpus), but adjectives are rarely found in discourse, so that the ADJ-CLF construction is rather rare, with only 46 examples in the text corpus.

Adjectives bearing a classifier can be used as a modifier, as in (248); an NP head, as in (249); or a predicate, as in (250). In the latter case, the classifier categorizes the subject of the adjectival predicate.

(248) su 'seno simoorokoo'i to chopegie wkugi
su 'seno s-imoo-ro-ko=o'i to chope-gie wkugi
ART.F woman 3F-watch-PLURACT-ACT=IPFV ART.NH big-CLF:cyl tree
'The woman is watching the big tree.' [Path.M.063]

(249) nanosipo nae pno 'chi'cho'ono
n-a-nosi=po na-e p-no 'chi'cho-'o-ono
1SG-IRR-stay=PFV 3PL-PREP DEM-H.PL little-CLF:body-PL
'I am going to stay with the children.' (lit. '...the ones with little bodies') [T29.015]

(250) pnokro 'chañono te mpeno 'chopemuriono
p-no-kro 'chañ-ono te m-peno 'chope-muri-ono
DEM-PL-POT.LOC person-PL PREP.NH 1SG-house big-CLF:group-PL
'The people in my house are numerous.' [T19.007]

Figure 10 shows that only a dozen classifiers appear on adjectives in the text corpus. The numbers are too small to comment on, especially since, in the corpus this study is based on, most of these classifiers appear on only one particular adjective each. I take this as mostly due to the limitations of the corpus rather than to lexical preferences, since the same ADJ-CLF combinations often occur within a given text. For example, in one text, there are six occurrences of the classifier -i 'atmospheric', which are all found on the adjectival root *mraka* 'strong', serving to characterize a strong wind. The only clear result that can be obtained from the corpus is that the root *'chope'* 'big' is the adjectival root most commonly found with a classifier, in 21 out of the 40 examples in the text corpus.<fnref n="52" /> It is exemplified in (248) and (250).

<footnote n="52">⁵² Aikhenvald (2007:488) observes that in Baniwa, another Arawak language with classifiers, “the dimension adjective *maka* ‘big, large’ occurs with a large array of form and shape classifiers, thus effectively making up for the lack of adjectives such as ‘curved’ or ‘round’ in the language”. In Mojeño Trinitario, this observation applies more strikingly to the verbal root *u* ‘be large’, which can be translated as ‘big, long, large, tall’ depending on the context (see Section 5.4). Nevertheless, note that the combination *'chope-muri'* big-CLF.group is used to render ‘numerous’.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10. Frequency of individual classifiers on adjectives</figcaption></figure>

## 5.4 In verbal stems

Among the different parts of speech, verbs are the most common hosts for classifiers in discourse, even though only a small proportion of verbs actually hosts classifiers in the corpus (see Table 19). Classifiers in verb stems can classify three different types of participants, the grammatical or semantic role of which is not specified by the structure. On intransitive verbs, classifiers can classify the S of stative or active stems, as in (251) and (252), respectively; or a peripheral participant, as in (253). On transitive verbs, they can either classify the O argument, as in (254), or a peripheral participant, as in (255). Denominal verbs can also take a classifier, as in (256). Classifiers in the verb stem can sometimes lead to a change of valency. This will be addressed in Section 6.6.

(251) a. tsisono
**t-siso-**no
3-be_black-CLF:back
'It is black (speaking, for example, of a horse, or a caiman).'

b. tsiso'o
**t-siso-**'o
3-be_black-CLF:body
'It is black (speaking, for example, of a cat, or an armadillo).'

c. tsisopa
**t-siso-**pa
3-be_black-CLF:mass
'It is black (speaking, for example, of sand, or rice hulls).'

d. tsisope
**t-siso-**pe
3-be_black-CLF:blade
'It is black (speaking, for example, of a saw).'
(252) a. tewarasko
t-ewara-s-ko
3-break-CLF:sphere-ACT
'It broke (a stone).'

b. tewara'ako
t-ewara-'a-ko
3-break-CLF:ovoid-ACT
'It broke (an egg).'

c. tewaracheko
t-ewara-che-ko
3-break-CLF:plank-ACT
'It broke (a plank, a wall).'

d. tewarapeko
t-ewara-pe-ko
3-break-CLF:blade-ACT
'It broke (the plate).'

(253) a. tejapuekompo te to 'pog'e
t-eja-pue-ko-m=po te to 'pog'e
3-sit-CLF:ground-ACT-PL=PFV PREP.NH ART.NH earth
'They sat on the ground.' [T24.100]

b. tejamereko te pjo ñiye'e estera pñi 'chane
t-eja-me-re-ko te p-jo ñi-ye'e estera
3-sit-CLF:fabric-PLURACT-ACT PREP.NH DEM.NH 3-GPN mat

p-ñi 'chane
DEM-M person
'The man sits on his mat.' [Path.S.051]

c. nejajko to tyuraji
n-eja-j-ko to tyuraji
1SG-sit-CLF:amorph-ACT ART.NH mud
'I sit in the mud.' [elicited]

(254) a. netchuchusiko
n-etchu-chu-si-ko
1SG-mince~RED-CLF:sphere-ACT
'I am mincing (an onion).'

b. netchuchujiko
n-etchu-chu-ji-ko
1SG-mince~RED-CLF:amorph-ACT
'I am chopping up (a branch).' [elicited]

(255) nessupueko te pog'e to 'saype
n-essu-pue-ko te pog'e to 'saype
1SG-rub-CLF:ground-ACT PREP.NH earth ART.NH machete
'I am cleaning the machete on the ground.' [elicited]
(256) nkiñesi
n-k-iñe-si
1SG-VZ- creature-CLF:sphere
'I have lice (on my head).' [elicited]

The absolutive basis for the association of the classifier with an NP expressing the categorized referent has for long been recognized as typical in the typological literature. Nevertheless, the categorization of peripheral participants by classifiers is supposed to be cross-linguistically rare. Aikhenvald (2000:162) states the following: “Verbal classifiers signal the presence of a surface NP. In every language this NP may be in S and in O function, that is, they operate on an ‘absolutive’ basis (Keenan 1984). In a few languages, verbal classifiers can also refer to peripheral arguments”. From that perspective, it seems important to evaluate the importance, within the Mojeño Trinitario language, of that cross-linguistically rare type of association. Table 21 shows the distribution of the function of the noun phrase associated with the classifiers occurring in the 83 verbs of the subsample of seven texts. While the O function is by far the most common, the peripheral participants represent a good share of the classified referents.

<table><caption>Table 21. Functions of NPs expressing referents categorized by classifiers in verbs</caption><thead><tr><td>function</td><td>Mojeño Trinitario</td><td>typology</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S of intransitive verbs</td><td>23%</td><td>cross-linguistically common</td></tr><tr><td>O of transitive verbs</td><td>49%</td><td>cross-linguistically common</td></tr><tr><td>peripheral participant</td><td>28%</td><td>rarely described</td></tr></tbody></table>

The peripheral participants that classifiers associate with generally express a location: the ground, as in (253); the source, as in (257); or the goal, as in (258), usually depending on the semantics of the verb. Additionally note that with the same verb and the same classifier, the interpretation of the semantic role of the participant expressed by the classifier may vary depending on the context, as exemplified with the classifier for ‘bare ground’, indicating the source of the motion event in (259), and to both the source and the goal of flying in (260).

(257) tyuchjiko su 'seno te to smeno
*ty-uch-ji-ko* su 'seno te to smeno
3-go_out-CLF:amorph ART.F woman PREP ART.NH woods
‘The woman goes out of the woods.’ [Path.M.039]

(258) ene tyompo te smeno masiopjechpo
*ene t-yom=po* te smeno ma-siop-je-ch=po
and 3-go=PFV PREP.NH forest 3M-enter-CLF:inside-ACT=PFV
‘And he went within the forest, he entered deep into it.’ [T08.011]

(259) tyoropueko
*ty-oro-pue-ko*
3-fly-CLF:ground-ACT
‘(the plane) is rising to fly’ [elicited]

(260) tyoropueko
*ty-oro-ro-pue-ko*
3-fly-RED-CLF:ground-ACT
‘it goes flying and landing’ [elicited]

Note that the functions of the participants that the classifier on verbs associate with correspond closely to the semantics of noun incorporation (presented in Section 2.9.3). The following three pairs of
examples illustrate a nominal root and a classifier on a verb, and associated with an S argument in (261) and (262); an O argument in (263) and (264); and a peripheral participant in (265) and (266).

(261) titomuig'e
**t-ito-muig'e**
3-be_bare-back
'His/her/its back is bare.' [elicited]

V-N(S)

(262) titoji
**t-ito-jī**
3-be_bare-CLF:amorph
'It is bare (e.g., a tree without fruits).' [elicited]

V-CLF(S)

(263) tvo'iriko
**t-v(e)-o'i-ri-ko**
3-take_out-fruit-PLURACT-ACT
'He collects fruits.' [elicited]

V-N(O)

(264) psamuekyore to neesa
**p-samu-e-k=yore**
2SG-feel-CLF:liquid-ACT=FUT
'You are going to taste my manioc beer.' [T35.020]

to
n-ee-sa

ART.NH
1SG-drink-HAB.P.NZ

(265) tkojmagño
**t-ko-jma-gño**
3-VZ-be_sick-ear
'S/he is sick (in the ear).' [elicited]

V-N(OBL)

(266) nkiñesi
**n-k-iñe-si**
1SG-VZ-creature-CLF:sphere
'I have lice (on the head)' [elicited]

V-CLF(OBL)

Classifiers and incorporated nouns indeed show strong similarities. They are nevertheless distin-
guishable first in that only nouns — but not classifiers — can be used as the head of a noun phrase
(Section 3.3); second, because classifiers and incorporated nouns can co-occur (Section 3.5); and third,
because their functions differ. In particular, noun incorporation in Mojeño Trinitario does not have the
'classifying function' of noun incorporation described by Mithun (1984), since, in contrast to classifiers,
incorporated nouns do not co-occur with co-referential external nouns within the same clause in Mojeño
Trinitario (see Rose & Van Linden 2022).

Now back to classifiers. It is important to note combining the very same verb root, different classi-
fiers can indicate referents expressed by noun phrases in different functions. Example (267) illustrates
this with the intransitive verb *uchu* ‘go out’: in (267a), the -si for ‘sphere’ classifies the S argument, and
in (267b), the -ku for ‘path’ classifies the source of the motion.

(267) a. tyuchsiko
**ty-uch-si-ko**
3-go_out-CLF:sphere-ACT
'He puts his face out.' [elicited]

b. tyuchku'ompo
**ty-uch-ku-ko-ono=po**
3-go_out-CLF:path-ACT-PL=PFV
'They withdrew (from a contract, a job...).' [elicited]
And conversely, the very same classifier can occur with different verb roots and be associated with NPs in different functions. Examples (268) to (270) show the classifier -e ‘liquid’ on various transitive verbs: it is in turn associated with a patientive object, a locative object, or a location that is distinct from the patientive object.

(268) psamuekyore to neesa
p-samu-e-k=yore to n-ee-sa
2SG-feel-CLF:liquid-ACT=FUT ART.NH 1SG-drink-HAB.P.NZ
‘You are going to taste my beer.’ [T35.020]

(269) vianaegia'e to kjokrereku
vi-ana-e-ko-a-'e to kjokre-re-ku
1PL-cross-CLF:liquid-ACT-IRR-? ART.NH river-NZ-CLF:L:path
‘Let’s cross the riverbed.’ [T17.014]

(270) tyoktáyeko jma mariono
**t-yoktáy-e-ko** j-ma mari-ono
3-step_on-CLF:liquid-ACT DEM-NH.PL stone-PL
‘He steps on the rocks (in the water).’ [Path.S.042]

Finally, there are some observations regarding the distribution of classifiers with verbal stems that merit discussion. First of all, some verb roots require a classifier in order to form a stem that can be used in discourse. This is the case, for instance, of *tupri* ‘be in the middle’ or *u* ‘be large’, exemplified with various classifiers in (271). In cases such as that of *u* ‘be large’, this may be due to the fact that verbal stems must be at least bisyllabic, even though a classifier is still attested on *u* ‘be large’ when it incorporates a noun, as is the case in (271d & e). A second observation concerns the classifier *-na*, which is noticeably found only on stative intransitive verbs, as in (271f) or (272). It is remarkably absent on active verbs, whether intransitive or transitive. Active verbs are morphologically very rich in Mojeño Trinitario, and constitute the environment where classifiers are specifically stem-internal suffixes. Nonetheless, *-na* is never attested in that position.<fnref n="53" /> One might think that this is a consequence of the humanity of the core participants already being marked on these verbs by the person indexes, but this is not often the case. Third-person objects are not indexed on the verb at all, and third-person subjects are marked with a set specifying gender/number only on transitive verbs, and then only if the object is also a third person (Rose 2011). This is a very noticeable and unique defective distribution for a classifier.

(271) a. **tyu'i**
**ty-u-'i**
3-be_large-CLF:fruit
'It is big (the gourd).' [elicited]

b. **tyupi**
**ty-u-pi**
3-be_large-CLF:fili
'It is long (e.g., a song).' [elicited]

c. **tyu'a**
**ty-u-'a**
3-be_large-CLF:ovoid
'It is big (the egg of the caiman)' [elicited]

<footnote n="53">⁵³ A tentative explanation for the absence of classifier -na in that position would be that the classifier -na comes from the Proto-Arawak animate/human plural *-na/*-*ni* (Aikhenvald 1999:84), whose original position in active verbs was possibly too distant from that of other sources of classifiers for it to have formed part of that paradigm. This historical hypothesis needs to be investigated further.</footnote>
d. tyupajiimama jmaka 'chane, manje'e... ene titosiwre
*ty-u-*pa-jiimama*

3-be_large-CLF:needle-beard

*j-ma-ka*

DEM-M-PROX

*'chane*

*person*

*manje'e*

*ene*

*t-ito-si=wre*

*PH*

*and*

3-be_bare-CLF:sphere=onceAgain

‘This man has a long beard, um... and he is bald.’ [T40.043]

e. tyumomu'ri'i
*ty-u-*mo-mu'=ri'i*

3-be_large-CLF:fabric-dress=IPFV

‘Their tipoy was long.’ [T25.099]

f. tyuna
*ty-u-*na*

3-be_large-CLF:H
‘S/he is big.’ [elicited]

(272) tyjopuna
*ty-jopu-na*

3-be_white-CLF:H
‘She is white.’ [T03.004]

The reduced distribution of -na 'human' is evident in Figure 11, which depicts the frequency of individual classifiers on verbs, and shows this classifier -na is among the less common classifiers on verbs. Figure 11 very clearly shows that almost all classifiers are found on verbs in the corpus, many more than are found on numerals, nominals, and adjectives. Verbs are therefore the type of host that combines with the widest range of classifiers. It combines more often with shape classifiers, and among them, more often with those that easily express peripheral participants like location, such as -ku 'path', -ji 'amorphous', -'i 'atmospheric', -pa'i ~ -pue 'ground', and -omo ~ -e 'liquid'. This can be partly explained by the fact that about a quarter of the classifiers on verbs associate with peripheral participants.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11. Frequency of individual classifiers on verbs</figcaption></figure>
# 6
Functions of the classifiers

This section aims at specifying the functions of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers, against the background of the general literature on classifiers. Descriptions of classifier systems are often very brief when it comes to this topic, because it is taken for granted that the major function of classifiers is to classify. The exploration of various functions of classifiers in individual languages is rare, and even rarer if one considers only studies grounded in a quantitative analysis of corpus data. The present section shows that the topic of the functions of classifiers is a particularly rich topic, worthy of detailed descriptions based on corpus studies.

The general literature on classifiers mentions the following functions for classifiers: agreement, individuation, reference-tracking, and building of the discourse structure (Aikhenvald 2000, inter alia). Importantly, François (1999) argues that classifiers have a ‘classifying effect’, but that categorization is not their primary function, just like gender encoding is not the main function of articles in Romance languages. I therefore call this set of suffixes “classifiers” not because categorization is their primary function, but because semantic categorization is what unites the paradigm, beyond its different morpho-syntactic loci and its multiple functions.

This section first provides arguments for why I do not consider agreement to be a function of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers in Section 6.1, and why the notion of individuation also does not seem particularly relevant in Section 6.2. I will then discuss the four functions that Mojeño Trinitario classifiers have: qualification (Section 6.3), derivation (Section 6.4), reference management and identification (Section 6.5), and finally applicativization (Section 6.6). The main finding is that the most salient functions of classifiers in Mojeño Trinitario are qualification and discourse management. Another important finding, first published in Rose (2019b), is that classifiers can be involved in valency-changes mechanisms (creating applicative constructions in Mojeño Trinitario). And a general observation is that this variety of functions operate at very different levels: qualification in semantics and discourse, derivation in morphological word-formation, reference management and identification in discourse, and valency-changes in syntax. This makes the classifiers a pervasive and multifunctional device in the different aspects of the Mojeño Trinitario grammatical system.

