# Position-dependent polarity in the Alor-Pantar languages and its origins

Bastian Persohn, Antoinette Schapper

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Bastian Persohn, Antoinette Schapper. Position-dependent polarity in the Alor-Pantar languages and its origins. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 2025, 10.1075/jhl.23042.per. hal-05460107

HAL Id: hal-05460107

https://hal.science/hal-05460107v1

Submitted on 15 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Position-dependent polarity in the Alor-Pantar languages and its origins

Bastian Persohn¹ and Antoinette Schapper²,³

¹ Friedrich Schiller University Jena | ² Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam |

³ Lacito, CNRS

Multiple members of the Alor-Pantar group of Papuan languages display a cross-linguistically unusual pattern whereby certain grammatical words in the domain of phasal polarity yield an affirmative statement when standing before the predicate, whereas the occurrence of the same items after the predicate vests the clause with negative polarity. In this article, we describe this phenomenon in its different manifestations and compare it to negation and phasal polarity constructions reconstructable to Proto-Alor-Pantar. While position-dependent polarity in the domain of phasal polarity is typologically unusual, we show that it is the outcome of processes of cyclical change that are well known with respect to negation: the notion of ‘not yet’ came to be expressed by a construction in which an originally pre-predicative ‘still’ marker also occupies a post-predicate position. Erosion of the initial element of this construction then left the post-predicate ‘still’ marker as the sole exponent of ‘not yet’. Analogy with embracing constructions for standard negation and structural calquing across languages in the group can be seen to have led to the innovative patterns for expressing ‘not yet’ being shared across languages.

**Keywords:** negation, phasal polarity, cyclicity, Timor-Alor-Pantar

## 1. Introduction

In multiple languages of the Alor-Pantar group, a small sub-family of Papuan languages spoken in the southeastern corner of the Indonesian archipelago, there is a cross-linguistically unusual pattern in which a clause's polarity depends on the linear position certain items occupy in it. Specifically, with certain grammatical words a pre-predicate position yields an affirmative statement, whereas the occurrence of the same items after the predicate gives rise to a negative reading, without the presence of any (supra-)segmental signifier of negation. For example, the Pura

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
dialect of Blagar in (1a), *jeduŋ* precedes the predicate and marks the persistence of a positive state ‘still’, whereas in (1b) *jeduŋ* follows the predicate and the clause acquires negative polarity ‘not yet’.

(1) Blagar Pura (Steinhauer & Gomang 2016: 43)

a. ?aŋu veŋ ?aŋu na *jeduŋ* kiki.
at.that.time 1SG STILL small
‘At that time I was still small.’

b. ?ana tia *jeduŋ*.
3SG sleep STILL
‘She wasn’t yet asleep.’

Instances of position-dependent polarity such as seen in Blagar constitute a hitherto undescribed type of “negatives without negators” (Miestamo 2010) that contributes to the problematization of the notion of overtness in negation. Against this backdrop, the aims of this article are two-fold. The first aim is to describe this unusual pattern in its different manifestations across the Alor-Pantar languages and show how it relates to the reconstructable negation and phasal polarity constructions. The second aim is to explain how position-dependent polarity alternations arose in Alor-Pantar languages. Elaborating on a proposal made in Persohn (2024), we use evidence from the different Alor-Pantar languages to show how this cross-linguistically unusual pattern emerged through a constructional development whereby an originally preverbal ‘still’ marker came to also occupy a post-predicative position. Subsequent erosion of the pre-predicative component of the embracing ‘not yet’ expression then left the post-predicate ‘still’ marker as the sole exponent of the persistive negative meaning. We argue that analogy with embracing constructions found for standard negation in some languages as well as structural calquing across languages led to the innovative ‘not yet’ constructions being shared over multiple languages of the region. We further show that in at least one language, once the post-verbal position had become associated with negative polarity in the ‘not yet’ construction, the pattern of position-dependent polarity was extended through structural analogy to other markers.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 briefly discusses the semasiological domain of “phasal polarity” (van Baar 1997), as well as the notions of negation reinforcement and cyclical language change. Section 3 introduces the languages of the Alor-Pantar group. Section 4 overviews the typology and history of negative constructions in the Alor-Pantar languages, with a particular focus on standard negation. Section 5 presents a detailed account of phasal polarity constructions in the Alor-Pantar languages. It looks at the variation that exists across languages in terms of the formation of affirmative versus negative constructions and presents the evidence for reconstructions of phasal polarity constructions. Section 6
presents a diachronic account of the position-dependent polarity of some phasal polarity items and related patterns in the Alor-Pantar languages. Although the outcome is a typologically unusual position-dependent polarity feature for ‘still’ and ‘not yet’ constructions, the kind of cyclical change that we posit to have occurred in the Alor-Pantar languages is well known in the context of negation. The paper concludes in Section 7.

## 2. Typological preliminaries

The background against which our study of the Alor-Pantar languages is set is a sizeable body of typological research in the domains of phasal polarity and negation. In this section we briefly overview the relevant findings for these two domains.

### 2.1 Phasal polarity

A semasiological domain of key importance for our discussion is that of “phasal polarity”, an umbrella term coined by van Baar (1997) for the four concepts STILL, ALREADY, NOT YET, NO LONGER, as well as for their language-specific signifiers. The common denominator of these concepts is that they are “structured means of expressing polarity in a sequential perspective” (van Baar 1997: 40). Of the four abstract notions, it is the first three that are particularly relevant for the Alor-Pantar languages, such that it is worthwhile taking a closer look at their meaning and their relationships to each other. Beginning with the two affirmative concepts, we understand STILL to comprise two meaning components: (i) the situation depicted in the clause obtained during an earlier, adjacent time, and (ii) there is a conceivable course of events in which it has, or will have, ceased (Löbner 1989, van Baar 1997, van der Auwera 1998). ALREADY, on the other hand, contrasts the coming-into-existence of a given situation with an alternative scenario in which it has not yet manifested itself. The negative concept NOT YET marks the persistent non-actualization of the situation depicted in the clause, contrasting it with a course of events in which it has already come into existence. As such, it can be understood as relating to both affirmative concepts, STILL and ALREADY (e.g., Löbner 1989). On the one hand, NOT YET can be conceived of as ALREADY under the scope of negation (NOT YET p ≡ ¬ALREADY p), as evident in the German question-answer pair in (2). On the other hand, NOT YET is logically equivalent to STILL with scope over a negated proposition (NOT YET p ≡ STILL¬p), and this is, of course, a cross-linguistically common way of expressing this
concept in a compositional manner (van Baar 1997, van der Auwera 1998); see
the Spanish example in (3).

(2) German (personal knowledge)

Hast du schon geg-ess-en? – Noch nicht.
have.2SG 2SG.NOM already PTCP-eat-PTCP STILL NEG
‘Have you eaten yet (lit. already)? — Not yet.’

(3) Spanish (personal knowledge)

Todavía no ha llega-do.
still NEG have.3SG arrive-PTCP
‘S/he hasn’t arrived yet.’

While compositional ways of expressing NOT YET are typologically very common,
the concept may also be expressed in a monomorphemic fashion, an example
being Indonesian belum in (4).

(4) Indonesian (Sneddon et al. 2010: 122)

Masalah ini belum dapat di-pecah-kan.
problem PROX NOT.YET can PAT.FOC-break-CAUS
‘This problem cannot yet be solved.’

