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

HAL
open science

# Word classes in Maweti-Guaraní languages

Françoise Rose

► To cite this version:

Françoise Rose. Word classes in Maweti-Guaraní languages. Eva van Lier. The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes, Oxford University Press, 2023, 9780198852889. halshs-04317534

HAL Id: halshs-04317534

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04317534

Submitted on 1 Dec 2023

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 Attribution 4.0 International License
# Chapter 38. Word classes in Maweti-Guaraní languages

Françoise Rose

## Abstract

This chapter discusses how Maweti-Guarani languages challenge the definition of major word classes. The relation between major word classes and syntactic/discourse functions is rather flexible throughout this group of languages. The first issue is the blurred distinction between nouns and verbs, as many nouns can function as predicates without any derivational morphology and with almost all the “verbal” morphology. The second issue is the classification of descriptive roots (expressing qualities, i.e. with ‘adjectival’ meaning) as either nouns, verbs or adjectives. Once we apply clear syntactic and morphological criteria to classify parts of speech, it becomes clear that most Maweti-Guarani languages have three major lexical word classes, i.e. nouns, verbs and postpositions, and that these share some morphological and structural properties, involving a much debated ‘relational prefix’. Minor word classes that are often discussed in grammars of Maweti-Guarani languages are adverbs, ideophones, interjections, and particles.

## Keywords

Noun/verb distinction; Non-verbal predication; Adjectives; Postpositions; Ideophones

## 1. Introduction

The identification of word classes is one of the two central issues in Maweti-Guarani studies, along with the nature of their person indexation system on predicates. This question can be decomposed in two major issues: first, the distinction between nouns and verbs that is blurred by the fact that a large proportion of prototypical nouns can function as predicates without any derivational morphology, while sharing almost all the “verbal” morphology; second, and related to the first issue, the identification of a class of lexemes with adjectival meaning as either verbal (as they most commonly occur as predicates in discourse), nominal (on the basis of their combination with person indexes which are also found on nouns) or adjectival (on the basis that they are neither prototypical nouns nor verbs). A third matter at hand is the fact that the three inflecting word classes (nouns, verbs and postpositions) enter a similar construction with identical marking of their possessor/object/complement, in which a much debated ‘relational’ prefix plays a role. These issues in Maweti-Guarani linguistics essentially concern
theoretical questions regarding the “value” of various criteria used for determining word classes, rather than comparative issues that would be based on internal variation within the family. This group of languages is in general rather homogenous for their word classes, but different authors of grammars answer these questions in diverging ways for similar datasets. This is not to deny any variation among those languages regarding word classes, but this variation is not central to the issues discussed in this paper.

There is presently no consensus among specialists, on what the word classes of Maweti-Guarani languages are. Pioneer work on the question is that of Dietrich (1977, 2000). The identification of word classes in Maweti-Guarani languages became a research question essentially after the publication of a volume on nouns and verbs in Tupi-Guarani languages (Queixalós, 2001a).<fnref n="1" /> It is noteworthy that all grammars published after that date devote some discussion to the criteria used to define word classes, and most have a very lengthy chapter on word classes. However, this topic has not often been dealt with at the level of the Tupi-Guarani sub-group or the Maweti-Guarani group: for example, it is not addressed in comparative works, such as Jensen (1998) or Corrêa-da-Silva (2010: 175).

This paper aims to account for the existing literature as neutrally as possible, rather than
offer its own analysis of the data, essentially because there is no consensus regarding Maweti-
Guarani word classes. The theoretical approach will be kept to the essential. First, it is
important to specify that the discussion on so-called “word classes” actually deals with the
categories of lexical roots, rather than words per se (that can be derived from roots). Criteria
for word classes in the theoretical literature pertain to four levels of linguistic analysis (Croft,
1991; Hengeveld, 1992): semantics, morphology, syntax and discourse. For example,
prototypical nouns and verbs can be defined very schematically on the level of semantics as
items expressing objects vs. actions; on the morphological level as taking for example
determiners vs. tense morphology; on the syntactic level as being the head of nominal phrases
used as arguments in the clause vs. the head of predicate phrases; and on the discourse level
as being used for reference vs. predication. The literature on Maweti-Guarani languages
essentially uses criteria at two levels: the morphological one, and the syntactic/discourse one.
In fact, these two criteria generally coincide, except for ‘adjectives’.