Before we dive into the possible functions of the Mojeño Trinitario classifiers, it is worth addressing the question of how the different functions of classifiers associate with the different environments of classifiers in multilocus classifier systems. Table 22 summarizes how, in my view, different functions of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers associate with the parts of speech of their hosts. What I label here ‘default use’ is the obligatory presence of a classifier on numerals, especially when the generic classifier -na is used. This happens when the speaker does wish to employ another morpheme on the numeral, or a classifier with a qualitative function: -na then fills the relevant position without much information weight. This use is specific to classifiers on numerals, just as the different discourse functions and the applicative function are restricted to classifiers on verbs. The qualifying function of classifiers is possible on all types of hosts, and the derivational use of classifiers has been attested on all types of hosts but numerals.

<table><caption>Table 22. Association of functions of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers with the part of speech of their host</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>numerals</th><th>nominals</th><th>adjectives</th><th>verbs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>qualification</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>default use</td><td>yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>derivation</td><td></td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>discourse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>applicative</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 23 summarizes the results of an exploration of the seven-text sample on the relative frequency of these different functions of classifiers in speech (rows of Table 23), in association with the type of
host of the classifiers (columns of Table 23). In this text sample, the most frequent function is the dis-
course function of classifiers, found on verbs (the most frequent host). Then comes the derivational use
of classifiers, mostly found on nominals (nouns and demonstratives), but also to a lesser degree on verbs
and adjectives. A third important function of classifiers is their qualifying use, mostly found on nouns,
but also on adjectives and numerals. Finally, marginal uses of classifiers are also found in this sample.
There is one case of the applicative use of classifier (on a verb), and two instances of ‘dubitative’ use of
the classifier -mu'i ‘setting’ on a demonstrative and the similarity root *kuti* ‘be like’ (see Section 4.1.10).

<table><caption>Table 23. Functions of classifiers in the seven-text sample</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>numerals</th><th>nominals</th><th>adjectives</th><th>verbs</th><th>kuti</th><th>total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>qualification</td><td>3</td><td>16</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>default</td><td>34</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>derivation</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>discourse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>76</td><td></td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>applicative</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>dubitative</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>83</td><td>1</td><td>168</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6.1 Not an agreement device

In Mojeño Trinitario, nouns are not uniquely categorized, as is typically expected in noun class systems (Grinevald & Seifart 2004). Instead, the system shows variable categorization, i.e., different classifiers provide information about different possible referents of the same noun, as in (273). Even nouns which referents are prototypical members of a category can still associate with other classifiers. For example, human referents can be associated to -na ‘human’, -’o ‘body’, -muri ‘group’, or -mo ‘fabric’ (if they are skinny). The house or different aspects of it can be classified with -si ‘sphere’, -pa’i ‘ground’, -ju’e ‘interior’ or -ku ‘path’. This observation leads to the conclusion that Mojeño Trinitario classifiers categorize particular referents, rather than nouns.

(273) a. **térepi**
**téré-pi**
**belt-CLF:fili**
‘belt (typically a leather one)’

b. **téremo**
**téré-mo**
**belt-CLF:fabric**
‘woven belt’

Because there is no automatic covariance between a controller and a target, the Mojeño Trinitario classifier system is not an agreement system. Indeed, “the term agreement commonly refers to some systematic covariance between a semantic or formal property of one element and a formal property of another” (Steele 1978:610; cited in Corbett 1991:105). Also, agreement is supposed to be redundant rather than informative (Corbett & Fedden 2016:498). In Mojeño Trinitario, we will now see how the use of classifiers is informative: in that respect, they are more lexical than grammatical. When selecting a classifier, speakers select the characteristics of the referent that are important in the context of the utterance. Because a particular noun can refer to quite different referents, the same noun can associate with different classifiers. For example, the noun *tawo*, to which I have given the general gloss ‘branch’, can refer to a tree branch or to antlers, and it is classified differently depending on its meaning in context, as shown by the comparison of (274) and (275). As it does not systematically trigger the same classifier, agreement is not involved here. Similarly, a noun can also be categorized by different classifiers because the shape of its referent has been modified. This is shown by (276), where two different classifiers associate with tobacco: -ji ‘amorphous’ and -omo ‘liquid’. The classifier -ji in the verb indeed indicates
the tobacco leaves as they are being chewed (i.e., a small pile of leaves in the mouth of the healer). The classifier -omo on the noun indicates that tobacco is in the form of a liquid (i.e., tobacco juice that results from the chewing of the leaves). The switch in classifiers corresponds to different properties of the tobacco through time: as the leaves are chewed, they yield tobacco juice. Interestingly, this example shows that the linguistic element with which the classifier -ji associated is the root saware (tobacco), not the whole word sawariomo, because -ji could not be associated with a liquid, and semantically, the liquid could not have been chewed.

(274) ene mauriko te to tatáwogi to wkugi.
ene ma-(o)u-ri-ko te to ta-táwo-**gi** to wkugi
there 3M-be_at-PLURACT-ACT PREP.NH ART.NH 3NH-branch-**CLF:cyl** ART.NH tree
‘There he is, in the branches of the tree.’ [T18.031]

(275) wo muem'a etjoripka to tatáwoji taji'u to... to kjowo.
wo mu-em-'-a et-jo=ripka to ta-táwo-ji
NEG 3M-see-ACT-IRR 3NH-EXI=DUB ART.NH 3NH-branch-**CLF:amorph**

**ta-ji'u** to kjowo
3NH-horn ART.NH deer
‘He did not see that they might be the antlers of the deer.’ [T18.039]

(276) nescho to sawariomo, étona kchara to sawariomo to nnujre.
n-escho to sawari-omo éto-na kchara
1SG-give_drink ART.NH tobacco-**CLF:liquid** one-CLF:GNR spoon

**to** sawari-omo **to** n-nu-j-re
ART.NH tobacco-**CLF:liquid** ART.NH 1SG-chew-**CLF:amorph**-SP.PAT.NZ
‘I gave her some tobacco juice to drink, one spoon of tobacco, the one that I had chewed.’ [T12.014]

Furthermore, different classifiers can also be used to highlight different aspects of the very same referent. Classifiers therefore participate in directing the attention of the hearer towards particular properties of the referent that speakers deem important to highlight (see Section 6.3). In (277), two different classifiers categorize the same referent ‘tree’ on the same verb ‘be bare’. The addressee’s attention is directed by the -gi ‘cylindrical’ classifier towards the trunk of the tree in (277a), and by the -si ‘spherical’ classifier to its crown in (277b). Example (97) provides another illustration of a single referent being conceptualized as pertaining to different categories. In (278), the manioc flour is first categorized with -ji ‘amorphous’, indicating that it forms a dough rather than its usual powder-like texture, and later categorized with -pa ‘manioc’ (or possibly -pa ‘mass’), referring to its original plant source (or its powder-like texture).

(277) a. títogi to wkugi
t-íto-**gi** to wkugi
3-be_bare-**CLF:cyl** ART.NH tree
‘The trunk of the tree is bare.’

b. títosi to wkugi
t-íto-**si** to wkugi
3-be_bare-**CLF:sphere** ART.NH tree
‘The branches of the tree are bare.’ [elicited]
(278) te to etopo to jarínaji, manje'e... ene ssuupas'o.

<table><tr><td>te</td><td>to</td><td>eto=po</td><td>to</td><td>jarína-ji</td></tr><tr><td>PREP.NH</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>PRO3=MOT.PRES</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>flour-CLF:amorph</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>manje'e</td><td>ene</td><td>s-suu-<b>pa</b>-s-'o</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>HES</td><td>DEM</td><td>3F-toast-CLF:<b>manioc</b>-ACT-APPL</td></tr></table>

‘When there is flour dough, um... with this she toasts it.’ [T21.077]

A second argument against the analysis of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers as forming an agreement system is that classifiers are never really obligatory (Section 5.1). Table 19 above was evaluating how often classifiers are found on hosts of different parts of speech, and on none of these are they systemat-ically found. Their highest frequency of use is on numerals, where they are obligatory under certain circumstances. However, we have seen that on numerals it is essentially the generic classifier -na that is used for all types of nouns and referents, so that it is difficult to speak of agreement in absence of formal variance. Let us rather observe the use of classifiers on adjectives, a typical locus for agreement. Adjec-tives are few in the lexicon (61 adjectives / 2958 lexical roots in my lexical dataset) and not frequently used in discourse (45 adjective tokens occur in the 368 sentences of the seven-text sub-sample). In the 48-text corpus, there are 416 occurrences of adjectives, but only 40 examples of an adjective carrying a classifier. Adjectives are used as noun modifiers, predicates and NP heads in Mojeño Trinitario. As stated in Section 5.3, they can take classifiers in each of these functions. Among the 40 combinations of adjective and classifiers, 11 modify a noun, as in (279), 14 are used as an NP head referring anaphori-cally to a noun introduced previously in the discourse, as in (280), and 20 are predicative adjectives, but of these, only 13 have their subject expressed as a noun phrase, as in (281). This means that in only about half of the cases is the associated noun present in the same clause as the adjective bearing the classifier. At any rate, the important point is that most adjectives do not take a classifier, whether they function as a modifier, as in (282); a predicate, as in (283); or as an NP head, as in (284).

(279) su 'seno simoorokoo'i to chopegie wkugi

<table><tr><td>su</td><td>'seno</td><td>s-imoo-ro-ko=o'i</td><td>to</td><td>chope-gie</td><td>wkugi</td></tr><tr><td>ART.F</td><td>woman</td><td>3F-watch-PLURACT-ACT=IPFV</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>big-CLF:cyl</td><td>tree</td></tr></table>

‘The woman is watching the big tree.’ [Path.M.063]

(280) 'chopegie etjoo'i

<table><tr><td>'chope-gie</td><td>et-jo=o'i</td></tr><tr><td>big-CLF:cyl</td><td>3NH-EXIST=IPFV</td></tr></table>

‘There are some big ones.’ [talking about trees] [T21.005]

(281) 'chopemuurich'o to vsufrichwo te to vitorisra, viti, 'chaniono trinranono

<table><tr><td>'chope-muu=rich'o</td><td>to</td><td>v-sufrich-wo</td><td>te</td><td>to</td><td>v-itori-s-ra</td></tr><tr><td>big-CLF:group=still</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>1PL-suffer-MID</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>1PL-live-ACT-EV.NZ</td></tr></table>

‘It was our suffering in our lives.’ [T25.023]

(282) nnosyore te pjoka 'chope wkugi

<table><tr><td>n-nos=yore</td><td>te</td><td>p-jo-ka</td><td>'chope</td><td>wkugi</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-stay=FUT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>DEM-NH-PROX</td><td>big</td><td>tree</td></tr></table>

‘I am going to stay in this big tree.’ [T19.054]

(283) te 'chopepo une te pjoka Trinra,...

<table><tr><td>te</td><td>'chope=po une</td><td>te</td><td>p-jo-ka</td><td>Trinra</td></tr><tr><td>SUB</td><td>big=PFV</td><td>water</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>DEM-NH-PROX</td><td>Trinidad</td></tr></table>

‘When there was a big flood here in Trinidad...’ [T09.010]
(284) wich'o naema no 'chosiono.
wi=ch'o na-a-ema no 'chosi-ono
NEG=still 3PL-IRR-be_stingy ART.PL old-PL
'The people from long ago were not stingy yet.' [T27.017]

Now as far as classifiers in verbs are concerned, they may co-occur with the noun phrase encoding the referent that they categorize, as in (285), a structure that looks like agreement between the verb and one of its arguments. However, there may also be no overt noun phrase for the referent categorized by the verb classifier, as in the first clause of (286); or there may be a noun phrase but no classifier, as in (287); or both may be absent, as in the second clause of (286). The distribution of these alternatives in discourse will be discussed in Section 6.3. For now, the most important point is that core arguments are not systematically marked on the verb with classifiers, and this absence of systematicity again calls against an analysis in terms of agreement.

(285) to tagiigire, tayukjo'iko pjuena to'i
to ta-giigire, ta-yukjo-'i-ko p-ju-ena t(a)-o'i
ART.NH 3NH-arrow 3NH-pierce-CLF:fruit-ACT DEM-NH.SG-DIST 3NH-fruit
'The arrow, it pierces that fruit.' [Loc.L.030]

(286) schuno'ikpo su mayeno. tnikono
s-chuno-'i-k=po su ma-yeno. t-ni-ko-no.
3NH-boil-CLF:fruit-ACT=PFV ART.F 3M-wife 3-eat-ACT-PL
'His wife boils it (the bird). They eat it.' [T21.089]

(287) sve'o pjo kanasto
s-ve-'o p-jo kanasto
3F-take-ACT DEM-NH.SG basket
'She takes the basket.' [Path.C.024]

To conclude, because the categorization of a given noun (or even the same referent) is variable, and because classifiers are not obligatory, the classifier system of Mojeño Trinitario should not be considered an agreement system.

## 6.2 Not an individuation function

This section will discuss a function of the classifiers that is often invoked in the literature: that of individuation. The literature on classifiers in general (Contini-Morava & Kilarski 2013), and numeral classifiers in particular, generally underlines their individuating function. In languages with numeral classifiers, nouns have to be classified to be numerable or countable (Bisang 1999, Seifart 2009): "the noun refers to some kind of mass and the classifier gives a unit to this mass" (Denny 1986:298).<fnref n="54" /> Within the literature on Arawak classifiers, it is asserted at least for Kampa languages that "classifiers have a basic individuating function when used with number words" (Mihas 2019:52). For languages with a multiple classifier system, i.e., a system where the same classifiers are found on different hosts (such as the systems found in Mojeño Trinitario and in Kampa languages), it does not seem enlightening to assert that the individualization function of classifiers is at work only when those attach to numerals. It would be much simpler to advocate that numerals themselves have an individuating function. Still, this section aims at examining individuation as a potential function of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers.

In Mojeño Trinitario, it is the case that a classifier is required for a noun to be counted (with native numerals only), so that classifiers could be seen as "unitizing" the mass concept that the noun would refer to. However, note that a classifier is not required for a noun to be marked as plural, as shown in

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Bale & Coon (2014) summarize two different hypotheses aiming at explaining this. Chierchia (1998) considers that numeral classifiers are used in languages without a mass/count distinction in nouns. In these languages with mass nouns only, classifiers are required to convert kinds into atomic sets. Krifka (1995) instead considers that numeral classifiers are required only with numerals that do not incorporate a measure function. The latter theory allows differing requirements for classifiers among the numerals of a particular language.</footnote>
(288). Pluralization is an operation for which the referent needs to be conceptually unitized before being pluralized. In Mojeño Trinitario, the use of classifiers is not required for pluralization.

(288) ajochapo jma tapajono

<table><tr><td>a-joch-a=po</td><td>j-ma</td><td>tapajo-no</td></tr><tr><td>2PL-close-IRR=PFV</td><td>DEM-NH.PL</td><td>door-PL</td></tr></table>

‘Close the doors!’ [T06.113]

Moreover, in the absence of numerals, most nouns that have individual referents do not appear categorized by classifiers on other hosts, as illustrated in (289).

(289) esu tnikyore pjo apu.

<table><tr><td>esu</td><td>t-ni-k=yore</td><td>p-jo</td><td>apu</td></tr><tr><td>3F</td><td>3-eat-ACT=FUT</td><td>DEM-NH.SG</td><td>banana_sp</td></tr></table>

‘She is going to eat a banana.’ [C&B.S.064]

On the contrary, example (290) shows that a classifier can even inform on a noun whose referent is not individuated. Note that the noun *móteji* is not introduced by a determiner, precisely because it is not specific (see Section 2.8). Actually, in the seven-text sample, there are 13 such cases of classifiers (on hosts other than numerals) that associate with a noun which is not preceded by a determiner. The referent which is classified is presented as nonspecific, and still, it is categorized by a classifier. This is ample evidence against a unitization function of classifiers in Mojeño Trinitario.

(290) nyerepareko móteji

<table><tr><td>n-yere-pa-re-ko</td><td>móteji</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-carry-CLF:mass-PLURACT-ACT</td><td>earth</td></tr></table>

‘I carry earth.’ [T28.011]

In conclusion, classifiers in Mojeño Trinitario do not have an individuating function. Instead, this function is encoded in that language by the presence of determiners, i.e., articles or demonstratives (Rose 2013b).