Both, the equivalence between NOT YET p and STILL ¬p, as well as the fact that
NOT YET may also be signaled via a single exponent, play a crucial role in our dis-
cussion of the relevant Alor-Pantar data in Sections 5–7.

2.2 Negation reinforcement and cyclical change

In the typology of negation, reinforcement and cyclical language change are
recognised to play a significant role in shaping cross-linguistic patterns of nega-
tion; see van der Auwera (2009) for overview discussion, and van Gelderen
(2009) and references therein on cyclical change.

Languages may make use of additional material to strengthen negation. For
instance, in the Dawida (Atlantic-Congo > Bantu) Example (5), the negative
answer particle mbai provides the negated predicate with extra emphasis.

(5) Dawida (Nurse 1979: 273; cited in Devos & van der Auwera 2013: 235)

Si-ca-genda mbai
NEG.1SG-FUT-go no
‘I certainly won’t go.’

When such reinforcing patterns become entrenched, they may kick off a sequence
of changes in the negation system of a language. A textbook example here is the
case of French where — in broad strokes — the inherited pre-predicative negator
ne became reinforced by a post-predicative minimiser *pas* (< 'step'). This embracing pattern of negation [*ne PRED pas*] then became the norm. In certain colloquial registers the original negator *ne* was ultimately dropped, leaving *pas* as the sole exponent of negation. Many variations on this theme are attested from across the globe; see van der Auwera et al. (2022). Crucially, such pathways can be cyclical, in that they both depart from a state in which there is a single negator (e.g., *ne*) and lead to a new solitary item (*pas*), via a stage of multiple exponence (*ne ... pas*).

The notions of reinforcement and cyclical language change, we argue, are
central to the development of the unique NOT YET constructions found in many of
the Alor-Pantar languages.

3. The Alor-Pantar languages

The Alor-Pantar languages are a group of closely related Papuan languages spoken in southeastern Indonesia on the islands of the Alor Archipelago (Figure 1). The languages form one branch of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family, the remaining members of which are spoken on the islands of Timor and Kisar (Schapper et al. 2014).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. The Alor-Pantar languages</figcaption></figure>

Historical reconstructive work on the Alor-Pantar languages has only just begun. Only the basics of the languages' phonological history have been worked out and much is still unknown (Holton et al. 2012, Heston 2017, Schapper 2017, Usher & Schapper 2022). As such, there are at this stage relatively few clearly defined subgrouping nodes within the Alor-Pantar group (see, e.g., Kaiping & Klamer 2021). Schapper (2020a) suggests that the Alor-Pantar languages likely
represent a linkage. That is, they have developed from a dialect chain where the languages have gradually diverged from one another. A representation of this is presented in Figure 2, including the reconstructive levels below Proto-Alor-Pantar that are referred to in this paper.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Wave diagram of the linkage-like relationships between Alor-Pantar languages</figcaption></figure>

The Alor-Pantar languages are among the best described Papuan languages. All parts of the islands and all lower-level subgroups are covered by one or more sketch grammar and/or reference grammar. The detailed descriptive material available for the group means that it is possible to closely track small differences and changes in constructions across languages, as we shall see below. In the following sections, proto-forms derive from ongoing reconstructive work as part of Schapper (in prep.), building on morphosyntactic reconstructions of the group in a range of earlier publications (e.g., Klamer & Schapper 2012, Klamer & Kratochvíl 2018, Schapper 2014, 2023).

## 4. Negation in the Alor-Pantar languages

As polarity is central to the phenomenon that is the focus of this paper, the main typological and historical facts pertaining to negation in the Alor-Pantar languages provide essential context for our discussion. In all languages of the group, standard negation is expressed by means of independent negative polarity words. The languages differ as to the position of the negator relative to the predicate and the number of exponents that are required in the formation of a negative polarity clause.

In the vast majority of Alor-Pantar languages the standard negator occurs following the predicate and is the sole exponent of the negation. Examples of post-predicative standard negators from across the full geographic sweep of Alor-Pantar languages are presented in (6–9).
(6) Sawila (Kratochvíl 2014:373)
Nannu guuru naanu.
1SG teacher NEG
‘I am not a teacher.’

(7) Kui (Windschuttel & Shiohara 2017: 173)
A pun-a naŋa.
2SG hold-IPFV NEG
‘You’re not holding it.’

(8) Kaera (Klamer 2014: 114)
Gang masu ma bino.
3SG maybe come NEG
‘He may not come.’

(9) Western Pantar (Holton 2014: 51)
Gang ga-ume banan kauwa.
3SG 3SG-inside like NEG
‘He doesn’t like it.’

In some languages of central and western Alor, it is possible to optionally reinforce negation by the inclusion of a second negator in a pre-predicative position. The precise position of the pre-predicative negator depends on the scope of the negation. It is placed directly before the clausal element with specific respect to which the negation is reinforced. For example, Kamang has the standard negator *naa* that occurs post-predicatively (10a), but this regularly combines with the negative reinforcer *bei* that occurs in different pre-predicative positions depending on the scope of the negation (10b–d). See Haan (2001:73–77) for description and illustration of parallel negative constructional patterns in Adang.

(10) Kamang (Schapper fieldnotes)

a. *Nal isei maa katee naa.*
1SG game edible eat NEG
‘I don’t eat meat.’

b. ... *na bei e-nuaa nok met-si naa.*
1SG NEG 2SG-thing one take-IPFV NEG
‘... I didn’t take anything of yours.’

c. *Bei takabau yeŋ sukuu wo-oi tumun yaanme naa.*
NEG frog 3.FOC hole 3.LOC-to inside come.HIGH NEG
‘It was not a frog that came out of the hole (rather it was something else).’

d. *Takabau=a bei aŋ=mi naa.*
frog=ART NEG DEM=LOC NEG
‘The frog was not there (rather it was somewhere else).’
In several languages of western Alor and the Pantar Straits, such embracing negation, i.e., with a combined pre- and post-predicative negator, is more frequent and less pragmatically salient than in Kamang. In Klon, for instance, double negation is the typical, if not obligatory, manner of expressing standard negation, as shown in (11). The negator *nay* occurs in a post-predicate position, while a second negator, *hok*, occurs before the predicate. A similar pattern of recurrent, near-obligatory embracing negation is described for Reta (Willemsen 2020: 209–212, 2021: 379).

(11) Klon (Baird 2008: 248)
*Mih, hok muŋ nay.*
sit NEG fall NEG
'It's sitting, it hasn't fallen.'

In only one Alor-Pantar language, Kafoa, is standard negation expressed by means of a pre-predicative negator (12a). An emphatic embracing negation construction is formed by means of an optional postpredicative negator *ke* (11b).

(12) Kafoa (Baird 2017:76–78)
a. *Ne bilau na ka karai,...*
1SG food 1SG NEG eat
'I won't eat it,...'
b. *Ka nan ke.*
NEG thing NEG
'It's nothing.'

As can be seen from the examples presented thus far, in most Alor-Pantar languages, affirmative and negative polarity clauses differ only as to whether the negator is present or absent. A somewhat different behaviour can be observed in two languages of the Pantar Straits region, Reta (13) and the East Pantar dialect of Blagar (14), that require the negated clause to be marked by *ba*.<fnref n="1" /> This marker is synchronically multifunctional and is often described as a focus marker, but developed from a nominal article (Schapper 2007). These negation constructions in these languages thus originate in a clausal nominalisation strategy (see Schapper & San Roque 2011 for more on clause nominalisation in the Alor-Pantar languages).