<footnote n="1">¹ This volume collects proceedings from a conference on nouns and verbs in Tupi-Guaraní languages organized in Cayenne (French Guiana) by the program *Langues de Guyane* of the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement.</footnote>
This paper will start with a short introduction to the language group (Section 2). Before describing the characteristics of each word class, this paper will first discuss at length three crucial problems regarding the identification of word classes in Maweti-Guarani that descriptivists face and may be of interest to both typologists and theoreticians working on word classes: the noun/verb distinction (Section 3), the categorization of words with adjectival meaning (Section 4), and the constructional parallelism between nouns, verbs and postpositions with the so-called 'relational prefix' (Section 5). Once the identification of major word classes is settled, Section 6 will describe each lexical word class with their major characteristics (not only those critical to word class identification), with a focus on what may be typologically remarkable. It will start with the major word classes: verbs (Section 6.1), nouns (Section 6.2) and postpositions (Section 6.3). It will then proceed to minor word classes such as adverbs (Section 6.4), ideophones and interjections (Section 6.5), and particles (Section 6.6). Examples are taken from a large array of descriptions of Maweti-Guarani languages.

## 2. The language group

Maweti-Guarani is one of the seven branches of the Tupi family. It is the largest and best-described branch of the family, with fifty languages (Hammarström et al., 2019). The Maweti-Guarani branch itself has been established relatively recently and includes Mawé, Awetí and the large Tupi-Guarani subgroup (Drude, 2006; Rodrigues & Dietrich, 1997). The Tupi-Guarani subgroup has traditionally been separated in 8 branches (Rodrigues, 1984; Rodrigues & Cabral, 2002), while more recent lexical phylogenetic research has resulted in a more resolved internal structure (Michael et al., 2015). The Tupi family with its major subgroups is shown in Figure 1, with Tupi-Guarani language names in italics, and other Maweti-Guarani language names in bold.<fnref n="2" />

<caption>Figure 1. Tree of the Tupi language family</caption>

insert tree here

Some comparative work has been published on Maweti-Guarani: Meira and Drude (2015) on phonology, Corrêa-da-Silva (2010) on phonology, morphology and syntax, and Corrêa-da-

<footnote n="2">² This tree, kindly provided by Natalia Chousou-Polydouri, combines two trees resulting from phylogenetic analyses of lexicon, one for the whole Tupi family (Galucio et al., 2015) and a more specific one for the Tupi-Guaraní branch (Michael et al., 2015). Nheengatu and Old Guaraní have been added manually.</footnote>
Silva (2013) on lexicon. Jensen (1998)'s comparative work on Tupi-Guarani has been for
long a major source of information. The field has been greatly influenced by the Tupi
specialist Aryon Rodrigues and his work on Tupinambá (Rodrigues, 1953, 1996 among
others).

Maweti-Guarani languages, and especially Tupi-Guarani languages, are “noted for a high
degree of lexical and morphological similarity in spite of their extensive geographical
separation” (Jensen, 1999: 128). They are agglutinating (i.e. concatenative and mono-
exponential), with usually basic SVO or SOV order. Typologically salient features are the
following: i) nasality spreading at the word level (Drude, 2009; Michael & Lapierre, 2018); ii)
a hierarchical indexation system, whereby the person of both A and P counts in determining
which argument is indexed on the verb (Birchall, 2015; Jensen, 1998:562-576; Rose, 2009,
2015b, 2018), once described as an inverse system (Payne, 1994);<fnref n="3" /> iii) temporal modification
of nouns (see section 6.2); and iv) some genderlect distinctions (Drude, 2002; Pottier, 1972;
Rose & Chousou-Polydouri, 2017; Vallejos, 2015).

**3. The noun/verb distinction**

All grammars of Maweti-Guarani include nouns and verbs as major word classes, but they do
so on the basis of different criteria. As a result, the extension of these two classes differ
depending on the analysis, and this concerns in particular roots with adjectival meaning (note
that these are disregarded in this section, as they are the focus of Section 4). The present
section will focus on other aspects of these languages that are blurring the noun/verb
distinction. The description of the form and function of nouns and verbs is summarized at the
end of the section in Table 1.