## 6.3 Qualification

The presence of classifiers in an utterance is facultative, i.e., it depends on the choice of the speaker, except on numerals. Speakers also have flexibility in choosing among classifiers: that is, the selection of a classifier for a given noun phrase is not deterministic, as it would be if each noun strictly pertained to a specific category. Instead, the classifier selected depends on the speaker's decision to highlight a particular property of the referent, whether inherent or temporary. This is so whether the host is a noun, an adjective or a verb. Example (291) shows, for example, two different classifiers on the same nominal root, distinguishing different inherent properties of the referents. Example (276), on the other hand, shows how the very same referent can be categorized differently based on its different temporary characteristics. In other words, classifiers are used freely to qualify the nouns they associate with, in a similar way to adjectives in languages where these are frequently found in discourse.

(291) a. marisi

<table><tr><td>mari-si</td></tr><tr><td>stone-CLF:sphere</td></tr><tr><td>‘a round stone’</td></tr></table>

b. maricho

<table><tr><td>mari-cho</td><td>stone-CLF:plank</td></tr><tr><td>‘stone block’</td><td></td></tr></table>
Example (292) illustrates the qualifying use of a classifier on an adjective. The selection of the -gie
'cylindrical' classifier on the adjective 'chope 'big' modifying wkugi 'tree' may at first view seem to be
uninformative, but in fact it triggers the interpretation that the size expressed by the adjective applies to
the length of the trunk, rather than to other possible dimensions of the tree. Alternatively, the speaker
could have chosen another classifier, and then the size qualification would have applied to some other
dimension, such as the width of the trunk, as in (293). Example (294) illustrates the qualifying use of a
classifier on a verb. The selection of the -ku classifier (expressing 'inside a bounded space with parallel
sides') on the verb uch-ko 'exit' in association with the noun phrase 'the place where he was' restricts
the interpretation of this place as being a closed space where the character was 'stuck' for some time
(namely, a jail cell, in the context of this recording).

(292) su 'seno simoorokoo'i to chopegie wkugi
su 'seno s-imoo-ro-ko=o'i to chope-gie wkugi
ART.F woman 3F-watch-PLURACT-ACT=IPFV ART.NH big-CLF:cyl tree
'The woman is watching the big tree.' [Path.M.063]

(293) tnarakongierekoo'i te to 'chope'e wkugi
t-nara-ko-n=giereko=o'i te to 'chope-'e wkugi
3-rest-ACT-PL=CONT=IPFV PREP.NH ART.NH big-CLF:convex stick
'They rested on a large round trunk.' [elicited]

(294) juiti to manosjii'i jma, tkutim'i to tyuchku'ripo te to mawriko
juiti to ma-nosji=i'i j-ma t-kuti-m'i
now ART.NH 3M-stay=IPFV DEM-M 3-be_like-CLF:setting
to ty-uch-ku-'-=ripo te to ma-ow-ri-ko
ART.NH 3-exit-CLF:path-ACT=PFV PREP.NH ART.NH 3M-be_at-PLURACT-ACT
'Now he is staying, it looks like he went out of where he was.' [T40.212]

This section first focuses on the qualifying function of classifiers on nouns, and next on verbs. In the sample of seven texts, 15 classifiers on nouns were found to be used for qualification, and 20 for derivation, which will be discussed in the next section.

To distinguish the qualifying and derivational use of classifiers on nouns, I use the following criterion: if the stem composed of a nominal root plus a classifier denotes an instance of the class of referents denoted by the nominal root, we are dealing with qualification; if the stem composed of a nominal root plus a classifier denotes an entity (or type) different from that denoted by the nominal root, we are dealing with derivation of a nominal stem. The semantic features denoted by the classifier then characterize the denotation of the nominal stem by association with the meaning of the noun root. In (295a), the ‘leather belt’ is a kind of ‘belt’ among other possible kinds (see the contrast in (273)): the classifier qualifies the noun. In (295b), the ‘candle’ is not a kind of ‘fire’ with a long, thin, and flexible shape, but a long, thin and flexible entity associated with fire. The classifier derives a new nominal stem. The derivational use of classifiers is detailed in Section 6.4, and the distinction between the qualification and derivation uses of classifiers on nouns is extensively discussed in Rose and Van Linden (2022).

(295) a. **térépi** qualification
**téré-*pi***
**belt-CLF:fili**
'belt (typically a leather one)'

b. yukpi derivation
yuk-*pi*
fire-CLF:rope
'candle'
The qualifying function of classifiers is found on all classes of Mojeño Trinitario nouns, except proper nouns and vocatives. It may be found on the head noun of a phrase, or on a noun modifying another noun, as in (296). It may be noteworthy to note that classifiers are often found on borrowings, as in (297) to (299). Then the semantics of the classifier may seem to be redundant with the core meaning of the noun root. The use of a classifier may in that case be a means to "nativize" the Spanish loanword.

(296) **tyutekpo** eto tkijare eto to proremo 'attaji.

ty-ute-k=po eto t-k-ijare eto to prore-mo 'attaji
3-come-ACT=PFV 3NH 3-VZ-name 3NH ART.NH flower-CLF:fabric fabric
'What is called the flowery fabric arrived.' [T25.089]

(297) **to aramrepi**

to aramre-pi
ART.NH wire-CLF:rope
'barbed wire' (Spanish alambre)

(298) **to risagi**

to risa-gi
ART.NH alder-CLF:cyl
'aliso (tree sp.)'

(299) **ñi rokosi**

ñi roko-si
ART.M mad-CLF:sphere
'madman' (Spanish loco)

In fact, the qualifying use of classifiers on native (i.e., non-borrowed) nouns can sometimes seem relatively uninformative or even redundant, as in (300) to (302). This is interesting, because redundancy might be supposed to arise because of obligatoriness. This is clearly not the case in Mojeño Trinitario, where these qualifying classifiers are not obligatory. In some cases, they are indeed not obligatory but are strongly preferred. For example, *tsera* 'tear' has been elicited without a classifier, but is always used with the classifier *-omo* 'liquid' in the text corpus. In such cases, the use of classifier can be said to be conventionalized on some roots. Other times, classifiers encode more crucial information. In (303), for example, the preposition *te* could be construed as 'in', 'towards', 'from', etc. The classifier *-ku* 'inside a bounded space with parallel sides' specifies that the lake is the ground for the swimmers, so that the preposition must be understood as 'in'. Even in other cases, classifiers significantly help restrict the possible extension of referents. The noun *iñe* ' creature' can refer to very different kinds of undesirable creatures, as shown in (304): earth creature, well creature, stomach parasites, and lice.

(300) **to vtseramo**

to v-tsera-(o)mo
ART.NH 1PL-tear-CLF:liquid
'our tears' [T26.043]

(301) **te pjo** 'attajmo**

te pjo 'attaj-mo
PREP.NH DEM-NH fabric-CLF:fabric
'on the mat' [Loc.C.040]

(302) **to tachene'iono**

to ta-chene-'i-ono
ART.NH 3NH-breast-CLF:fruit-PL
'its udder' [T14.006]
(303) ene eto to chuyono tyutsarekonri'iji te to kogiúreku.

ene eto to chuyono tyutsarekonri'iji te to kogiúreku.
and PRO3 ART.NH chuy-ono fox-PL ty-utsare-ko-n=ri'i=ji
3-swim-ACT-PL=IPFV-RPT

te to kogiúre-ku
PREP.NH ART.NH lake-CLF:path

‘And the foxes were playing in the lake.’ [T06.009]

(304) a. taeñepa'i pog'e

ta-eñe-pa'i pog'e
3NH- creature-CLF:ground earth
‘creatures of the earth (worms, ants, …)’ [elicited]

b. taeñeku

ta-eñe-ku
3NH- creature-CLF: path
‘animal/spirit of the well’ [elicited]

c. niñeju'e

n-iñe-ju'e
1SG- creature-CLF:interior
‘I have parasites in my stomach’ [elicited]

d. niñesi

n-iñe-si
1SG- creature-CLF: sphere
‘my lice’ [elicited]

The use of classifiers on nouns is a common way to qualify a referent in Mojeño Trinitario. In the seven-text sample, there are in fact 15 classifiers qualifying a noun, and 40 tokens of adjectives, among which only 12 modify a noun. In this sample, the use of classifiers is therefore more common than the use of adjectives to qualify a noun within the same noun phrase. Mojeño Trinitario indeed displays few adjectives and these are rarely used as modifiers (see the numbers in Section 2.6). Not only are classifiers more commonly used than adjectives as a qualifying device, but adjectives and classifiers divide the semantic space of qualification in a complementary manner. Adjectives express size, age, value, emotion, while classifiers mainly encode shape, consistency, and interiority (see Chapter Classifier semantics).

I now turn to the qualifying function of classifiers on verbs. In the seven-text sample, there is no obvious example where the classifier on a verb clearly provides information about the referent of the noun it associates with that is not otherwise expressed by the noun: in the 16 cases in which an associated noun is expressed within the clause, the semantics of the classifier redundantly expresses a property of the referent of the associated noun (i.e., liquid for a river, powdery for flour, cylindrical for a bone, for instance). We will see later that classifiers on verbs most often serve a discourse management function (see Section 6.5). Nevertheless, we have already mentioned in Section 6.1 that the same noun, and even the same referent, may be categorized differently. The same referent may be tracked in discourse through different successive classifiers. Examples where a noun is first associated with one classifier and then is recategorized with another one show the use of the classifiers to re-present a referent in different manners. As already mentioned in Section 6.1, recategorization within the discourse occurs in two different circumstances: (i) when the physical properties of the referent evolve through time, as already illustrated in (276), or (ii) when the speaker adopts a different perspective on the same referent.

The next two examples illustrate the second circumstance. They show a switch in classifiers for the same referent, which is stable through time but categorized in various ways by the speaker at different points in the discourse. Consider a discourse in which the dogs of a family are the topic of the conversation during seven utterances, of which two are presented in (305). They are first introduced in (305a) with a noun phrase and the classifier -mo on the verb, where this classifier indicates that its associated
noun refers to something flat and flexible, highlighting the skinniness of the dogs. In the following sentences, the dogs are indicated either via a third-person subject marker, or with the classifier -mo 'flat flexible'. In (305b), the dogs are reclassified as a group with the group classifier -muri. Note that throughout this sequence of seven sentences, the dogs are both skinny and forming a group, but that the speaker decides to highlight different characteristics at different times.

(305) a. noma jmani paktatajono tijanemono

<table><tr><td>n-om-a</td><td>jmani</td><td>pak-tataj-ono</td><td>t-ijane-mo-no</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-take-IRR</td><td>DEM</td><td>dog-DESP-PL</td><td>3-stink-CLF:fabric-PL</td></tr></table>

‘They (the men) could take (for a hunt) these damned (skinny) dogs that stink.’

b. eto nommuu'aa'ini

<table><tr><td>eto</td><td>n(a)-om-muu-'-a=a'i=n</td></tr><tr><td>3NH</td><td>3PL-take-CLF:group-ACT-IRR=IPFV=FRUST</td></tr></table>

‘They (the men) could have taken the dogs (as a group).’ [T29.042/45]

Similarly, in example (306), two different classifiers associate with the referent ‘the woods’ in a single stretch of text. They are separated by one sentence only. In (306a), the classifier -je ‘interior’ is used, referring to the fact that the woods are seen as a container filled with some dense material: the woods are seen as a space to be cleared (by someone unseen using an axe). In (306b), the classifier -ji ‘amorphous’ is used, conveying the idea of the woods as a disorganized space, maybe highlighting the difficulty of leaving the woods (where the main character is lost).

(306) a. ñisampuijiro eto to iwoti te to ttuprijechgiene smeno

<table><tr><td>ñi-sam=pu=iji=ro</td><td>eto</td><td>to</td><td>iwoti</td></tr><tr><td>3M-listen=PFV=RPT=UNQ</td><td>3NH</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>axe</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>te</td><td>to</td><td>t-tupri-je-ch-giene</td><td>smeno</td></tr><tr><td>PREP.NH</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>3-be_middle-CLF:interior-ACT-INTENS</td><td>forest</td></tr></table>

‘He heard an axe in the middle of the woods.’ [T19.060]

b. ene to ñisamo'chirari'i eto ñiwoo'oripuiniji to tyuchjikyoori'iniji

<table><tr><td>ene</td><td>to</td><td>ñi-samo'ch-ira=ri'i</td><td>eto</td></tr><tr><td>and</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>3M-listen_distantly-EV.NZ=IPFV</td><td>3NH</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>ñi-woo-'o-=ripu=ini=ji</td></tr><tr><td>3M-want-ACT=PFV=FRUSTR=RPT</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>to</td><td>ty-uch-ji-k=yoo=ri'i=ni=ji</td></tr><tr><td>ART.NH</td><td>3-go_out-CLF:amorph-ACT=FUT=IPFV=FRUST=RPT</td></tr></table>

‘And when listening to this, he wanted to get out of the woods.’ [T19.062]

In their qualifying function, classifiers usually highlight particular characteristics of a referent. In some cases, they actually highlight a subpart of it. The classifier is then not fully congruent with the referent of a noun phrase but points more specifically to only part of the referent, as in (307) and (308).

(307) nowku'o te pkure

<table><tr><td>n-ow-ku-'o</td><td>te</td><td>pkure</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-be-CLF:path-ACT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>canoe</td></tr></table>

‘I am in a canoe’ [elicited]

(308) nsipuggio ñi 'moyo

<table><tr><td>n-sip-ug-gio</td><td>ñi</td><td>'moyo</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-wash-CLF:face-ACT</td><td>ART.M</td><td>baby</td></tr></table>

‘I wash the face of the baby.’ [elicited]
In a way similar to more typical classifiers like -pi, which highlights certain physical characteristics of a snake, for example, their being long, thin, narrow, and flexible, disregarding its temperature, texture, boundary types, possible excrescences, and arrangement, -ku focuses on the ‘inside’ part of the canoe, and -ugi zooms in on the facial part of the referent that it qualifies. The classifier -ku categorizes referents as empty volumes, typically with parallel sides (e.g., a path, house, or canoe), and a the interpretation resulting from its use is a relational locative one: it is usually translated as “the interior of”, as in (307). The presence of the classifier yields the construal of the ‘canoe’ as a hollow space, and this triggers the interpretation of the preposition as ‘in’.<fnref n="55" /> In (308), the classifier -ugi ‘face’ is also only partly coreferential with the referent of the noun phrase, in a metonymic relationship with it, within a construction that could be characterized as external possession (‘I face-wash the baby’).<fnref n="56" /> As such, the classifier expresses circumstantial information with respect to the event, i.e., a location with respect to the noun phrase (cf. ‘I wash-at-face the baby’, ‘I am in a canoe, in the interior part of it’).

To summarize, the use of classifiers is a common way to qualify a referent in Mojeño Trinitario, which is especially obvious when the classifier is on nouns, rather than on verbs.

## 6.4 Derivation

Mojeño Trinitario classifiers are also used to derive nominal stems.<fnref n="57" /> The use of a classifier to derive nominal stems from nominal roots is a common process throughout the Arawak family (Dunn & Rose to appear). This is exemplified in (309), which involves the proper noun *Trinra*, the name of a city. Classifiers may also derive nominal stems from verbal roots, as in (310), and much more rarely from other types of roots: adjectives, as in (311), demonstratives, adverbs and even the negative auxiliary in recent neologisms (see examples in Section 4.5). Arguably, they also do so on numerals, as discussed below. Sometimes, an additional nominalizer -rV (with the vowel assimilating to the preceding vowel) appears before the classifier, as in (309d) and (310d).

(309) a. to yukpi
*to* *yuk-*pi
ART.NH fire-CLF:fili
‘a candle’

b. to wray'a
*to* *wray-*'-a
ART.NH chicken-CLF:ovoid
‘a chicken egg’

c. Trinram'i
*Trinra-*m'-i
Trinidad-CLF:liquid
‘Trinidad’s festival’

d. piypéreku
*p-iypé-re-*-ku
2SG-foot-NZ-CLF:path
‘your footprint’

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Note that the verb stem *owku'o* still requires the preposition.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Payne & Barshi (1999:3) define external possession as a construction “in which a semantic possessor-possessum relation is expressed by coding the possessor as a core grammatical relation of the verb and in a constituent separate from that which contains the possessum”.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ The derivational function of classifiers has been described for long for Western Amazonian languages (Grinevald & Seifart 2004; Aikhenvald 2000) and is common in South America (Krasnoukhova 2012).</footnote>
(310) a. to tijromo
to t-ijr-omo
ART.NH 3-be_hot-CLF:liquid
'the breakfast/dinner' [elicited]

b. to ymokoji
to y-moko-ji
ART.NH 1PL-sleep-CLF:amorph
'our nest, bed' [T19.107]

c. muekorosi
mu-ekoro-si
3M-bury-CLF:sphere
'his tomb'

d. to neeresi
to n-ee-re-si
ART.NH 1SG-drink-NZ-CLF:sphere
'my glass'

(311) 'chope'e
'chope-'e
big-CLF:convex
'a drum'

Derivation is an important function of classifiers, especially on nouns. In the seven-text sample, 20 of the 35 occurrences of classifiers on nouns have a derivational function, one of the 3 examples on demonstratives, 3 of the 9 occurrences on adjectives, and 6 out of the 83 occurrences on verbs.