<footnote n="1">1. This situation is referred to as (*a*)symmetry in negation by Miestamo (2007). In *symmetric* negation the affirmative and negative clauses differ only with respect to the presence/absence of the negator(s). In *asymmetric* negation the affirmative and negative clauses differ in other respects in addition to the presence/absence of the negator(s).</footnote>
(13) Reta (Willemsen 2020: 211, 2021: 177)
Tula ʔaŋa, daata gonoŋ sakola ba naga.
first DEM grandchild COLL school FOC NEG
‘Back in the day, our forefathers didn’t go to school.’

(14) Blagar East Pantar (Koda 2012: 341)
... pini in̥ harak ba niŋa.
1PL.INCL 3PL reach FOC NEG
‘... we won’t reach them.’

Despite the relative variety of forms used in negation constructions in modern Alor-Pantar languages, standard negation in Proto-Alor-Pantar can with confidence be reconstructed as having been accomplished with a negator *naga that occurred in a post-predicative position. Reflexes of this negator are always post-predicative and are found in multiple Alor-Pantar languages that are not known to have any close subgrouping relationship (Table 1). Two further negators can be reconstructed to lower-level subgroups within the Alor-Pantar languages. Whilst *nanu and *niŋa are strikingly similar to Proto-Alor-Pantar *naga, they do not represent regular developments from Proto-Alor-Pantar due to their having irregular vocalic correspondences. Yet, as with *naga, reflexes of *nanu and *niŋa occur exclusively after the predicate. Thus, the post-predicative position of the standard negator is secure both at the level of Proto-Alor-Pantar and well-defined nodes subsequent to the break-up of that proto-language.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Reconstructable post-predicative standard negators and their reflexes in Alor-Pantar languages</caption><thead><tr><th>Reconstructions</th><th>Reflexes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proto-Alor-Pantar</td><td>*naga Abui naha, Kamang na:, Kui naŋa, Klon naŋ, Adang na(nɛ) ~ nɛ(nɛ), Reta naga</td></tr><tr><td>Proto-East Alor</td><td>*nanu Sawila na:nu, Kula nanu, Wersing nauŋ ~ nanu</td></tr><tr><td>Proto-East Pantar-Straits</td><td>*niŋa Blagar niŋa, Bukalabang niŋa</td></tr></tbody></table>
While post-predicative negators are frequently cognate, the pre-predicative negators used in embracing negation constructions are diverse in form and often represent independent, language-specific innovations. Nonetheless, there is one reconstructable prepredicative negator for Proto-Alor-Pantar, *ake, the reflexes of which are given in Table 2.<fnref n="2" />

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Reconstructable pre-predicative negator in Alor-Pantar languages</caption><thead><tr><td>Reconstruction</td><td>Reflexes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proto-Alor-Pantar *ake</td><td>Nedebang <i>aki</i>, Kaera <i>aki</i>, Bukalabang <i>ake</i>, Blagar East Pantar <i>ake</i>, Blagar Pura <i>?ake</i>, Reta <i>ake</i>, Adang <i>?e</i>, Kafoa <i>ke</i></td></tr></tbody></table>

In the majority of languages with a reflex of *ake, the negator is used pre-predicatively without any other exponent of negation to express different semantic shades of prohibition, as seen in Examples (15–17). The frequency of such uses of reflexes in the modern Alor-Pantar languages is taken here to indicate that the original function of *ake was a prohibitive marker.

(15) Nedebang (Schapper 2020: 85)
*Aki piŋ* *hilliŋ*.
NEG 1PL.INCL hungry
‘May we not get hungry’.

(16) Bukalabang (Steinhauer 2020: 154)
*Duminiŋ, ake naiŋ na.*
snake NEG 1SG eat
‘Snake, don’t eat me’.

(17) Blagar Pura (Steinhauer 2014: 175)
*Ana ?ake naiŋ bue.*
2SG NEG 1SG hit
‘Don’t hit me’.

In some languages, emphatic embracing negation constructions have arisen through combining a reflex of the pre-predicative prohibitive *ake with a post-

<footnote n="2">2. This is a tentative reconstruction. Similar forms for prohibitives are found across the unrelated Austronesian languages of the Flores-Lembata group, including nearby Alorese. It is possible that this form spread from Alorese to these Alor-Pantar languages. However, given that the form seems not to be reconstructable within the Flores-Lembata group (see Fricke 2019: 242) and that the sound correspondences within the Alor-Pantar languages that attest this form are regular, this scenario is not unproblematic. Mutual influence between Alorese and the Alor-Pantar languages is rampant. But with borrowing taking place back and forth, the directionality of influence is not always easy to establish with certainty.</footnote>
predicative standard negator. This is still observable in languages like Adang, where ʔɛ, reflecting *ake, combines with post-predicative nanɛ ~ nɛnɛ to form what seems to be a slightly emphatic negative construction (Example 18a; see full description in Haan 2001:73-77). At the same time, Adang ʔɛ is able to stand in a post-predicative position in the expression of prohibition. In this position, ʔɛ occasionally occurs as the sole exponent of negation (18b) but more commonly with aʔai in pre-predicative position (18c), a form sourced from the negative existential verb ‘not exist’.

(18) Adang (Haan 2001: 308, 232, 284)

a. Uli kɔd habar ho ʔɛ u=na-tan nɛnɛ.
Uli shirt new ART NEG APPL=1SG-ask NEG
‘Uli did not ask me about the new shirt.’

b. Na-pa ʔɛ!
1SG-touch NEG
‘Don’t disturb me!’

c. Aʔai nɛ-ho-ni ʔɛ!
NEG 1SG-ALL-resemble NEG
‘Don’t do like that to me!’

Kafoa has progressed further than Adang in the cyclical renewal of negative constructions from negative emphatic constructions. The Kafoa postverbal emphatic negator *ke* appears to be a reflex of *ake that has come to be an optional secondary element in negative constructions, while innovative pre-predicative *ka* has become the sole standard negator. That is, we hypothesize that in its history Kafoa has gone through multiple cycles of renewal, thus: [PRED NEG1] > [NEG2 PRED NEG1] > [NEG2 PRED NEG2] > [NEG3 PRED NEG2] > [NEG3 PRED]. Today, the language has [NEG3 PRED] as its basic standard negation construction and retains what we posit to be the earlier [NEG3 PRED NEG2] construction as an emphatic construction.

In sum, Proto-Alor-Pantar had a standard negator that occurred in post-predicative position and possibly a prohibitive marker that occurred in a pre-predicative position. Many of the modern Alor-Pantar languages continue this pattern, even where they do not retain the proto-forms of the negators. In the languages of western Alor and the Pantar Straits region, reflexes of the proto-prohibitive negator have come to be used as part of embracing negation constructions in standard negation. Where they occur in a pre-predicative position, they form an embracing negation with a basic post-predicative standard negator; where they occur post-predicatively, they form an embracing negation with a basic pre-predicative negator.
# 5. Phasal polarity in Alor-Pantar languages

## 5.1 ‘Already’ and ‘still’

The two affirmative phasal polarity concepts **STILL** and **ALREADY** are of high frequency and consistently expressed with independent grammatical words in the Alor-Pantar languages. While they do not co-occur on account of their semantic incompatibility, the affirmative phasal polarity markers occupy distinct syntactic positions in the Alor-Pantar languages. Across all languages, **ALREADY** markers always occur in a postverbal slot, while **STILL** markers occur before the predicate. This is illustrated with Wersing (19), Kaera (20), and Nedebang (21).<fnref n="3" />

(19) Wersing (Schapper 2020b)

a. *Kutual ba g-is boli kana.*
   dog **ART** 3-body bad **ALREADY**
   ‘The dog is already skinny’.

b. *Pei g-is ba de wolara.*
   pig 3-body **ART** **STILL** raw
   ‘The pig meat is still raw’.