According to the morphological criterion, only verbs combine with a particular set of
person prefixes to mark the subject of transitive and intransitive verbs (A and Sa) in
independent clauses (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010: 223), as exemplified in (1) and (2). Sp will be
discussed in Section 4. The indexes that some nouns can take for their possessor belong to
another set of person indexes (3). Because the various sets of person indexes are described in

<footnote n="3">³ There is in fact no inverse marker in Maweti-Guaraní verbs. The marker considered as an inverse marker by Payne (1994) is actually also found on nouns and postpositions. It is the so-called relational prefix *r-* discussed in Section 5 (Rose, 2009).</footnote>
different manners (as prefixes, clitics or free pronouns),<fnref n="4" /> I will refer to them as Set I and Set II person indexes (Jensen, 1998).

Tupinambá (Jensen, 1990: 117; Rodrigues, 2001: 110)

(1) **a-só**
1SG.**I**-go
'I went.'

*Set I for S<sub>A</sub> on intransitive active verbs*

(2) **a-i-nupê**
1SG.**I**-3.II-hit
'I hit it.'

*Set I for A on transitive verbs*

(3) **syé=pi**
1SG.**II**=foot
'my feet'

*Set II for Possessor on nouns*

It does not seem to matter that Set II, used on nouns for their possessors, is also found on verbs to refer to P as in (4) (see also Section 6.1), even to A/S<sub>A</sub> in some dependent clauses, and on words with ‘adjectival’ meaning when they predicate. What is generally taken as a crucial fact is that nouns can never take a Set I index.

Tupinambá (Jensen, 1990: 117)

(4) **syé=nupê**
1SG.**II**=hit
'He/she/they/you hit me.'

*Set II for P*

According to the syntactic/discourse criterion, the class of nouns comprises those items that are most often used as arguments in discourse, and that of verbs those most often used as predicates (along the lines of Hopper & Thompson (1984)). This criterion has been considered necessary in Maweti-Guarani research due to the fact that “there is no perfect superposition in these languages between nouns and arguments and verbs and predicates, i.e. between lexical categories and functional or syntactic categories.”<fnref n="5" /> (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010: 223). This situation is primarily based on the fact that even though nouns are most often used as arguments, they can be used as predicates without being first derived into verbs, a fact

<footnote n="4">⁴ This is so maybe partly because of differences in behavior in different languages, but mostly because of authors’ divergences in the criteria used to distinguish affixes, clitics and words.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ My translation for: « não ocorre nessas línguas uma superposição exata entre nome e argumento e verbo e predicado, ou seja, entre categoria lexical e categoria funcional ou sintática. »</footnote>
already discussed in Dietrich (1977). The type of nominal predication that is most often put
forward is a construction within which possessible nouns can be used as possessive
predicates, simply with a Set II marker for the possessor, just as in a noun phrase (see for
example Rose, 2002; Vieira, 2000). In this possessive predicative construction, nouns can
take the whole array of morphology used by verbs when they predicate (negation, TAM,
causative, plural, see for example Rose, 2002; Vieira, 2000), with the exception of Set I
prefixes. Examples (5) illustrate this with negation. This construction has often been analyzed
as an existential construction (Dietrich, 2001; Rodrigues, 2001; Rose, 2002),<fnref n="6" /> parallel to that
involving non-possessible nouns like (6).<fnref n="7" />

Teko (Rose, 2008: 449)

(5) a- **d-e-sapato-dʒi-ãhã.**
**NEG-1SG.II-shoe-NEG-only**
'I don't have any shoes.'

b- **d-o-ʔu-dʒi** **sautu.**
**NEG-3.I-eat-NEG** **salt**
'She does not eat salt.'