The use of classifiers is indeed a major device for creating new nominal lexemes from nominal roots (see Rose & Van Linden 2022 for a description of other binominal structures in Mojeño Trinitario). In a list of 90 Mojeño Trinitario items expressing 88 of the 100 complex concepts compiled by Pepper (2020:145–169), the most common “binominal structure” (following Pepper’s terminology) is the N+CLF structure: 10 of the 27 binomials involve the derivational use of a classifier.

Headedness within N+CLF nominal stems in Mojeño Trinitario is discussed in Rose and Van Linden (2022), and summarized here. In these derived nominal stems, the characteristics expressed by the classifier form the semantic head of the derived stem. The classifier is also taken to be the morphological head of classifier-derived nominal stems, as it determines the gender feature of the determiner. For instance, in example (312), the determiner is nonhuman, agreeing with the nonhuman meaning of the classifier -pa'i 'ground' rather than with the human masculine singular meaning of the root *Peru*. Note that this morphological headedness does not imply that classifiers can function as the syntactic head of NPs; in (312), the classifier -pa'i is the morphological head of the word *Perupa'i*, but it is the complex word form *Peru-pa'i* that is the head of the NP, not just the classifier.

(312) to Perupa'i
to Peru-pa'i
ART.NH Pedro(M)-CLF:ground
'Pedro's land' [elicited]

Interestingly, the status of the classifier as a semantic and morphological head in N+CLF words where the classifier plays a derivational role does not prevent the nominal root, which is semantically a modifier, from remaining referential. This is illustrated with (313), where the nominalization *to nnujre* '(the thing) that I chewed' modifies the nominal root *saware* 'tobacco', which is in turn the part of the classifier-derived word *sawariomo* 'tobacco juice' that functions as a modifier; note that it is not the juice that was chewed, as the juice results from the process of chewing the tobacco leaves.
(313) nescho to sawariomo, étona kchara to sawariomo to nnujre

<table><tr><td>n-escho</td><td>to</td><td>sawari-omo</td><td>éto-na</td><td>kchara</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-give_drink</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>tobacco-CLF:liquid</td><td>one-CLF:GNR</td><td>spoon</td></tr></table>

to sawari-omo to n-nu-j-re

<table><tr><td>ART.NH</td><td>tobacco-CLF:liquid</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>1SG-chew-CLF:shapeless-SP.PAT.NZ</td></tr></table>

‘I gave her some tobacco juice to drink, one spoon of tobacco, the one that I had chewed.’ [T12.014]

Finally, note that there is some uncertainty regarding what causes the nominalization when classifiers derive nominal elements from non-nominal roots: is it the presence of the classifier, or the plain fact that the word it attaches to is used as an NP head (generally preceded by a determiner)? Since adjectives and verbs may function as NP heads without classifiers in Mojeño Trinitario, as in (314) and (315), it might seem that the classifier is not crucial for nominalization in this type of construction. However, while this morphologically unmarked form of nominalization is a type of grammatical nominalization, the form of nominalization involving a classifier, illustrated in (309) to (311), is a type of lexical nominalization (i.e., the nominalization involves the derivation of a new nominal stem with different reference from the original noun). Take, for example, the word *chope-’e* ‘big-CLF:convex’ in (311), which refers to a drum, and is a case of lexical nominalization. The same wordform could also refer to someone with a big belly, in which case it would be a grammatical nominalization, with a metonymic use of the classifier. In fact, grammatical nominalizations as in (314) and (315) do not exclude the use of a classifier: example (316) is a case of grammatical nominalization involving a verb bearing a classifier.

Evidence of the different behavior of classifiers in lexical (i.e., derivational) and grammatical nominalization comes from the fact the classifiers functioning derivationally substitute for the active suffix on active verbs, as exemplified by the lexical nominalization in (310), while in unmarked grammatical nominalizations, classifiers normally appear before the active suffix, as in (316).

(314) no tkojmano

<table><tr><td>no</td><td>t-ko-jma-no</td></tr><tr><td>ART.PL</td><td>3-VZ-sickness-PL</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">‘sick people’</td></tr></table>

(315) no chosiono

<table><tr><td>no</td><td>chosi-ono</td></tr><tr><td>ART.PL</td><td>old-PL</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">‘elders’</td></tr></table>

(316) te pjo ttuprik'o pjo... yukpi

<table><tr><td>te</td><td>p-jo</td><td>t-tupri-k-’o</td><td>p-jo</td><td>yuk-pi</td></tr><tr><td>PREP.NH</td><td>DEM-NH.SG</td><td>3-be_in록middle-CLF:path-ACT</td><td>DEM-NH.SG</td><td>fire-CLF:fili</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">‘in the middle of the candle’ [Loc.S.004]</td></tr></table>

In short, I consider classifiers as having a derivational function in cases of lexical nominalizations, but not in cases of grammatical nominalizations. As a consequence, I have treated all occurrences of classifiers on numerals in the absence of a head noun as cases of grammatical nominalization. In such cases I consider the nominalization to result automatically from the simple presence of a determiner before the numeral, rather than by the use of a classifier, as in (317), where the numeral *api-na* fills the head position of the NP determined by the demonstrative *jmaro*. Note that in the dataset on the classifiers in the seven-text sample, the function of classifiers on a numeral in absence of a head noun has been labelled ‘default’, since numerals are expected to carry a classifier, whatever their syntactic position.

(317) jmarjorich'oo'i jmaro apina?

<table><tr><td>j-ma-r-jo=rich'o=o'i</td><td>j-ma-ro</td><td>api-na</td></tr><tr><td>DEM-NH.PL-MED-EXIST=still=IPFV</td><td>DEM-NH.PL-MED</td><td>two-CLF:GNR</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">‘Are there still these two?’ [T45.022]</td></tr></table>
## 6.5 Reference management and identification

This section addresses the reference management and reference identification functions of classifiers, which have only been found with verbs. Classifiers are very frequently found on verbs in discourse, even though they are not obligatory: in the seven-text sample (totaling 520 utterances), classifiers occur on verbs in 32% of utterances. Only a few of these occurrences can be analyzed as having a derivational function (see Section 6.4), and most of them do not seem to have an obvious qualifying function (see Section 6.3), where their meaning would be important in specifying characteristics of the referent. Most occurrences of classifiers on verbs actually have functions at the discourse level. These discourse functions are discussed in this section.

The discourse functions of classifiers have been discussed in the literature, but rarely investigated on the basis of a systematic corpus study. Payne (1987) asserts that “the primary function of a noun classification system may be related to discourse level participant reference”. Aikhenvald (2000) and Contini-Morava & Kilarski (2013) review how the use of non-obligatory classifiers frequently depends on the definiteness and pragmatic properties of the referent noun. Classifiers are often used anaphorically instead of a noun phrase, usually for a referent that has already been introduced and is thus backgrounded (Mithun 1986, Seifart 2005). Contini-Morava & Kilarski (2013) identify three main discourse functions: reference management, referent identification, and re-presentation of referents. Reference management relates to the establishment and maintenance of referents in discourse, thus encoding differences in the discourse status of referents. Reference identification is taken as the anaphoric or deictic use of classifiers to help identify a referent. Finally, re-presentation of referents is about the re-categorization of a referent in discourse, indicating a change of speaker perspective. This has already been discussed under qualification (Section 6.3). The present section therefore details the functions of reference management and reference identification of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers on verbs in discourse, based on a corpus study.

Let's start with reference management. Using the sample of seven texts, the referential distance (RD) and topic persistence (TP) of the noun phrase associated with classifiers on verbs has been measured, following the general methodology of Givón (1983).<fnref n="58" /> In order to facilitate comparison, the RD and TP of full noun phrases without an associated classifier on the verb were also measured.<fnref n="59" /> The RD is the number of clauses between the referring and the most recent previous overt presence of the same referent (the score of 20 is given to referents that are new). The TP is the number of clauses following the element in which the referent continues uninterruptedly as a semantic argument of the clause, whether marked overtly or not. Table 24 gives the average and median RD and TP values for three different types of referential expressions: noun phrases, classifiers alone, and combinations of the two.

<table><caption>Table 24. Referential distance and topic persistence of different referential expressions</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>average RD</th><th>median RD</th><th>average TP</th><th>median TP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>N (61)</td><td>13.23</td><td>20</td><td>0.87</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CLF+N (15)</td><td>12.2</td><td>20</td><td>1.53</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>CLF (61)</td><td>7.44</td><td>2</td><td>1.16</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

This table yields two interesting results among these three referential expressions. First, the presence of a classifier associates with higher topic persistence: if the referent is a topic, there is a greater chance that it is expressed with a classifier. Conversely, nouns that are not associated with a classifier show a lower topic persistence. These nouns usually introduce completely new participants (hence the 20 maximal RD median number), or refer to given, rather old, and non-topical participants. This shows that overt nouns without a classifier tend to be less optimal topics in Mojeño Trinitario.

Second, the presence of a nominal expression depends essentially on referential distance: if the referent is given and old, or new (the RD is high in both cases), there is a greater chance that it is expressed via a noun.

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ These measures exclude the small number of classifiers on verbs with applicative or (nominal) derivational functions.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Measures of RD and TP of full noun phrases were obtained from a subsample, in order to reach the same number (62) of full NPs as the number of CLFs without an associated noun in the regular sample. The number of tokens of N+CLF is smaller: 16.</footnote>
Classifiers on verbs may co-occur with the noun phrase whose referent they categorize. In such cases, the noun phrase is foregrounded. This can be done either to introduce a new participant or to reactivate a given but old participant. This is evident from the rather high RD for CLF+N in Table 24. Example (318) shows a classifier introducing an overt noun phrase as a new participant in the text. Example (319) shows a classifier along with an associated noun phrase within a prepositional phrase, which both indicate a referent — a river — that was first introduced ten sentences before and is presented again after a side sequence, so that there are seven sentences without any mention of the river before the sentence under scrutiny. Introducing a new participant or reactivating a given but old participant are two types of foregrounding effected by the co-occurrence of a classifier on a verb and its associated noun phrase.

(318) tappú'eko pjuena sju'e

t(a)-appú-'e-ko
3NH-swell-CLF:convex-ACT

‘Her stomach swelled.’ [T12.009]

pjuena s-ju'e
DEM 3F-stomach

(319) enepo te to kjokre te to une tewtsekwompo eto to 'uupiono.

ene=po
and=PFV

te
PREP.NH
to
ART.NH

kjokre river
PREP.NH

to
ART.NH

une
water

t-ewts-e-k-w-om=po
3-throw-CLF:liquid-ACT-MID-PL=PFV

‘And there in the river, the frogs jumped into the water.’ [T18.054]

eto
3NH

to
ART.NH

'uupi-ono
frog-PL

Note that classifiers on the verbs often occur *without* an associated noun phrase, since any noun phrase can be omitted for discourse reasons (see Mithun 1986; Payne 1987). The occurrence of a classifier without an associated noun phrase is not only common but is actually more common than its co-occurrence with an associated noun phrase in Mojeño Trinitario. Out the 76 classifiers that occur on verbs in our sample of seven texts,<fnref n="60" /> 15 occur with an associated noun phrase, and 61 without. This means that about 80% of classifiers on verbs occur without an associated noun phrase. The uses of classifiers without an associated noun phrase subsume both the so-called “anaphoric” and “absolute” use of classifiers (Grinevald & Seifart 2004), i.e., those where the co-referential noun phrase has been given but is old in the discourse, and those where it is not overt at all in the speech context. In the anaphoric use, the classifier “retains the entity in question within the arena of discourse”, like incorporated nouns do, because indeed, “incorporated nouns, not salient constituents in themselves, do not obstruct the flow of information, yet their presence is sufficient to narrow the scope of the verb” (Mithun 1986:381–382). A classifier without an associated noun phrase is used in Mojeño Trinitario for two main purposes: the anaphoric mention of a given participant, as in (320), and more rarely, the introduction of a new non-topical participant, as in (321). In the case of anaphoric mentions, the participant was present in the discourse rather recently (see the low RD in Table 24). In (320), for example, the referent is overtly expressed by a noun phrase in the preceding clause. In the case of the introduction of new non-topical participants, the participants generally have not been mentioned previously, and are not maintained in the subsequent discourse either. The classifier -mo in example (321) is the only mention of the ‘sky’ in the whole text: it is not expressed as a noun phrase, and is obviously not a topic in the text.

(320) nanokpo to muiji, noktayajikpo.

na-nok=po
to
muiji
3PL-put-ACT=PFV

n(a)-oktaya-ji-k=po
straw 3PL-step_on-CLF:amorph-

ACT=PFV

‘They put down the straw, they step on it.’ [T20.026]

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ These counts again exclude the few uses of classifiers on verbs with an applicative or a (nominal) derivative function.</footnote>
(321) **tmopkumo**
**t-mopku-mo**
3-be.dark-CLF:fabric
'It (the sky) was dark.' [T19.053]

Let's now turn to the relation between classifiers and reference identification. Since the overwhelming majority of classifiers on verbs occur without an associated noun phrase, the issue of reference identification is crucial. How can the referent of a classifier be identified, especially in the absence of an associated noun phrase?

One way in which the referent of a classifier can be retrieved is exophorically, i.e., by deictic reference to an entity present in the speech event, as in (322). In general, the politeness of Mojeño Trinitario people makes them invite guests to sit upon arrival, showing them where to sit.

(322) **vejapuegia**
**v-eja-pue-gi-a**
1PL-sit-CLF:ground-ACT-IRR
‘Let’s sit down (on the floor).’ [T24.099]

A second way by which the referent of a classifier can be identified is via inference based on the previous discourse. This includes straightforward cases of anaphora, where the classifier points back to a previous expression in the discourse with which it is coreferential. In (323), the classifier -i for a round entity with a protrusion is used in two clauses to recall the referent of a noun phrase expressed overtly in a preceding clause, *parawa-tataji* ‘the damned macaw’.

There are also cases without overt antecedents, where inferences about the referents of classifiers are based on an understanding of the circumstances conveyed by the discourse as well as background knowledge. This is the so-called “absolute” function of classifiers, in which the classifiers are linked neither syntactically nor anaphorically to a noun phrase (Grinevald & Seifart 2004:271). Payne (1987:39) puts forward the hypothesis that classifiers may be used to avoid full noun phrases, since “when a classifier occurs in any syntactic context [...], it indicates sufficient features of the referent such that a more specific head noun may not be pragmatically necessary in a given context”. In (324), for example, -ku is interpreted as indicating a path, but this referent is not rendered explicit by a noun phrase. This interpretation is obtained, however, due to combination of the topic of text, i.e., a trip through the forest, local world knowledge that a path is the most likely place for people to meet while walking through the forest, and the compatibility of a path interpretation with the meaning of the -ku classifier, i.e., an empty space between two parallel lines.