(20) Kaera (Klamer 2014: 143, 136)

a. *Botol ega g-wal-i sei.*
   bottle **DEM** 3-full-*PFV** **ALREADY**
   ‘This bottle here is already full’.

b. ..., *naŋ yedi n-waat.*
   1SG **STILL** 1SG-live
   ‘...I still live (i.e., I am still alive)’.

(21) Nedebang (Schapper fieldnotes)

a. *Konda suʔu cicci waua.*
   shirt **DEM** dry **ALREADY**
   ‘That shirt is already dry’.

b. *Konda suʔu yadda malaica.*
   shirt **DEM** **STILL** wet
   ‘That shirt is still wet’.

<footnote n="3">³. A minor complication here pertains to Teiwa *yed* and Klon *ʔada*. These markers are occasionally attested in pre-predicate position with a negative meaning. All examples we are aware of feature telic predicates. As Persohn (2024) lays out, a change **STILL** > **NOT YET** with telic predicates is both functionally motivated and attested in the wider vicinity, with a similar pattern being found in the Lewotobi variety of Austronesian Lamaholot (Nagaya 2012: 414–417). That is, these instances do not invalidate the assumption that *yed* and *ʔada* are generally affirmative – they merely acquire a negative reading in certain, clearly defined cases.</footnote>
Affirmative phasal polarity constructions are not equally reconstructable for the Alor-Pantar languages. Although forms expressing **ALREADY** almost always occur in a post-predicative position, there is no form for **ALREADY** that can be reconstructed to Proto-Alor-Pantar and thus no comparable phonological material with which an **ALREADY** construction can be posited. There are a few apparent cognates across Alor-Pantar languages expressing **ALREADY**, but these appear to represent parallel grammaticalization of lexical items. By contrast, forms expressing **STILL** appear to be broadly cognate across the Alor-Pantar languages (Table 3). Proto-Alor-Pantar *e'day for **STILL** is well-supported; innovative **STILL** forms reconstructable at lower levels are likely to represent historically morphologically complex forms involving a reflex of the Proto-Alor-Pantar form.<fnref n="4" /> Reflexes of reconstructed **STILL** in Proto-Alor-Pantar and subsequent lower-level proto-languages are consistently in a pre-predicative position when used to denote the affirmative phasal polarity concept **STILL**. The syntactic consistency of reconstructable **STILL** means that the pre-predicative position of that marker can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty in Proto-Alor-Pantar.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Cognate **STILL** markers in Alor-Pantar languages</caption><thead><tr><td>Reconstructions</td><td>Reflexes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proto-Alor-Pantar *e'day</td><td>Western Pantar yadda, Nedebang yedda ~ yadda, Teiwa yed, Kaera yedi, Adang dai, Klon ?ada: ~ ?a'da, Kui de, Kamang ta(na):, Wersing de, Sawila di, Kula di</td></tr><tr><td>Proto-Abui-Kafoa *da'ra</td><td>Abui da'ra, Kafoa dara</td></tr><tr><td>Proto-East Pantar-Straits *eduŋ</td><td>Bukalabang eduŋ, Blagar jeduŋ ~ eduŋ, Reta do:</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.2 ‘No longer’ and ‘not yet’

In Alor-Pantar languages, the coding of the two negative phasal polarity concepts **NOT YET** and **NO LONGER** is — as is typologically common (e.g., van Baar 1997, van der Auwera 1998) — related to the positive polarity concepts **STILL** and **ALREADY**, respectively.

<footnote n="4">4. The expected reflex of Proto-Alor-Pantar *e'day in Proto-Abui-Kafoa is **ra; the form *da'ra could be explained as a reduplication of that regular reflex with subsequent phonetic dissimilation of the rhotic sequence (i.e., **ra > **ra~'ra > *da'ra). The final *uŋ of Proto-East Pantar-Straits is unexplained and may be a remnant of a fused form. In at least one other Alor-Pantar languages it is clear that **STILL** represents a fusion of different grammatical words: Kamang *tana*: is a historically complex form that represents an entirely regular reflex of the fusion of **STILL** and the Proto-Alor-Pantar standard negator (i.e., Kamang *ta-na*: < *e'day **STILL** + *naga **NEG**).</footnote>
The negative phasal polarity concept **NO LONGER** is relatively infrequently expressed in Alor-Pantar languages. Where descriptive materials provide examples of relevant constructions, they consistently consist of a combination of an **ALREADY** expression and a negator. In most languages **ALREADY** and the negator both occur post-predicatively. For these languages, the only attested order of these post-predicative elements is **ALREADY NEG**. This is exemplified with three widely dispersed Alor-Pantar languages in (22–24).

(22) Sawila (Kratochvíl et al. 2014)

Ni-taama teewa ga-beera naanu kaana.

1-grandparent paddle 3SG-able NEG ALREADY

‘My grandfather is not able to row the boat anymore.’

(23) Blagar East Pantar (Koda 2012: 1)

A-abat kbitak hein ba, kuat ba niay hein.

2-wing broken ALREADY FOC strong FOC NEG ALREADY

‘Now your wing has been broken, it won’t be strong anymore.’

(24) Teiwa (Sir & Schapper 2024: 269)

Week xai yar wan dum maan taw.

nowadays canoe sail exist many NEG ALREADY

‘There aren’t many boats with sails anymore.’

The concept of **NOT YET**, or that of negative persistence (see Section 2), is in many Alor-Pantar languages expressed in the cross-linguistically common compositional pattern by which **STILL** takes scope over a negated predicate. In East and Central Alor languages, this takes the form of a **STILL** item in pre-predicate position, together with the negator in post-predicate position. That is, in these varieties the **NOT YET** expression is an embracing construction in which both the **STILL** marker and the negator occur in the same syntactic slots that they occur in when they are used independent of one another; see the Wersing and Abui examples in (25, 26).

(25) Wersing (Schapper 2020b)

Naida de ne-tleteŋ nauŋ.

1SG STILL 1SG-understand NEG

‘I don’t understand yet.’

(26) Abui (Kratochvíl & Delpada 2008: 120)

Ne-konrek dara takat naha.

1SG-shirt STILL dried NEG

‘My shirt is not dried out yet.’
With its innovative pre-predicative standard negator, Kafoa has both **STILL** and the negator before the predicate, as seen in (27).

(27) Kafoa (Widhyasmaramurti 2013:20)
*Da dara-ka bilan-karai.*
3sg **STILL-NEG** food-eat
‘He has not yet eaten.’

Kaera is unique among the Alor-Pantar languages in that there is no obvious syn-
chronic relationship between its forms for **STILL** (28a) and **NOT YET** (28b). The
Kaera **NOT YET** expression is also notable for the fact that it occurs in a post-
predicative position, a point we shall return to in Section 6.

(28) Kaera (Klamer 2012)
a. Kranjan yuki yedi isik.
basket one **STILL** empty
‘One basket was still empty.’
b. Nang-obo bedo.
1sg 3-return **NOT.YET**
‘I haven’t returned it yet.’