Tapirapé (Praça, 2007: 193, 195)

(6) xāwār tāj-pe
dog village-LOC
‘There are dogs in the village’

Another aspect of Tupi-Guarani morphosyntax that blurs the distinction between nouns
and verbs in discourse is the curious -a suffix (not attested in Awetí and Mawé (Corrêa-da-
Silva, 2010: 203)). This suffix can be said to mark a referential expression (Queixalós,
2001b).<fnref n="8" /> Cabral (2001) draws a panorama of the use of -a in the Tupi-Guarani branch: it
usually does not occur after a vowel, but has also been lost in many more contexts in various
languages (Queixalós, 2006). Across the Tupi-Guarani languages, its maximal distribution
comprises nouns when used as arguments, possessors in adnominal possessive constructions

<footnote n="6">⁶ Gerasimov (2016) argues against the hypothesis of a zero-copula in Paraguaian Guaraní. Vieira (2000) offers another analysis of these possessive clauses in Mbyá Guaraní as transitive, postulating a zero ‘have’-verb.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Note that no existential copula has been reconstructed for the whole language group (various languages have innovated different copulas), so that the noun is also the predicate in (6). It is not clear from the literature whether non-possessed nouns used as (copula-less) existential predicates share their morphology with verbs.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ It is called argumentative case (Rodrigues, 2001 see for example), nominal case (Jensen, 1998), or referencing suffix (Queixalós, 2001b) among other terms. Examples show that the referential expressions can be semantically either definite or indefinite, even though this is not discussed explicitly in the literature.</footnote>
and objects of postpositions (see example (7)), but not when they are used as vocative, citation form, in dislocated NPs, or as a predicate such as (8) (except for equative predication such as (9)). As a consequence, this -a suffix has been considered crucial in the distinction, not between nouns and verbs, but between the syntactic positions of argument and predicate. This distribution blurs the noun/verb distinction in two ways. First, as expected, nominal predicates do not carry this -a suffix. Its absence is an additional common feature of verbs and nouns (when used as predicates). Second, there is in many Tupi-Guarani languages a nominalizer -a as in (10), which is usually described as a morpheme distinct from the suffix found on nouns (except notably in Praça, 2000; Rodrigues, 2001). In the literature, verbs are usually judged as being able to be used as arguments with particular morphology only, i.e. with nominalizers, as in (11). If one considers this -a on a verb to be marking a referential argument, just as when found on a noun, then nouns and verbs can both fill in NP positions with the same -a morphology. By marking the syntactic/discourse functions of arguments and predicates, the -a suffix makes the distinction between nouns and verbs secondary.

Kamaiurá (Seki, 2001: 56, 161, 162)

(7) kunu'um-a ka'i-a r-uwaj-a w-ekyj
boy-a monkey-a REL-tail-a 3.I-pull
'the boy is pulling the monkey's tail'

(8) je=tutyr-a morerekwat
lSG=uncle-a chief
'My uncle is (a) chief.'

(9) je=tutyr-a morerekwar-a
lSG=uncle-a chief-a
'My uncle is the chief.'

Tupinambá (Rodrigues, 2001: 108)

(10) né kér-a a-j-potár
2SG.II sleep-a 1SGI-3SG.II-want
'I want you to sleep'

Teko (Rose, 2008: 450)

(11) o-kuwa-pa o-manõ-maʔẽ
3.I-know-COMPL 3.I-die-NZR
'He (God) knows all the dead ones.'
On this basis, Queixalos (2001b, 2006) suggested that the Tupi-Guarani languages may
have originated from an omnipredicative language (on omnipredicativity, see Launey, 1994),
in which all lexical word classes were predicative, and referring expressions are all derived
from the predicates with the help of the -a suffix.<fnref n="9" /> Interestingly, in the present state of these
languages, there are many other morphological devices to derive arguments from verbs
(Jensen (1998: 539-544) reconstructs 7 nominalizers), while no verbalizer is ever mentioned.

As a conclusion, there is no one-to-one relation between the word classes and the syntactic/discourse functions. There are two major positions on the flexibility of nouns and verbs in Maweti-Guarani languages.<fnref n="10" />

* total flexibility of both nouns and verbs

In this view, both nouns and verbs are flexible and can be used as referential phrases (with -a) or predicates (with ‘verbal’ morphology). They are nevertheless distinguished on the basis of their prime function (higher frequency of use in discourse).