The utterance in (325) provides another example, where the classifier -mo for thin, flat, and flexible elements is found on the verb ‘be dark’, without an associated noun phrase. However, the mention of ‘night’ in the preceding sentence favors the interpretation of the classifier as refering to the sky. In some cases, the inference regarding the referent is based on metonymy, and often more specifically, meronymy, which facilitates bridging, or indirect anaphora (Seifart 2005:297). For example, in (326), the classifier -si is interpreted as referring to the ‘head’ of a participant in the discourse, even though ‘head’ is never expressed overtly in the text. It is the only spherical thing associated with this participant (a dog) that can plausibily be put in a jar. The participant is topical, but its head is not, so it is introduced with a classifier only.
(323) pjorjojno parawatataji, wcho'igia vnigia. wcho'igiaa'ini vijrokaa'ini psuro wrinko.

p-jo-r-jo-jno

parawa-tataji

w-cho-'i-gi-a

DEM-NH-MED-EXIST-again

macaw-DESP

1PL-pluck-CLF:fruit-ACT-IRR

v-ni-gi-a

w-cho-'i-gi-a=a'i=ni

1PL-eat-ACT-IRR

1PL-pluck-CLF:fruit-ACT-IRR=IPFV=FRUST

v-ijro-k-a=ri'i=ni

p-su-ro

wrinko

1PL-give-ACT-IRR=IPFV=FRUST

DEM.F.MED

foreigner

‘There again is this damned macaw, we should pluck it and eat it. If we had plucked it, we would have given it to that foreign woman (for her to eat it so that she becomes talkative).’ [T29.049/050]

(324) tkuchoku'avi

t-kucho-ku-'-a-vi

3-wait-CLF:path-ACT-IRR-1PL

‘It is waiting for us (on the path).’ [trip in the forest] [T30.052]

(325) tmopkumori'ini

t-mopku-mo=ri'i=ni

3-be-dark-CLF:fabric=IPFV=FRUST

‘It (the sky) was dark (in vain)’. [Preceding context: “It’s going to be night again”, he said: [...] [T19.053]]

(326) ene tkosiopsikwopo taye'e.

ene t-ko-siop-si-k-wo=po

ta-ye'e

and 3-CAUS-enter-sphere-MID=PFV

3NH-PREP

‘And it (a dog) put its head into it (a jar).’ [T18.015]

A third way in which the referent of a classifier can be identified involves more vague form of identification, as a nonspecific ‘kind’ of referent defined by the characteristics typically associated with the classifier, or as a prototypical member of the category expressed by the classifier. In example (327), the classifier -e ‘liquid’ is interpreted as indicating a body of water: the classifier refers to liquid, and the verb *anu* ‘cross’ is a motion verb. This first mention of the body of water is vague, however, probably because this entity only acts as a ground for the decisive actions that take place there, and possibly also because this traditional tale is supposed to be well-known. The next sentence repeats the classifier and additionally specifies the referent with an overt noun phrase ‘the lake’. Similarly, in (328), the interpretation of the classifier -ku ‘space between parallel lines’ remains vague: it is rendered in the translation only as ‘out’. The source of the motion of the participants does not really matter here, what is important is that they went out of that unidentified space and are now visible.

(327) ñikanaekpuiji to 'chope merómero

ñi-k-ana-e-k=pu=iji

to 'chope merómero

3M-CAUS-cross-CLF:liquid-ACT=PFV=RPT

ART.NH big caiman

‘He said he helped the man to cross (the body of liquid) on the great caiman.’ [T19.170]

(328) takepo tyuchku'ompo to pomriono sapgirano

takepo ty-uch-ku-'-om=po

to

po-mri-ono

sap-gira-no

after 3-go_out-CLF:path-ACT-PL=PFV

ART.NH other-CLF:group toad-DIM-PL

‘Then other toads went out (of the river, of the trunk?).’ [T11.040]

This third type of referent retrieval often arises in translation tasks involving a classifier where no associated noun phrase or context is supplied. In this kind of situation, consultants generally suggest prototypical members of the extensional category associated with classifier for any participants for which an overt noun phrase is not supplied. Nevertheless, the selection of a prototypical member of the
category (and even of a non-prototypical one) is guided by the meaning of the verb. Example (329) illustrates this with the classifier -ku, used for empty spaces bounded by parallel lines. When -ku is used with a motion verb implying a boundary crossing, entities that form spatial boundaries, like rivers and streets, are most often suggested as possible referents. When -ku is used with a motion verb implying a boundary crossing and a closed space, entities that have closed volumes with entrances are preferred, such as houses. With the verb ‘cut’, -ku is interpreted as being the empty space resulting from the cutting activity. A common Mojeño Trinitario activity involving cutting that results in an empty space is clearing a field by felling trees in a delimited space in the forest, so that -ku is in such cases is typically construed as indicating the field. With the verb ‘to wash’, the consultant used a middle form and -ku was interpreted as expressing a body-part, the vagina, a non-prototypical member of the -ku category.

(329) a. sanku'o
s-an-ku'-o
3F-cross-CLF:path-ACT
‘She is crossing a river, a street.’

b. nsiopku'o
n-siop-ku'-o
1SG-enter-CLF:path-ACT
‘I enter an empty house.’

c. naechku'po
na-ech-ku-'-po
3PL-cut-CLF:path-ACT=PFV
‘They cut down (trees into a field).’

d. nkosipku
n-ko-sip-ku
1SG-MID-wash-CLF:path
‘I wash my vagina.’ [elicited]

Finally, the following example shows how the presence of a classifier can help disambiguate between two possible referents. In the example (330), the object of the verb *jii-ko* ‘swallow’ could possibly be the corn husks, or a cricket (explicitly expressed by a noun phrase three sentences prior, and then expressed via a person index in the preceding two sentences). The classifier -si for spherical entities helps identify the referent of the object of ‘swallow’ as being the cricket, since insects are members of the extensional category associated with this classier.

(330) tyompuiji tkoojajarikri'iji to 'mu'ji ajta to ñichmoopo toj ñijiisikpuiji
t-yom=po=iji ti-ko-uuja-ja-ri-k=ri'i=ji to 'mu'ji
3-go=PFV=RPT 3-MID-scrape-RED-PLURACT=PFV=RPT ART.NH husk

ajta to ñi-ichmowo=po toj ñi-jii-si-k=pu=iji
until ART.NH 3M-meet=PFV ? 3M-swallow-CLF:sphere-ACT=PFV=RPT
‘It (the rooster) searched the corn husks, they say, until it found it and swallowed it, it says.’ [T35.062]

## 6.6 Applicativization

In Mojeño Trinitario, a classifier on the verb that associates with either an S or O argument usually has no effect on the valency of the predicate, regardless of whether an associated noun phrase is present. An intransitive stem incorporating a classifier for S remains intransitive: this intransitivity is evident in (331) by the use of a third person prefix *ti-* (see Section 2.9.1). A transitive stem incorporating a classifier
for O remains transitive: this transitivity is evident in (332) by the use of a semantically specific third person prefix, which is employed when the object is also third person (see Section 2.9.1).<fnref n="61" />

(331) tijyepa (to jarina)

**t(i)-ijye-**<u>pa</u>          (to      jarina)
3-smell-CLF:mass      ART.NH  flour
‘The flour smells good.’ (example built on [T21.078])

(332) schuno'ikpo (to po'i)

**s-chuno-'i-k=po**      (to      po'i)
3F-boil-CLF:fruit-ACT=PFV ART.NH duck
‘She boils the duck.’ (example built on [T21.089])

However, the classifiers associating with peripheral participants may, in contrast, have an applica-
tive function in Mojeño Trinitario. While Mithun (1986) describes a stage where noun incorporation is
used for case manipulation, valency-changing effects have rarely been described for classifiers (note
that Mihas (2009) describes such a case in the Kampan branch of the Arawak family). More discussion
on this surprising function of classifiers from typological and diachronic perspectives can be found in
Rose (2019b). The following sections describe applicativization via classifiers first on intransitive verbs
(6.6.1) and then on transitive verbs (6.6.2). The subsequent sections discuss the semantics (6.6.3) and
pragmatics (6.6.4) of the classifier-marked applicative construction.

**6.6.1 Applicativization in intransitive verbs**

Intransitive verbs that optionally take prepositional phrases, with various possible semantic roles, can
be applicativized through the incorporation of classifiers expressing these peripheral roles, and the pe-
ripheral participants can be expressed by noun phrases in object position. The verbs are then transitiv-
ized, as evident by the appearance of semantically specific third-person subject markers. The following
classifiers have been found to exhibit this applicativizing function: **-je** ‘interior’, **-e** ‘liquid’, **-muri**
‘group’, **-ji** ‘amorphous’, **-pi** ‘filiform’, and **-me** ‘fabric-like’.

For example, the intransitive verb *ow(o)-’o* ‘to be, to live’ normally takes a prepositional phrase to express the ground (i.e., the location), as in (333). In (334) and (335), a classifier is incorporated in the verb and categorizes the ground, which may now be expressed as an object noun phrase, without a preposition, as in (334). The verb is transitivized, as evidenced by (i) the use of a semantically specific third-person prefix when the object is third person, as in (334); and (ii) the use of a person suffix for an object that is an SAP, as in (335).

(333) to kwoyu tyow'o te to une

**to** *kwoyu* *ty-ow-'o* **te** *to une*
ART.NH horse 3-be-ACT PREP.NH ART.NH water
‘The horse is in the water.’ [elicited]

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Classifiers are compatible with overt valency changes. In the following example, a classifier expresses the figure of the motion event *siopo* ‘enter’, and this verb root is marked with both a causative prefix (to express the control and intention of the causer) and a middle suffix (to express that the causer and the causee are the very same person).</footnote>

<footnote>ene tkosiopsikwopo taye'e.</footnote>

<footnote>ene t-ko-siop-si-k-wo=po</footnote>

<footnote>and 3-CAUS-enter-CLF.sphere-ACT-MID=PFV</footnote>

<footnote>‘And it put its own head into it.’ [T18.015]</footnote>

<footnote>ta-ye'e.</footnote>

<footnote>3NH-PREP</footnote>
(334) to kwoyu toweko to une
to kwoyu t(a)-ow-e-ko to une
ART.NH horse 3NH-be-CLF:liquid-ACT ART.NH water
‘The horse is in the water.’ [elicited]

(335) tyoomuu'owkowyoo'i
ty-oo-muu-'o-wkow=yo-o'i
3-be-CLF:group-ACT-1PL=FUT=IPFV
‘He is going to be among us.’ [T29.063]

The use of a classifier for a peripheral participant on an intransitive verb root does not necessarily trigger applicativization. The verb *siopo* ‘enter’ is usually an intransitive verb followed by a prepositional phrase expressing the goal of motion, as in (336). This peripheral participant can be co-expressed with a classifier in the verb, as in (337). This verb can also incorporate a classifier for the goal of motion, thereby undergoing transitivization, with the goal subsequently being expressed as an object without a preposition, as in (338).

(336) enoporichu no wchichanoviono nomuire tsiopompo te 'to eskuela.
eno=po=richu no w-chicha-noviono n-omuire t-siopo-m=po
3PL=PFV=RESTR ART.PL 1PL-son-PL.KIN 3PL-also 3-enter-PL=PFV
te 'to eskuela
PREP.NH ART.NH school
‘There are some of our children who have also already started (lit. entered) school.’
[T31.011]

(337) nsiopueko (te) to une
n-siopu-e-ko te to une
1-enter-CLF:liquid-ACT PREP.NH ART.NH water
‘I enter (into) the water.’ [elicited]

(338) ssiopjechripo smeno
s-siop-je-ch=ripo smeno
3F-enter-CLF:interior-ACT=PFV woods
‘She has entered the woods.’ [Path.S.039]

A comparison of (337) with (338) shows that the use of a classifier for a peripheral participant on an intransitive verb root does not automatically change its valency. This is exemplified in (339) for another motion verb, *anu* ‘pass, cross’, which can also be applicativized with a classifier, as in (340).

(339) tyammuekono te pjo puente
ty-am-mue-k-ono te p-jo puente
3-pass-CLF:fabric-ACT-PL PREP.NH DEM-NH bridge
‘They pass the bridge.’ [Path.C.014]

(340) ñammeko pjo puente
ñ-am-me-ko p-jo puente
3-pass-CLF:fabric-ACT DEM-NH bridge
‘He passes the bridge.’ [Path.C.009]

## 6.6.2 Applicativization in transitive verbs

A classifier on a transitive verb can associate with a peripheral participant that can be expressed as a noun phrase in object position. This is again a case of applicativization. If the applied object is expressed as a noun phrase, the noun phrase expressing the patient of the verb is demoted. In contrast, if the applied
object is not expressed as a noun phrase, the patient of the verb does not have to be demoted. This applicative construction is attested with -je 'interior', and -me 'fabric'.

The verb *suk-cho* 'plant' is a transitive verb whose object is a patient, i.e., the things that are planted, and may take an optional prepositional phrase, normally understood as a location, as in (341a). Example (341b) shows that the same verb can incorporate a classifier that indicates a location (i.e., the place where the patient is going to be planted), and in such cases, the noun phrase expressing the location shows the behavior of an object (in particular, it is not preceded by a preposition), and the patient is demoted by omission. The transitivity of the construction is visible in the choice of the semantically specific *na-* prefix for human plural to index a third person subject.

(341) a. tamutu masukcho te to muésane.

<table><tr><td>ta-mutu</td><td>ma-suk-cho</td><td>te</td><td>to</td><td>mu-ésane</td></tr><tr><td>3NH-all</td><td>3M-plant-ACT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>3M-field</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">'He plants everything in his field' [T21.50]</td></tr></table>

b. nasukjechyore to smeno.

<table><tr><td>na-suk-je-ch=yore</td><td>to</td><td>smeno</td></tr><tr><td>3PL-plant-CLF:interior-ACT=FUT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>forest</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'They are going to plant (crops) in the forest.' [T21.023]</td></tr></table>

Consider another example, involving verb *epko-ko* 'cover', which is a transitive verb that takes as an object the thing to be covered, as in (342). A classifier can be added to the verb to indicate an instrument, i.e., the thing used for covering, as in (343), where the classifier *-me* on this verb indicates a fabric item, here understood as a tablecloth. In this example, the applied object (i.e., the peripheral participant) is not expressed as a noun phrase, and so the noun phrase *to mesa* may express the patient without being demoted.

(342) nepkoko to ñijora

<table><tr><td>n-epko-ko</td><td>to</td><td>ñi-jora</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-cover-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>3M-wound</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'I covered (put a bandage) on his wound.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>

(343) Prurensia sepkomeko to mesa.

<table><tr><td>Prurensia</td><td>s-epko-me-ko</td><td>to</td><td>mesa</td></tr><tr><td>Florencia</td><td>3F-cover-CLF:fabric-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>table</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">'Florencia covered the table with a tablecloth.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>

Just as with intransitive verbs, the use of a classifier to indicate a peripheral participant on transitive verbs does not systematically trigger an applicative construction. The manner of motion verb *etere-ko* 'jump' is a labile verb, which can function either intransitively, as in (344), or transitively, as in (345). When it takes a classifier to indicate a peripheral participant (here, the goal of motion), it can either trigger applicativization or not. In (346), a classifier categorizing the goal is incorporated in the verb and this transitivizes the verb. This is visible through the use of a semantically specific third-person subject prefix (*mu-* for 3M) and the absence of a preposition before the noun phrase. By contrast, in (347), where another classifier categorizing the goal is incorporated, applicativization is not triggered, and the verb remains intransitive, as evidenced by the goal being expressed by a prepositional phrase and the use of the third-person subject prefix *t-*.

(344) netereko te une

<table><tr><td>n-etere-ko</td><td>te</td><td>une</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-jump-ACT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>water</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'I jump into the water.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>
(345) muetereko to vanku

<table><tr><td><b><i>mu-etere-ko</i></b></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>vanku</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M-jump-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>bench</td></tr></table>

‘He jumped over the bench.’ [elicited]

(346) mueteremeko to vanku

<table><tr><td><b><i>mu-etere-me-ko</i></b></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>vanku</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M-jump-CLF:<b><i>fabric</i></b>-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>bench</td></tr></table>

‘He jumped onto the bench.’ [elicited]

(347) eñi teterepueko te pog'e

<table><tr><td><b><i>eñi t-etere-pue-ko</i></b></td><td><i>te</i></td><td><b><i>pog'e</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M 3-jump-CLF:<b><i>ground</i></b>-ACT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>earth</td></tr></table>

‘He jumped to the ground.’ [elicited]

### 6.6.3 Semantics of the classifier-marked applicative construction

The applicativization process triggered by a classifier typically promotes a peripheral argument expressing a ground or location, as in (341), but applied objects with other semantics are attested. For example, classifiers indicate an instrument in (343), a goal in (346), a source in (348), a median point in a motion event in (340), and a reason in (349).

(348) wkuchku'yoo'i te to mapeno.

<table><tr><td><b><i>w-k-uch-ku-'</i></b></td><td><i>='yo=</i></td><td><i>o'i</i></td><td><i>te</i></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>ma-peno</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>1PL-CAUS-go_out-CLF:<b><i>path</i></b>-ACT=FUT=IPFV</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>3M-house</td></tr></table>

‘We are going to take him out of this, to his house.’ [T19.093]

(349) eñi ñisemopikpo

<table><tr><td><b><i>eñi ñi-semo-pi-k=po</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M-be.angry-CLF:<b><i>fili</i></b>-ACT=PFV</td></tr></table>

‘He got mad (at these words).’ [T20.046]

It is important to note that the seven classifiers attested in the corpus to trigger applicativization are not restricted to a particular semantic role with respect to the applied object. This makes them different from typical applicative constructions, like the other applicative constructions of Mojeño Trinitario, which involve dedicated applicative morphemes that specify the semantics of their applied objects, i.e, -(i)n, which specifies benefactive applied objects; -'u, which specifies goal applied objects; and -i'o ~ -iyo, which specifies fronted arguments expressing instrumental, location, cause, or manner meanings.