For the remainder of the Alor-Pantar languages stretching from the western
coastal regions of Alor to the far, western side of Pantar, we find a range of con-
structions in which **STILL** appears post-predicatively to express **NOT YET**. In most
Pantar languages, simply placing pre-predicative **STILL** into a post-predicative
position is sufficient for the expression of **NOT YET**. This was seen already for Bla-
gar Pura in (1b), but can also be observed for languages in Pantar. The examples
in (29b, 30b) illustrate this for Bukalabang *eduy* and Nedebang *yadda*. Exam-
ples (29a, 30a) show the same markers as exponents of affirmative **STILL** in pre-
predicate position.

(29) Bukalabang (Steinhauer 2020: 154)
a. Niny *eduy* kiki.
1PL.EXCL **STILL** small
‘We were still little children’.

b. Niny lamar eduy, niy nag na gi.
1PL.EXCL walk **STILL** 1PL.EXCL thing eat first
‘We did not go yet, we ate first.’

(30) Nedebang (Schapper 2020c: 85, Schapper fieldnotes)
a. Konda su'u yadda malaica.
shirt DEM **STILL** wet
‘That shirt is still wet.’
b. *Nay nei maxara danna yedda.*
1SG 1SG.POSS garden burn STILL
'I have not yet burnt my garden.'

In Teiwa, another language of Pantar, NOT YET is normally expressed by placing the STILL expressions after the predicate (31a). Alongside this, however, there is also an “embracing” pattern whereby a STILL form occurs on both sides of the predicate, i.e., [STILL PRED STILL] (31b).

(31) Teiwa (Klamer 2010: 124, 269)

a. *Iman ga-wutan wa? wan yed.*
3PL 3SG-vegetables leaf be STILL
‘They do not have vegetables yet.’

b. *A yed karian yed.*
3SG STILL work STILL
‘He has not come to work yet.’

In Western Pantar, a similar pattern is found. However, whilst the basic Western Pantar STILL form *yadda* that occurs post-predicatively to mean NOT YET (32a) is a regular reflex of Proto-Alor-Pantar of *e'day, the embracing NOT YET construction involves a pre-predicative STILL form *yer* (32b), a loan of Teiwa *yed* (or from one of the Teiwa’s sisters such as Sar, which also has *yed*).<fnref n="5" />

(32) Western Pantar (Holton 2014: 52, 53)

a. *Nay hori yadda.*
1SG eat STILL
‘I have not eaten yet.’

b. *Gan yer ma yadda.*
3SG STILL come STILL
‘He still hasn’t come.’

In Klon, spoken in the west of Alor, there are two constructions for NOT YET. In the first, *ʔada* and the negator *nang* occupy their usual positions (33a), as seen for Eastern and Central Alor above. Alternatively, *ʔada* can embrace the predicate (33b) in the same way as Teiwa (31b).

(33) Klon (Baird 2008: 237, n.d.)

a. *Pi ʔada tuʔuin nay, ...*
1PL.INCL STILL hide NEG
‘We have not yet hidden [buried] her, ...’

<footnote n="5">5. Western Pantar does not permit /d/ word-finally and appears to have adapted this with /r/.</footnote>
b. Wed igin=oy abe ?ada ?ad ?ada?
now 2NON.SG,this who still come still
'Now of you here who still hasn't come yet?'

Finally, in both Adang and Reta, NOT YET is expressed with a pre-predicative negator and a STILL expression post-predicatively (34, 35a). These constructions are analogous to the standard negation constructions which in both languages are typically, though not obligatorily, "embracing". Reta further allows the pre-predicative negator to be dropped, resulting in a construction in which a post-predicative STILL expression is the sole exponent of NOT YET (35b), as is typical of other Pantar Straits languages.<fnref n="6" />

(34) Adang (Haan 2001: 249)
Supi ?ɛ ?-a-tuh-u dai.
3PL NEG 3-CAUS-stand-CAUS STILL
'They have not made it/him/her/them stand yet (but I suggest they will)'.

(35) Reta (Willemsen 2020: 211)

a. Nama joa ka ?aja mi abeetal ba doo.
person some NEG DEM in live FOC STILL
'No one lived there yet'.

b. Kabiab alo ?adi g-oto mi kede ba doo.
goat two DEM 3-testicle in hit FOC STILL
'These two goats weren't castrated yet'.

## 5.3 Summary

In the previous sections we have seen that the Alor-Pantar languages express the affirmative phasal polarity concept ALREADY with a post-predicative marker and STILL with a pre-predicative marker. The negative phasal polarity concept NO LONGER is expressed by combining a negator with the relevant form for ALREADY, typically both in post-predicative position. The consistency of the constructions expressing these concepts is not, however, found for NOT YET. Alor-Pantar languages evidence a wide variety of encodings for NOT YET. As can be seen from the summary in (36), NOT YET is expressed compositionally with STILL in its usual pre-predicate position occurring with a post-predicative negator in the majority of languages on Alor. In the remainder of the archipelago, constructions are more diverse, with a range of compositional patterns as well as sole exponents in post-predicative position.

<footnote n="6">6. Note that Adang has a range of additional constructions in which *dai* ‘STILL’ co-occurs pre-predicatively with the negator ?ɛ. However, these do not express ‘NOT YET’ as defined here and so are not discussed further. See Haan (2001: 108–119) for a full discussion.</footnote>
(36) Constructions expressing NOT YET in the Alor-Pantar languages

a. [STILL PRED NEG]: Klon, Kui, Abui, Kamang, Sawila, Kula, Wersing

b. [STILL-NEG PRED ]: Kafoa

c. [STILL PRED STILL]: Klon, Teiwa, Western Pantar

d. [NEG PRED STILL]: Adang, Reta

e. [ PRED STILL]: Reta, Blagar, Bukalabang, Nedebang, Teiwa, Western Pantar

f. [ PRED NOT.YET]: Kaera

The distribution of NOT YET constructions in Alor-Pantar languages is overviewed in Figure 3. In the following section we account for the diversity of NOT YET con- structions and, in particular, describe the diachronic pathways through which the typologically unusual constructions of the type in (36e) arose.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Distribution of NOT YET construction types in Alor-Pantar languages. Combinations of colours and patterns indicate the presence of both structures</figcaption></figure>

6. Development of position-dependent polarity markers in Alor-Pantar

How did the numerous NOT YET constructions in Alor-Pantar languages arise? In particular, how did the typologically unusual position-dependent polarity alter- nations for NOT YET and STILL come about? In the previous sections, we saw that several constructions in the domain of negation and phasal polarity could
be reconstructed to Proto-Alor-Pantar. These are given in (37). Crucially, these reconstructions involve not simply a proto-schema, but also phonological material reconstructed on the basis of cognacy in daughter languages (Daniels 2021: 24–28).

(37) Reconstructable Proto-Alor-Pantar constructions

Standard negation: [PRED *naga]

Prohibitive negation: [*ake PRED]

STILL: [*e'day PRED]

We further posit that a NOT YET construction that combines the proto-schemas for standard negation and for STILL is reconstructable to Proto-Alor-Pantar, thus (38).

(38) NOT YET: [*e'day PRED *naga]

This typologically unremarkable schema is maintained by almost all languages in Alor, including all members of the East Alor subgroup, thought to represent the earliest, and possibly only, decisive split in the history of the Alor-Pantar languages (Kaiping & Klamer 2022: 27). Further support for the conservatism of this schema is found in two languages of Pantar, Western Pantar, and Teiwa. In these languages, we find that STILL forms appear pre-predicatively with a negative polarity NOT YET reading where they are “bumped” out of the post-predicative negative slot by a non-standard negator. This is seen with Western Pantar *gayan* and Teiwa *gaxaʔai*, prohibitive markers which co-occur post-predicatively, as in (39, 40). Even though the prohibitive markers here cannot be reconstructed, the patterning they show parallels that seen in East and Central Alor languages (e.g., in Examples 25 and 26) where NOT YET is composed of pre-predicative STILL and a post-predicative negator. In fact, there is no Alor-Pantar language in which a post-predicative negator co-occurs with a post-verbal STILL expression, a restriction that strongly corroborates, albeit indirectly, the NOT YET schema in (38).

(39) Western Pantar (Holton 2014: 52)

Yadda maiyang gayan.

STILL place NEG

‘Don’t put them down yet.’

(40) Teiwa (Klamer 2020a)

Qau yed daar-an gaxaʔai sin.

good STILL sing-REAL NEG just

‘Stop singing first (now).’ (i.e., ‘Don’t sing just yet.’)
Against this background, the unusual and variable patterns for expressing *NOT YET* in the languages of far Western Alor, the Pantar Straits, and Pantar are innovations whose development requires explanation. Table 4 sketches out the pathways by which we argue for the innovative constructions to have arisen. We argue that the driving mechanism behind this development was structural analogy, both between clause patterns within individual varieties and across languages (i.e., structural calquing). In what follows, we discuss each stage in more detail, focusing first on the role of analogy, and then on the role of diffusion across languages.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Stages in the development of post-predicative *STILL* for *NOT YET*</caption><thead><tr><th>Stage</th><th>Process</th><th>NOT YET via</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Original pattern</td><td>[STILL PRED NEG1]</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td rowspan="2">Rise of embracing NOT YET</td><td>[STILL PRED STILL]</td></tr><tr><td>2'</td><td>[NEG2 PRED STILL]</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Erosion of embracing NOT YET</td><td>[ PRED STILL]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Stage 1 represents the inherited pattern — preserved in numerous languages in Alor — and involves a single negator in post-predicative position, a pattern that corresponds to the position of the standard negator in almost all Alor-Pantar languages today. Stage 2 sees the emergence of an embracing construction for *NOT YET*. Stage 3 sees the erosion of embracing *NOT YET* constructions. Syn-chronic pointers for the transition to Stage 3 are apparent in multiple languages with optional embracing constructions for *NOT YET*. In Reta and Klon, embracing negation, though common, is not (or no longer) compulsory. In Reta, this carries over to the innovative *NOT YET* constructions, whose pre-predicate element is likewise treated as optional. Its elision leaves the post-predicate *STILL* expression as the sole exponent of *NOT YET*, thereby giving rise to position-dependent polarity. The occasional attestations of *STILL* as *NOT YET* on both sides of the predicate in Teiwa and Western Pantar indicates a similar development from an earlier Stage 2 construction.

As Stage 2 is the crucial step in our proposed scenario, closer discussion of this is in order. To begin with, we explain the rise of bi-partite *NOT YET* constructions through structural analogy with embracing standard negation. That is, we posit that analogical pressure from cycling embracing standard negation constructions seems to have led to cycling in structurally similar phasal polarity constructions. As indicated earlier, constructions with negators on both sides of the predicate are most strongly conventionalized (i.e., less emphatic) in the languages of the eastern part of the area where post-predicative *STILL* for *NOT YET* is found; and
it is here, plus in Teiwa and Western Pantar, that we encounter embracing NOT YET constructions. What is more, in the languages of Pantar and Pantar Straits we recurrently encounter innovative post-predicative standard negators (i.e., not reflecting Proto-Alor-Pantar *naga), which suggests that they have undergone cycles of negator renewal even when they do not evidence embracing constructions synchronically.

Within Stage 2 there are two different patterns, [STILL PRED STILL] and [NEG2 PRED STILL], given as Stage 2 and Stage 2' in Table 4, that require articulation as to their developmental pathways. The first of these involves the copying of a STILL expression into the post-predicative position, fully parallel to standard negation constructions in which a negator is placed both in front of and following the predicate. In other words, we have a very simple process of copying for reinforcement as is common in negation cycles. In the case of [NEG2 PRED STILL], on the other hand, the STILL expression is moved into the post-predicative position together with the appearance of a pre-predicative negator. This construction parallels embracing negation constructions for standard negation in which a negator is placed both before and after the predicate. In this case, however, it is the STILL expression, rather than a negator, that follows the predicate and acts as the carrier of the main semantic “load”.

With both Step 2 constructions, namely [STILL PRED STILL] and [NEG2 PRED STILL], being synchronically attested, the question of their relationship to one another arises. From the point of view of purely language-internal change, a step-wise development along 1>2>3 or 1>2>2' >3 appears to be most well motivated, as each of these pathways involves the change of just a single element from the previous stage. By contrast, the pathway 1>2' (in either 1>2' > 3 or 1>2' >2>3) involves two steps: (i) copying of STILL to post-predicative position, and (ii) adding of the preverbal negator. This alternative pathway would thus seem prima facie to be a less well motivated series of steps, at least from a language-internal perspective.

However, the possibility of a 1>2' pathway cannot be excluded because we are not, we contend, dealing with garden-variety cyclical change nor with “isolated”, purely intra-system developments. First, constructional analogy with embracing standard negation appears to represent a crucial prerequisite for the developments of the NOT YET constructions discussed here. If these constructions were part of a common cyclical change, then we might expect them to be evidenced elsewhere in the world's languages, just as with other negation cycles. The apparent cross-linguistic oddity of the constructions discussed here suggests more is at play. Second, there is evidence that structural calquing across languages has played a role in the spread of these constructions. We already saw in Section 5.2 that the pre-predicative exponent of the embracing NOT YET construction in West-
ern Pantar was a borrowing from Teiwa or one of its sisters. But perhaps more
notable is that the languages with the innovative NOT YET constructions (repre-
sented by Stages 2 and 3) cluster in a small area which is known for its intense
interactions between groups (see Gomang 1993, Wellfelt 2016 on the historical sit-
uation, and Klamer 2020b, Moro 2018, 2019, 2021 on some of the linguistic out-
comes of these interactions). The areality of the phenomenon is furthermore seen
most pointedly in the fact that its ultimate outcome is also found in Alorese, the
Austronesian language spoken in the Alor archipelago, as shown in (41).

(41) Alorese, Pandai variety (Sulistyono 2022: 131)

a. Go wati habo.
1SG STILL bathe
‘I am still taking a bath.’

b. Go habo wati.
1SG bathe STILL
‘I haven’t taken a bath [yet]?’<fnref n="7" />

The “infectiousness” of the position-dependent polarity alternations is further evidenced by the fact that in one language, Teiwa, the pattern has been extended beyond the domain of phasal polarity. In Sir & Schapper (2024), we find two other items, *gaxuri* (42) and *gaxaʔai* (43), which participate in the same polarity alternations, with pre-predicative positions being associated with affirmative polarity and post-predicative positions with negative polarity.

(42) Teiwa (Schapper fieldnotes)

a. Gaxuri wou boog na.
DEONT.MOD mango unripe eat
‘Go ahead eat unripe mango.’

b. Wou boog na-an gaxuri.
mango unripe eat-REAL DEONT.MOD
‘Don’t eat unripe mango.’

(43) Teiwa (Sir & Schapper 2024: 98)

a. Gaxaʔai a gi.
DEONT.MOD 3SG go
‘Let her/him go.’