(350) nwachirisno su meme

<table><tr><td><b><i>n-wachri-ri-s-no</i></b></td><td><i>su</i></td><td><b><i>meme</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>1SG-buy-PLURACT-ACT-APPL</td><td>ART.F</td><td>1SG-mother</td></tr></table>

‘I went shopping for my mother.’ [elicited]

(351) Calixta siso'ucho to 'santi to sukriono

<table><tr><td><b><i>Calixta s-iso-'u-cho</i></b></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><i>'santi</i></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>sukri-ono</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>Calixta 3F-weed-APPL-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>field</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>plant-PL</td></tr></table>

‘Calixta weeded the field for the plants.’ [elicited]

(352) pjoka kaecha nisiyo pjo nésane

<table><tr><td><b><i>pjoka kaecha n-is-iyo</i></b></td><td><i>pjo</i></td><td><b><i>n-ésane</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>DEM</td><td>shovel</td><td>1SG-weed-APPL</td></tr></table>

‘With this shovel, I weed my field.’ [elicited]

Instead, each classifier retains, in its applicative use, its categorizing semantics in terms of the physical properties of the classified referent, i.e., they still involve some ‘lexical’ meaning. They are therefore
selected depending not on the semantic role of the applied object, but rather on the physical properties of the referent of the applied object, as exemplified in (349). In this example, the classifier -pi is not selected because it specifies that the applied object is a cause, but rather because the applied object pertains to the category of entities that are thin, long, and flexible, as speech is conceived by speakers of the language.

Interestingly, the semantic interpretation of applied objects is not necessarily identical to that typical of peripheral participants for the verbs in question. There is therefore some semantic difference between applicative and non-applicative constructions. This is consistent with the fact mentioned above that the use of a classifier to indicate a peripheral participant does not necessarily trigger applicativization: that way, a particular verb can govern participants with different roles, depending on the construction used. The semantic contrast between applicative and non-applicative constructions boils down to the specificity of the semantic relationship between the noun phrase and the predicate.

In fact, prepositional phrases can be interpreted differently in Mojeño Trinitario, depending on context, as illustrated by the different possible translations of the semantically vague preposition *te*, in (353). In contrast, different classifiers restrict the possible interpretations of semantic relationship between the verb and the noun phrase that they categorize. Example (354) shows the same verb as in (353), this time incorporating a classifier for a noun phrase that is promoted to the object position, as evidenced by the fact that it is not introduced by a preposition. Similarly, we can see that the verb is transitivized, as evidenced morphologically by the semantically specific third-person prefix for the subject. In this case, applicativization by the classifier restricts the possible interpretation of the applied object as a ground or location, in contrast to the vaguer semantics of the corresponding prepositional phrase in (353).

(353) tjunopo **te** to smeno

<table><tr><td>t-junopo</td><td><strong>te</strong></td><td>to</td><td>smeno</td></tr><tr><td>3-run</td><td><strong>PREP.NH</strong></td><td>ART.NH</td><td>woods</td></tr></table>

‘S/he runs **in/to/from** the woods.’ [elicited]

(354) ñijumpojecho to smeno

<table><tr><td>ñi-jumpo-je-cho</td><td>to</td><td>smeno</td></tr><tr><td>3M-run-CLF:interior-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>woods</td></tr></table>

‘S/he runs **inside** the woods.’ [elicited]

Narrowing the semantic role of a peripheral participant categorized by a classifier is also evident in the following examples, which involve *etere-ko* ‘jump’, a labile verb. In its intransitive use, an oblique noun phrase is interpreted as either the goal, as in (355), or as the source of the motion, as in (356), while in its transitive, the object is a theme, corresponding to the boundary that is passed over by jumping, as exemplified in (357). A classifier categorizing the peripheral participant can be incorporated into this verb, either triggering applicativization, as in (359), or not, as in (358). In both cases, the classifier associates with a noun phrase that is interpreted as having the role of a peripheral participant, the goal of motion. In (359), applicativization allows a peripheral participant to be presented as a central element of the event, instead of merely as a boundary to be crossed (see next section for the pragmatic effect of this type of promotion).

(355) netereko te une

<table><tr><td>n-etere-ko</td><td>te</td><td>une</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-jump-ACT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>water</td></tr></table>

‘I jump into the water.’ [elicited]

(356) ema teterekpo taye'e

<table><tr><td>ema</td><td>t-etere-k=po</td><td>ta-ye'e</td></tr><tr><td>3M</td><td>3-jump-ACT=PFV</td><td>3NH-PREP</td></tr></table>

‘He jumped from there’ [T18.040]
(357) muetereko to vanku

<table><tr><td><b><i>mu-etere-ko</i></b></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>vanku</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M-jump-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>bench</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'He jumped over the bench.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>

(358) eñi teterepueko te pog'e

<table><tr><td>eñi</td><td><b><i>t-etere-pue-ko</i></b></td><td><i>te</i></td><td><b><i>pog'e</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M</td><td>3-jump-CLF:<b><i>ground</i></b>-ACT</td><td>PREP.NH</td><td>earth</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">'He jumped to the ground.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>

(359) mueteremeko to vanku

<table><tr><td><b><i>mu-etere-me-ko</i></b></td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>vanku</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M-jump-CLF:<b><i>fabric</i></b>-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>bench</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'He jumped onto the bench.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>

Importantly, it is not the case that a given classifier regularly associates the same semantic role to an applied object, regardless of the verb root. For example, the classifier -je construes the entities that it categorizes as closed containers (its prototype being a stomach). When found in its applicative use on the intransitive verbs junopo 'run' in (360) and siopo 'enter' in (361), it associates with a noun phrase that is interpreted differently in the two examples: as a location in (360), and an 'allative' in (361).

(360) ñijumpojecho to smeno

<table><tr><td>ñi-jumpo-je-cho</td><td><i>to</i></td><td><b><i>smeno</i></b></td></tr><tr><td>3M-run-CLF:<b><i>interior</i></b>-ACT</td><td>ART.NH</td><td>woods</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'S/he runs <b>inside</b> the woods.' [elicited]</td></tr></table>

(361) ssiopjechripo smeno

<table><tr><td><b><i>s-siop-je-ch=ripo</i></b></td><td><i>smeno</i></td></tr><tr><td>3F-enter-CLF:<b><i>interior</i></b>-ACT=PFV</td><td>woods</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">'She entered the woods.' [Path.S.039]</td></tr></table>

The meaning of the verb root therefore plays a role in the interpretation of the semantic role of the applied object in the classifier-marked applicative construction. For instance, classifiers associate with a cause in the case of 'be angry', as in (349); with an instrument in the case of 'over' (343); with a goal in the case of 'enter', as in (361); with a source in the case of 'go out', as in (348); and with a median point in the case of 'cross', as in (340). The semantic roles associated with the applied object are thus ones that are highly salient in the conceptualization of the event. In other cases, the applied object is probably interpreted by default as a location, as in (354) and (341).

The semantic contribution of the classifier used as an applicative marker partly explains the selection of this construction. The pragmatic effect of the construction is another explanation, as discussed in the next section. Note that the semantic effect of the classifier in the classifier-marked applicative construction parallels the more general use of classifiers, since they are often used to narrow down the possible interpretations of the structure they fit in.

### 6.6.4 Pragmatics of the classifier-marked applicative construction

As is typical of optional applicative constructions, there is a pragmatic contrast between the applicative construction and its non-applicative counterpart. A typologically well-known discourse effect of applicatives is that applied objects are construed as central participants in the event conceptually associated with the verb. Applied objects thus exhibit a more prominent discourse status than when their referents are expressed as obliques.

One consultant described non-applicative constructions as 'plain descriptions', while their applicative counterparts with an associated noun phrase are described as 'putting an emphasis on the location'. In the case of example (362), for example, the consultant said that the location is presented as worthy of attention: there is an emphasis on the location, be it that the horse went in the water voluntarily or that
someone forced it into it. In contrast, the location is not perceived as particularly remarkable in (363). Similarly, in (364), the person is interpreted as sitting in the mud willingly — for example, due to an absence of another place to sit — while in (365) the person is interpreted as having sat in the mud unexpectedly. In both pairs of examples, the peripheral participant is made central, meaningful, and worthy of attention through applicativization.

(362) to kwoyu toweko to une
to kwoyu t(a)-ow-e-ko to une
ART.NH horse 3NH-be-CLF:liquid-ACT ART.NH water
‘The horse is in the water.’ [elicited]

(363) to kwoyu tyow'o te to une
to kwoyu ty-ow-'o te to une
ART.NH horse 3-be-ACT PREP.NH ART.NH water
‘The horse is in the water.’ [elicited]

(364) nejakko to tyuraji
n-eja-j-ko to tyuraji
1SG-sit-CLF:amorph-ACT ART.NH mud
‘I sit in the mud.’ [elicited]

(365) nejako te to tyuraji
n-eja-ko te to tyuraji
1SG-sit-ACT PREP.NH ART.NH mud
‘I sit in the mud.’ [elicited]

These interpretations result from two facts: first, the applied object is made “central” in the conceptualization of the event through applicativization; second, the fact that the applied object is expressed overtly and with an associated classifier, foregrounds it in discourse. Just like in their non-applicative use, classifiers with an applicative function can also occur without an associated noun phrase. In (366), for example, the classifier -pi is used anaphorically with respect to a stretch of direct speech (some insults), that has been reported immediately prior in the conversation. The use of the applicative construction makes the insults central to the event of angriness, but the absence of an overt noun phrase referring to the insulting words in the very same sentence still maintains the words in the background, by only pointing to them anaphorically.

(366) eñi ñisemopikpo
eñi ñi-semo-pi-k=po
M 3M-be.angry-CLF:fili-ACT=PFV
‘He got mad (at these words).’ [T20.046]

The discourse functions of classifiers with or without a noun phrase in applicative constructions therefore parallel those of classifiers and/or noun phrases in the basic qualifying use of classifiers, but in the applicative construction, the applied object is always presented as semantically central to the event expressed by the predicate.
# A multilocus and multifunctional classifier system among nominal categorization devices

The classification systems uncovered in Amazonian languages differ significantly from the systems of nominal categorization that were previously known, be they gender systems in European languages, numeral classifier systems in Asian languages, or noun class systems in African languages (Aikhenvald 2000; Grinevald & Seifart 2004; Krasnoukhova 2012; Seifart & Payne 2007; van der Voort 2018). For this reason, they were first seen as intriguing. They now benefit from more ample coverage, even though works that cover all the aspects of a classifier system, such as the present book, are still rare.

In this section, I do not aim to address theoretical issues associated with the Mojeño Trinitario classifier system, but rather to briefly highlight important characteristics of the Mojeño Trinitario classifier system with respect to noun categorization devices among the world's languages, and within Mojeño Trinitario itself, using a few key works from the existing literature on Amazonian classifiers as a basis of comparison.

## 7.1 A multilocus classifier system

In her monograph on classifiers, Aikhenvald (2000) devotes a chapter to what she calls “multiple classifier languages”. It starts as follows: “The same, or almost the same, set of morphemes can be used in more than one classifier environment. These morphemes may have different grammatical properties, or be more or less obligatory depending on what classifier environment they are in. We label them ‘multiple classifier’ systems” (Aikhenvald 2000:204). These are contrasted with languages in which there are different classifier types, either coexisting classifier sets in different environments, or even different classifier sets in the same environment. The term “multiple classifier system”, however clearly defined in Aikhenvald’s book, is possibly ambiguous between these various situations. For example, Grinevald & Seifart (2004) and van der Voort (2018) use the term “multiple classifier language” for those languages with coexisting sets. For this reason, I propose to rather use the transparent term “multilocus classifier system”, which refers unambiguously to systems of classifiers where one and the same set of classifiers is used in different environments.

In this regard, Chapter 5 of this book described in detail the Mojeño Trinitario situation of the same set of classifiers being distributed over 4 general morphosyntactic contexts. This distribution is recapitulated in Table 25. On this basis, the Mojeño Trinitario classifier system is clearly a multilocus classifier system, as found in many other Arawak languages (Dunn & Rose to appear).

<table><caption>Table 25. The multilocus dimension of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers</caption><thead><tr><td>locus</td><td>CLF</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>on numerals (NUM / numeral-like elements)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>on adjectives</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>on nominals (N/DEM)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>in verbs (including denominal verbs)</td><td>✓</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 7.2 A multifunctional classifier system

Krasnoukhova (2012:193, 204) coined the term “multifunctional classifier system” for systems of nominal classification which combine some characteristics of noun classes and some of classifiers. Most notably, “one noun is not necessarily assigned to one particular semantic category and can be reassigned to a number of classes at the speaker’s will”. A key remark is that these classifiers in these systems have a derivational function that is not typical of either of these better-known types of nominal classification. In such systems, the classifying elements are used with different functions, to different degrees depending on the language: semantic categorization, derivation, and agreement. This type of classifier system
is common in both Southwest Amazonian and Northwest Amazonian languages. Table 26 (based on a table in Krasnoukhova 2012:206) lists all the properties of a multifunctional classifier system, and also shows, as in the original table, to what degree a multifunctional classifier system is similar to, or different from, both prototypical noun classes (column NC) and other types of classifier systems (column CLF).

As developed in Chapter 6, Mojeño Trinitario classifiers have several functions: qualification, derivation, reference management and identification, and applicativization. Moreover, the Mojeño Trinitario classifier system also shows all the other properties that Krasnoukhova (2012) associates with multifunctional classifier systems. In Table 26, the column for Mojeño Trinitario shows “+” on all rows, where the typical properties associated with multifunctional classifier systems are listed. In contrast, neither noun classes nor classifiers are perfect fits for the category presented in this book. Only for some of the properties do the Mojeño Trinitario elements under study correspond to one or the other prototypes: these are squared with a bold line. Other properties match with neither noun classes nor prototypical classifiers: the respected cells are shaded in the MT column.

<table><caption>Table 26. The multifunctional dimension of Mojeño classifiers (following Krasnoukhova 2012)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>NC</th><th>MT</th><th>CLF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">semantic function</td><td>1. Nouns can be assigned to various classes at speaker's will</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>2. Form largish number of classes</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>3. Constitute an open system</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">derivational function</td><td>4. Can derive noun stems</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4a. Derive new noun stems from nouns stems or roots</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>4b. Nominalize and/or form noun stems from verbal stems or roots</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">agreement function</td><td>5. Can form a full NP when occurring on a modifying constituent</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+/-</td></tr><tr><td>6. Can occur on predicates to mark core arguments</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6a. On any predicate to mark core arguments</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+/-</td></tr><tr><td>6b. Or only on a subclass of predicates</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. Can participate in agreement within the NP</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Problematic feature: 8. Classify all nouns</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Based on this comparison between the properties of Mojeño Trinitario classifying elements with both prototypical noun classes and classifiers, I have chosen the term “classifier”, since it fits better with the free selection by the speaker, and the flexibility of their use in discourse, which is quite distinct from a prototypical agreement system. This classifier system can be described as multilocus and multifunctional. Many other Arawak classifier systems are certainly multifunctional (Dunn & Rose to appear), with derivational and anaphoric functions often being mentioned. A detailed investigation of the discourse functions of classifiers like the one of Mojeño Trinitario is still to be undertaken in other Arawak languages.

## 7.3 Classifiers as semi-grammatical elements

Krasnoukhova presents the multifunctional classifier systems as systems of nominal classification that “combine certain typical characteristics of noun classes (a highly grammaticalized nominal classification device) with some typical characteristics of classifiers (a ‘lexico-grammatical device’) in the words of Grinevald (2000:61). In the lexical-grammatical continuum proposed by Grinevald (2000), measure terms and class-terms are at the lexical end of the continuum, gender and noun classes at the grammatical end, and classifiers mid-way. In that work, “lexical [...] means (a) part of the lexicon and its word-building dynamics and (b) semantically compositional, while ‘grammatical’ means part of the morphosyntax of the language”.
In this section, I want to summarize a few characteristics of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers that make them ‘semi-grammaticalized’. Their lexical properties are the following:

- the use of classifiers is optional (except on numerals);

- the selection of a classifier for a referent is flexible;

- some classifiers have very specific meanings.

Other properties of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers are more typical of grammatical elements:

- most classifiers have very general meanings;

- they are bound morphemes, fully integrated into the word phonologically and prosodically;

- on verbs, they associate with core participants on an absolutive basis;

- on verbs, they may have some valency-changing effects (applicativization);

- they can be used for word class changing derivation;

- they are used for discourse management.

It is this intermediary status that makes classifiers extremely interesting for linguists, as they can be investigated on different levels: phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, and discourse. Such a comprehensive study has been realized in the present book.