<footnote n="7">7. For clarity, we add ‘yet’ to this gloss. The text accompanying this example makes clear that ‘not yet’ rather than simple negation is intended. Sulistyono (2022: 130) writes “wati ‘still, not yet’ can either express something that has not yet been done or something that is still ongoing. When wati is used to mark something that has not yet been done, it occurs in post-predicate position” and refers explicitly to the example given in (41b).</footnote>
b. *Gi-in* gaxaʔai.
go-REAL DEONT.MOD
‘Don’t go.’

To the best of our knowledge, no other Alor-Pantar language has a position-
dependent polarity alternation with additional markers, without also displaying
the persistive alternation. In Teiwa, post-predicative uses of gaxuri and gaxaʔai,
i.e., negative uses, are much more common than the pre-predicative affirmative
uses. This suggests that these were originally negative items that came to have an
affirmative — negative alternation on analogy with the polarity alternations linked
to clausal position already established in the language’s STILL and NOT YET con-
structions. There are no “embracing” constructions with gaxuri and gaxaʔai that
would suggest that these arose in a stepwise fashion that parallels the pathways by
which post-predicative NOT YET constructions arose.

Lastly, our proposal not only offers a diachronic motivation for the typological oddity of position-based polarity, but it also offers an explanation of the apparent aberrance of the NOT YET construction in Kaera against other Alor-Pantar languages (cf. Example 36), namely as a Stage 3 construction expressed by a fused FOC+STILL form, together with areal diffusion. We saw in Section 5.2 that Kaera bedo ‘NOT YET’ had no obvious synchronic relationship with the expression for STILL in that language but nonetheless had the unusual post-predicative position which was typical of the other languages in the family with position-dependent polarity. The form bedo is in fact a univerbation of the focus marker *ba plus Proto-East Pantar-Straits *eduŋ ‘STILL’. We saw in Section 4 that the use of the focus marker in negation constructions is obligatory in other languages of the subgroup (see Examples 14 from Blagar East Pantar and 35 from Reta). What is particularly striking about the Kaera situation is pre-predicative STILL reflects Proto-Alor-Pantar *e’day, but the post-predicative STILL component in bedo reflects the innovative form *eduŋ of the East Pantar-Straits group. This gives Kaera a curiously hybrid set of phasal polarity constructions: the STILL construction has a form and function that reflects the Proto-Alor-Pantar construction, while the NOT YET construction appears to be based on structures found in the East Pantar-Straits group, where Kaera itself occupies a peripheral position. This suggests that the Kaera NOT YET construction has arisen through structural diffusion from languages of that group to its east.
7. Concluding discussion

In this paper we have discussed a pattern in the Alor-Pantar languages by which a clause's polarity depends on the linear position certain items occupy in it: the pre-predicate position yields affirmative polarity, whereas the same elements occupying the post-predicative slot vest the clause with negative polarity. This pattern predominantly affects the expression of the phasal concepts **STILL** and **NOT YET**; in one language, Teiwa, the same pattern of polarity alternation is also attested for certain deontic modals.

From a synchronic and typological perspective, these polarity alternations are curious in several regards. First and foremost, a systematic alternation in polarity (even if only for specific items) based solely on linear syntax is — to the best of our knowledge — not known from any other language. After all, one would expect negation to be marked materially, i.e., by means of some element of segmental and/or suprasegmental shape. Instead, we are dealing with a peculiar instance of “negatives without negators” (Miestamo 2010). However, as far as the more widespread **STILL/NOT YET** alternation in Alor-Pantar languages is concerned, there is reason to ask the principled question whether we are actually dealing with the *absence of any overt* negation. After all, when vesting the clause with negative polarity, the relevant expressions occupy the same linear position as the standard negator would. In other words, the constructions in question do contain an element of compositionality in so far as their meaning combines that of the relevant morphemes (**STILL**) together with one of the meanings associated with the clausal slot (¬p).

Based on family-internal comparison, and elaborating on a proposal by Persohn (2024), we have suggested that the position-dependent-polarity alternations can be traced back to a series of developments in the domain of negation in conjunction with constructional analogy. We showed that the marking of **STILL** in pre-predicative position is the inherited pattern and that, in all likelihood, **NOT YET** was originally expressed by combining a **STILL** expression with the standard, clause-final negator. In languages of Pantar island, the Pantar strait, and, to a lesser degree, Western Alor, the rise of an embracing pattern of negation [NEG PRED NEG] led to the analogous formation of embracing **NOT YET** constructions. The latter, synchronically still observable in several languages, came in two variants: the **STILL** item either replaced the post-predicative negator [NEG PRED STILL] or both negative elements [STILL PRED STILL]. Subsequently, erosion of this embracing **NOT YET** construction led to the post-predicative **STILL** item as the sole exponent of negative persistence. In other words, though the outcome of this process is typologically uncommon, what lies at its heart is a variation over a familiar theme of cyclical language change
## Funding

Bastian Persohn's work was supported by the German Research Council (DFG), project #453412235. Antoinette Schapper's research was supported by the OUTOFPAPUA project funded by the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 848532).

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the journal's editor Silvia Luraghi for expertly shepherding our manuscript through the review and revision process.

## Abbreviations

1 first person

2 second person

3 third person

ALL allative

APPL applicative

ART article

CAUS causative

COLL collective

DEM demonstrative

DEONT.MOD deontic modal

EXCL exclusive

FOC focus

INCL inclusive

IPFV imperfective

LOC locative

NOM nominative

NEG negation

PAT patient

PL plural

PRED predicate

PTCP participle

REAL realis

SG singular

## References

van Baar, Theodorus M. 1997. *Phasal polarity*. Dordrecht: Foris.

van der Auwera, Johan. 1998. Phasal adverbials in the languages of Europe. *Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe*, ed. by Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill, 25–145. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. The Jespersen cycles. *Cyclical change*, ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

van der Auwera, Johan, Olga Krasnoukhova & Frens Vossen. 2022. Intertwining the negative cycles. *The negative existential cycle*, ed. by Ljuba Veselinova & Arja Hamari, 611–650. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Baird, Louise. 2008. *A grammar of Klon: A non-Austronesian language of Alor, Indonesia*. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
doi Baird, Lousie. 2017. Kafoa. *The Papuan languages of Timor-Alor-Pantar: Sketch grammars*, vol. 1, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 55–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Daniels, Don. 2021. *Grammatical Reconstruction: The Sogeram Languages of New Guinea*. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Fricke, Hanna. 2019. *Traces of language contact. The Flores-Lembata languages in eastern Indonesia*. Leiden University PhD dissertation.

doi van Gelderen, Elly. 2009. Cyclical change, an introduction. *Cyclical change*, ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gomang, Syarifuddin R. 1993. *The people of Alor and their alliances in eastern Indonesia: A study in political sociology*. University of Wollongong PhD dissertation.