## 7.4 Classifiers among nominal categorization devices in Mojeño Trinitario

Sections 7.1–7.3 briefly situated Mojeño Trinitario classifiers among nominal categorization devices cross-linguistically. The present section situates Mojeño Trinitario classifiers among the nominal categorization systems of the language itself.

Apart from classifiers, the other main nominal categorization device in Mojeño Trinitario is the person-marking system, which is based on a paradigm of (C)V formatives (see Section 2.7) that are used in personal pronouns, demonstratives, person prefixes and suffixes, and articles. It is particularly rich in gender/number categories for third person, distinguishing between human plural, human singular feminine, human singular masculine (with two forms depending on the gender of the speaker), and nonhuman (with a distinction between singular and plural in the demonstratives only). Personal pronouns, demonstratives, person prefixes, and articles vary for these gender/number categories, according to the referent of the noun phrase they associate with.<fnref n="62" /> Articles always agree with the head of a noun phrase, which is often, but not always, a noun. This agreement constrains the selection of the article, in accord with whether the associated noun denotes a human or nonhuman referent, and for many human-denoting nouns, whether the noun specifically denotes male or female referent.<fnref n="63" /> Pronouns, demonstratives, and person prefixes agree with a noun phrase they associate with, or in absence of such a noun phrase, with the referent that they situationally or anaphorically point to.

In Mojeño Trinitario, the two distinct systems of classifiers and person markers are, broadly speaking, independent. First, on the syntactic level, the presence and behavior of one type of categorization device has no effect on the presence and behavior of the other type of categorization device. The two systems are not in complementary distribution, and in fact both types of markers can co-occur on the same nominal or verbal roots. A noun can take both an article and a classifier, as well as a possessive marker. A verb can take both person indexes and classifiers.

Second, on the semantic level, the semantic extension of classifiers and person markers shows very little overlap: rather, they complement each other. While the person formatives mainly express humanness, gender, and number, these semantic features are almost entirely absent from the semantics of the classifiers (with the exception of the *-na* human classifier with regards to gender/animacy, and the *-muri* group classifier with respect to number). One could expect person markers and classifiers on the verbs to collaborate in specifying semantically the referents of the verb arguments. However, the classifiers on the verbs usually associate with third-person subjects of intransitive verbs (S), objects of transitive

<footnote n="62">⁶² Person suffixes are not relevant here, because they do not have third-person forms.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ Still, with some nouns, different articles may be selected, depending on the semantics of particular referents. This is the case with nouns like *chicha* ‘offspring’ that can refer to humans or nonhumans, and nouns like *’chane* that are specific to humans but can refer to either men or women.</footnote>
verbs (O), or obliques. In contrast, the semantic features of gender and number are marked only by the semantically specific third-person markers that associate with subjects of transitive verbs (A), a function with which classifiers do not associate. Other person markers are not semantically specific: third-person S are systematically encoded with the nonspecific *ti-* third-person marker, and third-person O and obliques are not overtly marked on the verb. Person markers and classifiers thus complement each other in supplying semantic specifications for different classes of arguments: A for person markers versus S, O, and obliques for classifiers.

The two systems do, however, interact when classifiers derive new nominal stems. As morphological heads of the derived item, they determine the gender value of the article (see more discussion in Rose & Van Linden 2022). This is the case in (367), where the ‘ground’ classifier triggers the nonhuman form of the article. If the nominal root were the head, the article would show masculine gender, agreeing with *Pedro*.

(367) to Perupa'i
*to* *Peru-pa'i*
ART.NH Pedro-CLF:ground
'Pedro's land' [elicited]

This being said, the two systems can sometimes nicely complement each other in the interpretation of utterances in discourse. The following example shows how the article specifies humanness (and gender), while the default classifier on numerals is not informative (in absence of a head noun). The referent of the numeral *éto-na* 'one-CLF:GNR' must be interpreted as human masculine in the first occurrence, and as nonhuman in the second, based on the form of the article.

(368) ene takepo ñikepuiji ñi étona "... nkopakoyre tayampane to étona"
ene takepo ñi-ke=pu=iji ñi éto-na
and after 3M-say=PFV=RPT ART.M one-CLF:GNR

n-kopa-ko=yre ta-yampane to éto-na
1SG-kill-ACT=FUT 3NH-do_not_matter ART.NH one-CLF:GNR

'And after that, one of them said: "[...] I am going to kill whatever it is"' [T19.020]

To conclude this book, this section has briefly characterized the classifier system of Mojeño Trinitario within the cross-linguistic typology of nominal categorization devices. First, it is multilocus, since a unique set of 32 suffixes is used in different loci: on numerals, where they are almost obligatory, on nouns, on verbs, and on adjectives, i.e., the four major loci of Arawak multilocus classifier systems classifiers (Dunn & Rose to appear). The present study has shown that classifiers on verbs can categorize not only the subjects of intransitive verbs and the objects of transitive verbs, but also peripheral participants. Second, the corpus study confirms that the Mojeño Trinitario classifier system is multifunctional. The main functions of classifiers are qualification, derivation, and discourse functions such as foregrounding, backgrounding, and reference tracking. This study might also be the first one to demonstrate the discourse functions of classifiers in Amazonian languages in the light of measures such as referential distance and topic persistence. This book has also argued that other frequently mentioned functions of classifiers, such as agreement and individuation, are not relevant in the language. It has also detailed the rarely described development of classifiers into applicative markers. Third, it has been demonstrated that the system is semi-grammaticalized, showing a significant degree of optionality and flexibility. Finally, it functions with very little functional overlap with the other main nominal categorization device of the language, the person/gender/number paradigm of formatives found in personal pronouns, demonstratives, person indexes, and articles.

Other important contributions of this book include a detailed discussion on the distinction between classifiers and incorporated/compounded nouns, as well as the acknowledgement of their very similar distribution; a detailed semantic characterization of each classifier, with a definition, provision of sets of core members and peripheral members in each case, and examples of their use; a discussion of the semantic parameters relevant for the system; and valuable quantitative information on the distribution of classifiers, according to their forms and their loci.
References

Admiraal, Femmy, Franziska Riedel, Danielsen, Swintha & Lena Terhart. 2010. *Collection "Baure"*. The Language Archive. https://hdl.handle.net/1839/c1b94334-0fc0-4658-afbb-1b13f945eda7

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1994a. Classe nominal e gênero nas línguas Aruák. *Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi: Nova Série Antropologia* 10(2). 137-259.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1994b. Classifiers in Tariana. *Anthropological Linguistics* 36(4). 407-465.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1998. Warekena. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), *Handbook of Amazonian languages*, vol. 4, 225-439. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1999. The Arawak language family. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), *The Amazonian languages*, 65-106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. *Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238867.001.0001

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Classifiers in multiple environments: Baniwa of Içana/Kurripako—a North Arawak perspective. *International Journal of American Linguistics* 73(4). 475-500. https://doi.org/10.1086/523774

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2019. A view from the North: Genders and classifiers in Arawak languages of north-west Amazonia. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Elena I. Mihas (eds.), *Genders and classifiers: A cross-linguistic typology*, 103-143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842019.003.0004

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2020. Morphology in Arawak Languages. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), *Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.628

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Diana Green. 1998. Palikur and the typology of classifiers. *Anthropological Linguistics* 40(3). 429-480.

Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. *Language* 53(2). 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0043

Bale, Alan & Jessica Coon. 2014. Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: consequences for the mass/count distinction. *Linguistic Inquiry* 45(4). 695-707. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00170

Becerra Casanovas, Rogers. 1980. *De ayer y de hoy. Diccionario del idioma mojeño a través del tiempo. Estudio comparativo sobre su evolución*. La Paz: Proinsa.

Bendor-Samuel, John. 1961. *An outline of the grammatical and phonological structure of Terêna* (Arquivo Lingüistico). Vol. 1-2. Brasília: SIL.

Bowerman, Melissa & Eric Pederson. 1992. Topological relations picture series. In Stephen C. Levinson (ed.), *Space stimuli kit 1.2*, vol. 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Bowerman, Melissa & Asifa Majid. 2003. Kids' cut & break. In *Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation*, 70-71. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:877607

Brandão, Ana Paula. 2015. Classifiers in Paresi-Haliti (Arawak). *MOARA* 43(2). 51-67. https://doi.org/10.18542/moara.v2i43.3838

Butler, Nancy E. & Muriel Ekdahl. 2012. *Aprenda Terena*. Vol. 1. Anápolis: SIL Brasil.

Butler, Nancy E. & Muriel Ekdahl. 2014. *Aprenda Terena*. Vol. 2. Anápolis: SIL Brasil.

Cardús, José. 1886. *Las misiones franciscanas entre los infieles de Bolivia. Descripción del estado de ellas en 1883 y 1884 con una noticia sobre los caminos y tribus salvajes, una muestra de varias lenguas, curiosidades de historia natural y un mapa para servir de ilustración*. Barcelona: Librería de la immaculada concepción.

Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2017. On Terena (Arawakan) -pâho 'mouth': etymology and implications for internal classification. *Journal of Language Relationship* 15(2). 69-86. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463237813-010

Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2018a. Terena (Arawakan) -eúko 'uncle' and -ôko 'aunt': etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle. *Journal of Language Relationship* 16(2). 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981.81222018000200008
Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2018b. Historical phonology of Paunaka (Arawakan). *Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi* 13(2). 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981.81222018000200008

Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2019. The diachrony of velar coronalization in Mojeño (Arawakan). *Folia Linguistica* 53(s40-s2). 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2019-0013

Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2020. On 'affective' exceptions to sound change: an example from the Mojeño (Arawakan) kinship terminology system. *Papers in Historical Phonology* 5. 49-62. https://doi.org/10.2218/pihph.5.2020.4421

Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2023. Payne's rule and the late *o > a* shift in Mojeño Ignaciano: a response to Ramirez & França (2019) - or, how (not) to do historical linguistics. *LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas* 23. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v23i00.8669251

Carvalho, Fernando O. de & Françoise Rose. 2018. Comparative reconstruction of Proto-Mojeño and the phonological diversification of Mojeño dialects. *LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas* 18(1). 7-48. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v1i1.8648804

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of 'semantic parameter'. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), *Events and Grammar* (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 70), 53-103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_4

Contini-Morava, Ellen & Marcin Kilarski. 2013. Functions of nominal classification. *Language Sciences* 40. 263-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.002

Corbett, Greville G. 1991. *Gender* (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119

Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2016. Canonical gender. *Journal of Linguistics* 52(3). 495-531. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000195

Crevels, Mily. 2002. Why speakers shift and languages die: an account of language death in Amazonian Bolivia. In Mily Crevels, Simon van de Kerke, Sérgio Meira & Hein van der Voort (eds.), *Current studies on South American languages* (Indigenous Language of Latin America, 3), 9-30. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.

Crevels, Mily & Pieter Muysken. 2009. Lenguas de Bolivia: presentación y antecedentes. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.), *Lenguas de Bolivia, vol 1. Ámbito andino*, 13-26. La Paz: Plural Editores.

Danielsen, Swintha. 2007. *Baure: an Arawak language of Bolivia* (Indigenous Languages of Latin America, 6). Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.

Danielsen, Swintha, Lena Terhart & Federico Villalta. 2015. *Paunaka language archive*. Endangered Languages Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/2196/00-0000-0000-000A-2F58-1

Denny, J. Peter. 1986. The semantic role of classifiers. In Colette G. Craig (ed.), *Noun classes and categorization* (Typological Studies in Language, 7), 297-308. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.19den

Dunn, Saskia & Françoise Rose. To appear. Arawak classifiers: a South American multilocus classifier system. In Niels O. Schiller & Tanja Kupisch (eds.), *The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Classifiers*. New York: Oxford University Press.

ELAN. 2022. *ELAN*. Version 6.3. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan

Fabricano Noé, Felicia; Justo Semo Guají & Janneth Olivio. 2003. *Guía del alfabeto mojeño trinitario*. La Paz: Ministerio de Educación, Viceministerio de Educación Escolarizada y Alternativa.

François, Alexandre. 1999. L'illusion des classificateurs. *Faits de Langues* 14. 165-175. https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1999.1278

Frawley, William. 1992. *Linguistic Semantics*. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gilij, Filippo Salvatore. 1780. *Saggio di storia americana o sia storia naturale, civile, e sacra de regni, e delle provincie Spagnuole di Terra-ferma nell'America meridionale*. 4 vols. Rome: Luigi Perago erede Salvioni.

Gill, Wayne. 1957. *Trinitario grammar*. San Lorenzo de Mojos: Misión Nuevas Tribus.

Gordon, Matthew, Ayla Applebaum, Jack Martin & Françoise Rose. 2018. A cross-linguistic study of phonetic correlates of metrical structure in under-documented languages. *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America* 144(3). 1937. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5068474

Gordon, Matthew & Françoise Rose. 2019. Acoustic correlates of metrical proeminence in Mojeño Trinitario. In Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero, Marija Tabain & Paul Warren (eds.), *Proceedings of*
the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.

Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), *Systems of nominal classification*, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grinevald, Colette. 2002. Making sense of nominal classification systems. Noun classifier and the grammaticalization variable. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), *New reflections on grammaticalization* (Typological Studies in Language, 49), 259–275. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.17gri

Grinevald, Colette. 2015. Linguistics of classifiers. In James D. Wright (ed.), *International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences*, 2nd ed., vol. 3, 811–818.

Grinevald, Colette & Frank Seifart. 2004. Noun classes in African and Amazonian languages. *Linguistic Typology* 8. 243–285. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.007

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. *World lexicon of grammaticalization*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704

Ibáñez Noza, Eulogio, Pedro Fabricano Noe, Marcelo Guaji Noe, Claudio Guaji Jare, Bartola Guaji Jare & Nemecio Yuco Parada. 2007. *Gramática mojeña trinitaria*, vol. I. Trinidad: Centro Social y Comunitario "Ipeno Imutu", Cabildo Indigenal de Trinidad.

Ibáñez Noza, Eulogio, Basilio Nolvani Nojune, Claudio Guaji Jare, Adalberto Guaji Pedraza, Bartola Guaji Jare & Liverato Guaji Noza. 2009. *Gramática mojeña trinitaria*, vol. II. Trinidad: Centro Social y Comunitario "Ipeno Imutu", Cabildo Indigenal de Trinidad.

Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Mojeño Ignaciano "Salvador Chappy Muibar". 2022. *Taju eta véchejiriruwa*. San Ignacio de Moxos: ILC Mojeño Ignaciano.

Ishibashi, Miyuki, Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet. 2006. *Trajectoire : matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques*. Fédération de Recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques. https://www.ortolang.fr/market/tools/trajectoire?path=%2FDVD

Jolkesky, Marcelo. 2016. Uma reconstrução do proto-mamoré-guaporé (família arawák). *LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas* 16(1). 7–37. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v16i1.8646164

Jordá, Enrique. 2014. Mojeño Ignaciano. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.), *Lenguas de Bolivia*, vol. 3. *Oriente*, 21–58. La Paz: Plural Editores.

Keenan, Edward. 1984. Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction. *Linguistics* 22. 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1984.22.2.197

Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. *The noun phrase in the languages of South America* (Dissertation Series, 301). Utrecht: LOT.

Krifka, Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), *The Generic Book*, 398–411. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marbán, Pedro. 1702. *Arte de la lengua Moxa, con su vocabulario, y cathecismo*. Lima: Imprenta Real de Joseph de Contreras.

Marcus, Inge. 1994. Classifiers in Terêna. *Estudos Lingüísticos* 23(2). 912–919.

Mayer, Mercer. 1969. *Frog, where are you?* New York: Dial Press.

Mihas, Elena I. 2009. Grammaticalization of the generalized Kampan applicative -ako (Arawak). In *Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics*, vol. 20, 16–29.

Mihas, Elena I. 2019. Genders and classifiers in Kampa (Arawak) languages of Peru. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Elena Mihas (eds.), *Genders and classifiers. A cross-linguistic typology*, 30–66. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842019.003.0002

Miranda, Camille Cardoso. 2020. Uma análise tipológica preliminar do sistema de classificadores em línguas Arawák. *Domínios de Lingu@gem* 14(1). 85–127. https://doi.org/10.14393/DL40-v14n1a2020-4

Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. *Language* 60(4). 847–894. https://doi.org/10.2307/413800

Mithun, Marianne. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. In Colette Craig (ed.), *Noun classes and categorization* (Typological Studies in Language, 7), 379–397. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.24mit

Oliveira, Caroline Pereira de. 2021. *Aspectos linguísticos da língua Terena (Arawak)*. Campinas, Brasil: Universidade Estadual de Campinas PhD dissertation.
Olza Zubiri, Jesús, Conchita Nuni de Chapi & Juan Tube. 2002. *Gramática moja ignaciana*. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andres Bello.

d'Orbigny, Alcide. 1879. *Idiomes des Indiens ou naturels des provinces de Chiquitos et Mojos*. Ms.

Ott, Willis & Rebecca Ott. 1967. Ignaciano. In Esther Matteson (ed.), *Bolivian Indian grammars*, vol. 1, 85–137. University of Oklahoma: SIL.

Ott, Willis & Rebecca Ott. 1983. *Diccionario ignaciano y castellano, con apuntes gramáticas*. 2 vols. Cochabamba: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Payne, David. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), *Handbook of Amazonian languages*, vol. 3, 355–499. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Payne, Doris L. 1987. Noun classification in the Western Amazon. *Language Sciences* 9(1). 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(87)80007-4

Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi. 1999. External possession: what, where, how, and why. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), *External possession* (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 3–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.39.03pay

Pepper, Steve. 2020. *The typology and semantics of binominal lexemes. Noun-noun compounds and their functional equivalents*. University of Oslo PhD dissertation.

Ramirez, Henri. 2001. *Uma gramática do Baniwa do Içana*. Manaus: Universidade Federal do Amazonas.

Ramirez, Henri & Maria Cristina Victorino de França. 2019. *Línguas Arawak da Bolívia. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas* 19. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v19i0.8655045

Reis, Thainá de Lima. 2023. *Estudo das categorias nominais em Enawene Nawe (Aruák): uma análise preliminar*. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas MA Thesis.

Rose, Françoise. 2010. Dialectes en danger : les derniers locuteurs du mojeño javeriano de Bolivie. In *Faits de Langues*, 35-36(1). 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-035-036-01-900000014

Rose, Françoise. 2011. Who is the third person? Fluid transitivity in Mojeño Trinitario. *International Journal of American Linguistics* 77(4). 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1086/662153

Rose, Françoise. 2013a. Los generolectos del mojeño. *LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas* 13. 115–134. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v0i13.1534

Rose, Françoise. 2013b. The emergence of articles in Mojeño. Presented at the *Workshop on Languages with and without articles*, Paris.

Rose, Françoise. 2014a. Mojeño trinitario. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.), *Lenguas de Bolivia*, vol 3. *Oriente*, 59–97. La Paz: Plural Editores.

Rose, Françoise. 2014b. When vowel deletion blurs reduplication in Mojeño Trinitario. In Gale Goodwin Gómez & Hein van der Voort (eds.), *Reduplication in indigenous languages of South America* (Brill's Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas 7), 375–399. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004272415_015

Rose, Françoise. 2015. Innovative complexity in the pronominal paradigm of Mojeño. A result of contact? In Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (eds.), *Borrowed morphology* (Language Contact and Bilingualism, 8), 241–267. Berlin/Munich/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513209.241

Rose, Françoise. 2018a. *Corpus mojeño trinitario*. ORTOLANG (Open Resources and TOols for LANGuage). https://hdl.handle.net/11403/corpus-mojeno-trinitario/v2

Rose, Françoise. 2018b. Nonverbal predication and the nonverbal clause type of Mojeño Trinitario. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds.), *Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages* (Typological Studies in Language, 122), 53–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.122.02ros

Rose, Françoise. 2018c. The rise and fall of Mojeño diminutives through the centuries. *Studies in Language* 42(1). 146–181. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.00006.ros

Rose, Françoise. 2019a. Rhythmic syncope and opacity in Mojeño Trinitario. *Phonological Data and Analysis* 1(2). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v1art2.2

Rose, Françoise. 2019b. From classifiers to applicatives in Mojeño Trinitario: a new source for applicative markers. *Linguistic Typology* 23(3). 435–466. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0024
Rose, Françoise. 2019c. Similar but different: the functions of the Mojeño Trinitario root expressing similarity. *Faits de Langues* 50(1). 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-05001017

Rose, Françoise. 2021. Mojeño Trinitario. *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* (Illustration of the IPA) 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100320000365

Rose, Françoise. 2022. Mojeño Trinitario DoReCo data set. In *Language Documentation Reference Corpus (DoReCo)* 0.1. Berlin & Lyon: Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft & Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage UMR5596, CNRS and Université Lyon 2. https://do-reco.huma-num.fr/languages/trin1278

Rose, Françoise. 2023a. Reflexive constructions and middle marking in Mojeño Trinitario. In Katarzyna Janic, Nicoletta Puddu & M. Haspelmath (eds.), *Reflexive constructions in the world's languages* (Research on Comparative Grammar, 3), 765–791. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7861660

Rose, Françoise. 2023b. Questioning the relevance of alienability in Arawak linguistics: an innovative analysis of possession in Mojeño Trinitario. *Linguistics* 61(6). 1491–1531. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2022-0018

Rose, Françoise & Anita Obenaus. 2023. Avances y carencias en la documentación y descripción de idiomas mojeños. Presented at the *Primer Encuentro Internacional Arawak*, Universidad de La Guajira, Colombia. https://25images.msh-lse.fr/portails/arawak/

Rose, Françoise & An Van Linden. 2022. The derivational use of classifiers in Western Amazonia. In Steve Pepper, Francesca Masini & Simone Mattiola (eds.), *Binominal lexemes in cross-linguistic perspective: Towards a typology of complex lexemes* (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 62). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110673494-008

Rzymski, Christoph, Tiago Tresoldi, Simon J. Greenhill, Mei-Shin Wu, Nathanael E. Schweikhard, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Volker Gast, Timotheus A. Bodt, Abbie Hantgan, Gereon A. Kaiping, Sophie Chang, Yunfan Lai, Natalia Morozova, Heini Arjava, Nataliia Hübler, Ezequiel Koile, Steve Pepper, Mariann Proos, Briana Van Epps, Ingrid Blanco, Carolin Hundt, Sergei Monakhov, Kristina Pianykh, Sallona Ramesh, Russell D. Gray, Robert Forkel & Johann-Mattis List. 2020. The Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications, reproducible analysis of cross-linguistic polysemies. *Scientific Data* 7(13). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0341-x

Saito, Akira. 2009. 'Fighting against a hydra': Jesuit language policy in Moxos. In: Shinzo Kawamura & Cyril Veliath (eds.), *Beyond the borders: a global perspective of Jesuit mission history*, 350–363. Tokyo: Sophia University Press.

San Roque, Lila, Alan Rumsey, Lauren Gawne, Stef Spronck, Darja Hoenigman, Alice Carroll, Julia Colleen Miller & Nicholas Evans. 2012. Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. *Language Documentation and Conservation* 6. 135–174.

Schauer, Stanley & Junia Schauer. 2000. El yucuna. In María Stella González de Pérez & María Luisa Rodríguez de Montes (eds.), *Lenguas indígenas de Colombia. Una visión descriptiva*, 515–532. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Seifart, Frank. 2005. *The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraña (North West Amazon)*. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen Ph.D. thesis. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.60378

Seifart, Frank. 2011. *Bora loans in Resígaro: Massive morphological and little lexical borrowing in a moribund Arawakan language* (Série Monografias, 2). Cadernos de Etnolingüística. http://www.etnolinguistica.org/mono:2

Seifart, Frank. 2012. The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact: Evidence from morphological borrowing in Resígaro (Arawakan). *Diachronica* 29(4). 471–504. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.29.4.03sei

Seifart, Frank & Doris Payne. 2007. Nominal classification in the North West Amazon: Issues in areal diffusion and typological characteristics. *International Journal of American Linguistics* 73(4). 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1086/523770

SIL FieldWorks. 2022. *FieldWorks Language Explorer*. Version 9. https://software.sil.org/fieldworks/. Stave, Matthew. 2022. Information beyond the word. Presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Bucharest.
Steele, Susan. 1978. Word order variation: a typological study. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), *Universals of human language*, vol. IV: Syntax, 585–623. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Terhart, Lena. 2016. Klassifikatoren im Baure. In Lena Sell & Lena Terhart (eds.), *Klassifikationen im Baure* (LINCOM studies in Native American linguistics, 76), 119–211. München: LINCOM GmbH.

Terhart, Lena. 2024. *A grammar of Paunaka*. Berlin: Language Science Press.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10517532

van der Voort, Hein. 2018. Development and diffusion of classifier systems in Southwestern Amazonia. In William B. McGregor & Søren Wichmann (eds.), *The diachrony of classification systems* (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 342), 201–240. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.342.08voo
Appendix: Coding of classifiers in the seven-text sample

<table><thead><tr><th>ID</th><th>text</th><th>sentence</th><th>CLF</th><th>CLF host</th><th>CLF function</th><th>N</th><th>DET</th><th>P RO</th><th>human-ness</th><th>animacy</th><th>RD</th><th>TP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>001</td><td>12</td><td>009</td><td>-'e</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td>dem</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>002</td><td>12</td><td>012</td><td>-omo</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>003</td><td>12</td><td>013</td><td>-ji</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>004</td><td>12</td><td>014</td><td>-omo</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>005</td><td>12</td><td>014</td><td>-omo</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>gen</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>006</td><td>12</td><td>014</td><td>-ji</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>007</td><td>12</td><td>015</td><td>-omo</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>yes</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>008</td><td>12</td><td>016</td><td>-ku</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>16</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>009</td><td>12</td><td>016</td><td>-je</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>16</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>010</td><td>12</td><td>016</td><td>-ku</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>011</td><td>12</td><td>016</td><td>-je</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>012</td><td>18</td><td>015</td><td>-si</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>013</td><td>18</td><td>017</td><td>-si</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>bodypart</td><td>a</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>014</td><td>18</td><td>022</td><td>-si</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>gen</td><td>nh</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>015</td><td>18</td><td>025</td><td>-mu'i</td><td>kuti</td><td>dub</td><td></td><td></td><td>NA</td><td>nh</td><td>n/a</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>016</td><td>18</td><td>026</td><td>-si</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>obl</td><td>nh</td><td>a</td><td>7</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>017</td><td>18</td><td>031</td><td>-gi</td><td>n</td><td>qualif</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>gen</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>018</td><td>18</td><td>032</td><td>-ju'e</td><td>n</td><td>qualif</td><td></td><td></td><td>yes</td><td>pred</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>019</td><td>18</td><td>036</td><td>-si</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>st</td><td>nh</td><td>a</td><td>11</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>020</td><td>19</td><td>104</td><td>-gie</td><td>n</td><td>deriv</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>021</td><td>18</td><td>038</td><td>-si</td><td>n</td><td>qualif</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>obl</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>022</td><td>18</td><td>039</td><td>-ji</td><td>n</td><td>qualif</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>si</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>023</td><td>18</td><td>044</td><td>-'o</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>o</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>024</td><td>18</td><td>045</td><td>-e</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>obl</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>025</td><td>18</td><td>049</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td>yes</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>nh</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>026</td><td>18</td><td>054</td><td>-e</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td>yes</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>obl</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>10</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>027</td><td>19</td><td>001</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td>yes</td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>o</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>028</td><td>19</td><td>007</td><td>-muri</td><td>adj</td><td>qualif</td><td></td><td></td><td>dem</td><td>yes</td><td>pred</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>029</td><td>19</td><td>020</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>st</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>030</td><td>19</td><td>025</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>st</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>031</td><td>19</td><td>025</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>yes</td><td>st</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>032</td><td>19</td><td>027</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>st</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>033</td><td>19</td><td>034</td><td>-'i</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>si</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>034</td><td>19</td><td>036</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>st</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>035</td><td>19</td><td>046</td><td>-mu'i</td><td>dem</td><td>dub</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>o</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>036</td><td>19</td><td>050</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>st</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>20</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>037</td><td>19</td><td>053</td><td>-mo</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>si</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>038</td><td>19</td><td>053</td><td>-mo</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td>yes</td><td></td><td>si</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>039</td><td>19</td><td>053</td><td>-'i</td><td>v</td><td>disc</td><td></td><td></td><td>si</td><td>nh</td><td>i</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>040</td><td>19</td><td>054</td><td>-na</td><td>num</td><td>default</td><td></td><td></td><td>art</td><td>st</td><td>h</td><td>a</td><td>4</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>041</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>058</td>
      <td>-'i</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>si</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>5</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>042</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>060</td>
      <td>-je</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>043</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>062</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>3</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>044</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>067</td>
      <td>-'i</td>
      <td>adj</td>
      <td>deriv</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>045</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>070</td>
      <td>-'o</td>
      <td>n</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>pred</td>
      <td>h</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>046</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>088</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>pred</td>
      <td>h</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>047</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>093</td>
      <td>-ku</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>048</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>098</td>
      <td>-pue</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>049</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>101</td>
      <td>-pue</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>5</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>050</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>104</td>
      <td>-gie</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>051</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>107</td>
      <td>-pue</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>052</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>107</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>deriv</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>053</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>108</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>054</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>110</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>n</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td>dem</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>055</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>112</td>
      <td>-gie</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>056</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>114</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>057</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>114</td>
      <td>-pi</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>si</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>058</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>155</td>
      <td>-'ugi</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>si</td>
      <td>bodypart</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>059</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>162</td>
      <td>-pue</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>060</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>163</td>
      <td>-'ugi</td>
      <td>adj</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>voc</td>
      <td>bodypart</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>061</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>163</td>
      <td>-miro</td>
      <td>adj</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>voc</td>
      <td>bodypart</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>062</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>168</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>063</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>170</td>
      <td>-e</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>064</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>171</td>
      <td>-e</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>065</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>171</td>
      <td>-e</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>066</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>179</td>
      <td>-pa'i</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>deriv</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>067</td>
      <td>19</td>
      <td>190</td>
      <td>-pue</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>068</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>004</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>n</td>
      <td>deriv</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>pred</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>069</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>005</td>
      <td>-gie</td>
      <td>adj</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>pred</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>070</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>005</td>
      <td>-gie</td>
      <td>adj</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>si</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>071</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>007</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>072</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>008</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>n</td>
      <td>deriv + nz</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>si</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>073</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>008</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>3</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>074</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>009</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>3</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>075</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>009</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>076</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>010</td>
      <td>-muri</td>
      <td>po-</td>
      <td>qualif</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>h</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>5</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>077</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>010</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>h</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>5</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>078</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>010</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>pred</td>
      <td>h</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>079</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>011</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>h</td>
      <td>a</td>
      <td>5</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>080</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>011</td>
      <td>-na</td>
      <td>num</td>
      <td>default</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>obl</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>081</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>011</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>art</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>2</td>
      <td>7</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>082</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>012</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>n</td>
      <td>deriv</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>pred</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>083</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>013</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>084</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>013</td>
      <td>-ji</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>085</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>014</td>
      <td>-ku</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>1</td>
      <td>0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>086</td>
      <td>21</td>
      <td>020</td>
      <td>-ku</td>
      <td>v</td>
      <td>disc</td>
      <td>PRO</td>
      <td>yes</td>
      <td>o</td>
      <td>nh</td>
      <td>i</td>
      <td>20</td>
      <td>1</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
Série Monografias, 7

Mojeño Trinitario classifiers:
a multilocus and multifunctional system

by Françoise Rose

This book offers a comprehensive synchronic description of the classifiers of Mojeño Trinitario, an Arawak language spoken in lowland Bolivia. It relies on a systematic investigation of a corpus of texts collected by the author in the field, allowing a quantitative investigation of the morphosyntactic and discourse environments of classifiers in natural speech. The book starts off by identifying what Mojeño Trinitario classifiers are, and describing some of their formal characteristics. The language features a set of 32 classifiers, which are suffixes, most often of the CV shape. Even though the morphosyntactic environments in which classifiers occur are also available to full nouns in compounding processes, classifiers can be distinguished from nouns, because they do not have the capacity to head a noun phrase. The book goes on by describing in detail the semantic extension of classifiers, both at the level of each individual classifier as well as at the level of the system as a whole. Most of the Mojeño Trinitario classifiers express physical properties of the referent they classify, especially shape. Then, the morphological distribution of classifiers on different parts of speech is analyzed. They are found on numerals, nouns, adjectives, and verbs. On verbs, they categorize either the subject, the object, or a peripheral participant. The book furthermore examines the functions of Mojeño Trinitario classifiers: qualification, derivation, and discourse functions, as well as an emergent applicative function. Finally, some crucial typological aspects of the system are that (i) the same set of classifiers is used on different types of hosts, (ii) they are generally not obligatory, except on numerals, (iii) there is no unique association between classifiers and nouns or referents. This nominal classification system is analyzed as a multilocus and multifunctional classifier system, and also happens to be a good representative of Arawak classifier systems.

ISBN 978-0-9846008-6-1

Freely available for download at
http://www.etnolinguistica.org/mono:7