Haan, John. 2001. *The grammar of Adang: A Papuan language spoken on the island of Alor East Nusa Tenggara-Indonesia*. University of Sydney PhD dissertation.

doi Heston, Tyler M. 2017. A first reconstruction of vowels in Proto-Timor-Alor-Pantar. *Oceanic Linguistics* 56:1. 73–89.

doi Holton, Gary. 2014. Western Pantar. *The Papuan languages of Timor-Alor-Pantar: Sketch grammars*, vol. 1, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 18–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

doi Holton, Gary, Marian Klamer, František Kratochvíl, Laura Robinson & Antoinette Schapper. 2012. The historical relation of the Papuan languages of Alor and Pantar. *Oceanic linguistics* 51:1. 86–122.

doi Kaiping, Gereon A. & Marian Klamer. 2022. The dialect chain of the Timor-Alor-Pantar language family: A new analysis using systematic Bayesian phylogenetics. *Language Dynamics and Change* 12:2. 274–326.

doi Klamer, Marian. 2010. *A grammar of Teiwa*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Klamer, Marian. 2012. Kaera corpus. https://hdl.handle.net/1839/00-0000-0000-001E-AAB8-C (accessed 27 November, 2023).

doi Klamer, Marian. 2014. Kaera. *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. Sketch grammars*. vol. 1, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 97–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Klamer, Marian. 2020a. *Teiwa toolbox corpus*. https://hdl.handle.net/1839/49e54a3f-192f-47db-bocf-ddoe85c8509b (accessed 27 November, 2023)

doi Klamer, Marian. 2020b. From Lamaholot to Alorese: Morphological loss in adult language contact. *Austronesian Undressed: How and why languages become isolating*, ed. by David Gil & Antoinette Schapper, 339–367. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

doi Klamer, Marian & Antoinette Schapper. 2012. The history of ‘give’ constructions in the Papuan languages of Timor-Alor-Pantar. *Linguistic Discovery* 10:3. 174–207.

Klamer, Marian & Frantisek Kratochvíl. 2018. The Emergence of Differential Object Marking in Alor-Pantar languages. *The Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking*, ed. by Ilja Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, 69–95. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Koda, Harsong Ahmadi. 2012. *Kamus Bahasa Blagar – Indonesia. Kabupaten Alor – Nusa Tenggara Timur*. Kupang: Self-published manuscript.

doi Kratochvíl, František. 2014. Sawila. *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. Sketch grammars*, vol. 1, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 351–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kratochvíl, František & Benidiktus Delpada. 2008. *Kamus Pengantar Bahasa Abui*. Kupang: GMIT.
Kratochvíl, František, Isak Bantara & Anderias Malaikosa. 2014. Sawila-English Dictionary. https://www.academia.edu/6314522/Kratochvil_et_al_2014_Sawila_English_Dictionary (accessed 1 November, 2023).

doi Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German schon — erst — noch: An integrated analysis. *Linguistics and Philosophy* 12. 167–212.

Nagaya, Naonori. 2012. *The Lamaholot language of Eastern Indonesia*. Rice University PhD dissertation.

doi Miestamo, Matti. 2007. Negation — an overview of typological research. *Language and Linguistics Compass* 1:5. 552–570.

doi Miestamo, Matti. 2010. Negatives without negators. *Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory*, ed. by Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw, 169–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

doi Moro, Francesca R., 2018. The plural word *hire* in Alorese: Contact-induced change from neighboring Alor-Pantar languages. *Oceanic Linguistics* 57:1. 177–198.

doi Moro, Francesca R., 2019. Loss of morphology in Alorese (Austronesian): Simplification in adult language contact. *Journal of Language Contact* 12:2. 378–403.

doi Moro, Francesca R., 2021. Multilingualism in eastern Indonesia: Linguistic evidence of a shift from symmetric to asymmetric multilingualism. *International Journal of Bilingualism* 25:4. 1102–1119.

doi Persohn, Bastian. 2024. When ‘still’ means ‘not yet’. *STUF – Language Typology and Universals* 77:1. 83–139.

Schapper, Antoinette. 2007. Grammaticalization of demonstratives in the languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. Presented at the Fifth International East Nusa Tenggara Conference, Kupang, 1–3 August 2007.

Schapper, Antoinette. 2014. Elevation in the spatial deictic systems of Alor-Pantar languages. *Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology*, ed. by Marian Klamer, 247–285. Berlin: Language Science Press.

doi Schapper, Antoinette. 2017. Stress and gemination in Alor-Pantar languages. Revising Heston (2016). *Oceanic Linguistics* 56:1. 257–266.

doi Schapper, Antoinette. 2020a. Introduction to *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar: Volume III. The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor, and Pantar: Sketch grammars*, vol. 3, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 1–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schapper, Antoinette. 2020b. Wersing dictionary. *Dictionaria* 11. 1–1430. URL: https://dictionaria.clld.org/contributions/wersing doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4139455

doi Schapper, Antoinette. 2020c. Nedebang. *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor, and Pantar: Sketch grammars*, vol. 3, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 53–138. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

doi Schapper, Antoinette. 2023. From possessive to relative clause marker: A grammaticalization pathway in the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages. *STUF – Language Typology and Universals* 76:3. 369–401.

Schapper, Antoinette. in prep. The history and diversification of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages. Manuscript, Perth.

Schapper, Antoinette, Juliette Huber & Aone van Engelenhoven. 2014. The relatedness of Timor-Kisar and Alor-Pantar languages: A preliminary demonstration. *The Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology*, ed. by Marian Klamer, 91–147. Berlin: Language Science Press.
doi
Schapper, Antoinette and Lila San Roque. 2011. Demonstratives and non-embedded
nominalisations in the Papuan languages of south-east Indonesia. *Studies in language
35:2. 378-406.

Sir, Amos and Antoinette Schapper. 2024. *Kamus Bahasa Teiwa-Indonesia-Inggris*. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor.

Sneddon, James Neil, Alexander Adelaar, Dwi Noverini Djenar & Michael C. Ewing. 2010. *Indonesian reference grammar*. 2nd edn. London: Allen & Unwin.

doi
Steinhauer, Hein. 2014. *Blagar. The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. Sketch grammars*, vol. 1, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 147–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

doi
Steinhauer, Hein. 2020. Bukalabang. *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor, and Pantar: Sketch grammars*, vol. 3, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 139–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Steinhauer, Hein & Hendrik D. R. Gomang. 2016. *Kamus Blagar-Indonesia-Inggris / Blagar-Indonesian-English dictionary*. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.

Sulistyono, Yunus. 2022. *A History of Alorese (Austronesian): Combining linguistic and oral history*. Leiden University PhD dissertation.

doi
Usher, Timothy and Antoinette Schapper. 2022. The Greater West Bomberai Family. *Oceanic Linguistics* 61:1. 469–527.

Wellfelt, Emilie. 2016. *Historyscapes in Alor: Approaching indigenous histories in eastern Indonesia*. Linnaeus University PhD dissertation.

doi
Willemsen, Jeroen. 2020. Reta. *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor, and Pantar: Sketch grammars*, vol. 3, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 187–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Willemsen, Jeroen. 2021. *A grammar of Reta*. Aarhus University PhD dissertation.

Widhyasmaramurti. 2013. *Kamus kecil bahasa Kafoa* [Short dictionary of the Kafoa language]. Jakarta: Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, Pusat Penelitian Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan.

Windschuttel, Glenn & Asako Shiohara. 2017. Kui. *The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. Sketch grammars*, vol. 2, ed. by Antoinette Schapper, 109–184. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Address for correspondence

Antoinette Schapper
Department of Language, Literature and Communication
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam / Lacito, CNRS
De Boelelaan 1105
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
a.c.j.schapper@vu.nl
a_schapper@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6269-4667

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
## Co-author information

Bastian Persohn
English and American Studies
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
persohn.linguistics@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3627-3217

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

## Publication history

Date received: 28 November 2023
Date accepted: 16 December 2024
Published online: 10 February 2025