* (partial) flexibility of nouns only

In this view, verbs are not flexible because they need to be nominalized to be used as arguments. A (large) class of nouns (possessible ones) are flexible, and can be used both as referential phrases and as predicates. Nouns can be distinguished from verbs on the basis of two criteria 1) predication is not their prime function, if frequency in discourse is taken into account 2) there are (non-possessible) nouns that are not used as predicates with ‘verbal’ morphology.

In the end, all authors converge in distinguishing nouns and verbs, because the morphological and syntactic/discourse criteria converge. Crucial facts for a distinction between nouns and verbs are summarized in Table 1. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 will present additional characteristics of verbs and nouns.

Table 1. Function and morphology of verbs and nouns in Maweti-Guarani (generalization)

<footnote n="9">⁹ The languages show different stages of erosion of this initial stage, with a gradual loss of phonological and grammatical contexts associated with the appearance of -a.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ These two positions have been reconciled by Queixalós' (2001b, 2006) historical hypothesis for Tupi-Guaraní languages, given that Tupinambá, where flexibility of both nouns and verbs is most visible, is considered a 'conservative' Tupi-Guaraní language. There would be a historical trend from a more to less flexible parts-of-speech system.</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Referential use</th><th>Predicative use</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Verbs</td><td>Set I for S/A<br>with -a or with nominalizers</td><td>Set I for S/A, Set II for P<br>negation, TAME</td></tr><tr><td>Nouns</td><td>Set II for Poss<br>with -a</td><td>Set II for S<br>negation, TAME</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 4. Where have all the adjectives gone?

Another ongoing debate among specialists of Maweti-Guaraní concerns the issue of which part of speech “descriptive” roots belong to (Dietrich, 2000; Meira, 2006; Queixalós, 2001a, 2006 inter alia). This class of words with prototypical ‘adjectival’ meanings has often been described as stative verbs (Jensen, 1998; Seki, 2000). Nevertheless, some authors analyze them as nouns (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010; Couchili et al., 2002; Dietrich, 1977). It is noticeable that frequently, authors working on the same language are on opposite sides of the debate as is the case with Ka'apor (Caldas & DaSilva, 2002; Kakumasu, 1986), Mawé (Franceschini, 1999; Meira, 2006), Tupinambá (Barbosa, 1956; Rodrigues, 1996), and Tapirapé (Leite, 1990; Praça, 2007). We are basically facing a problem of analysis, for which no consensus has been reached. For this reason, the semantic label “descriptive roots” is commonly used in the Maweti-Guaraní literature.

The class of descriptive roots is relatively stable semantically throughout the family, expressing physical states (permanent or temporary), and internal states (such as feelings). They take Set II indexes (12), like nouns do (13), but are typically used as predicates, as in (14) and (15). They can also modify a noun in their bare form as in (16) or after having been nominalized as in (17).<fnref n="11" /> They are very rarely used as arguments, and then take the -a suffix as in (18) (in languages where it is used on arguments). One should nevertheless keep in mind that there are also real differences in the behavior of the descriptive roots from one language to the other. Meira (2006: 200, 204) compares Kamaiurá descriptive roots that take the same nominalizer -(t)ap as verbs (but not as nouns) with Mawé descriptive roots that are nominalized with -hap, that nominalizes either nouns or verbs. This criterion shows the verbal

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Seki (2000: 70) indicates that in Kamaiurá descriptive roots modify a noun more frequently through compounding or nominalization than as a bare form. There is no discussion about a difference in meaning between these modifying constructions.</footnote>
characteristics of Kamaiurá descriptive roots but does not discriminate parts of speech in Mawé.

Mawé (Meira, 2006: 55-57)

(12) *Maria h-eera*
Maria 3-be.tired
‘Maria is tired.’

(13) *Maria h-et*
Maria 3-name
‘Maria has a name.’

(14) *waipaka i-hup*
chicken 3-be.red
‘The chicken is red.’

(15) *aware yt i-wato 'i*
*dog NEG 3-be.big NEG*
‘The dog isn’t big.’

Kamaiurá (Seki, 2000: 70)

(16) *y'yw-a katu n=o-mopen -ite*
arrow-a good NEG=3-break-NEG
‘He did not break the good/straight arrow.’

(17) *y'yw-a i-katu-ma'e-a n=o-mopen -ite*
arrow-a 3-good-NZR-a NEG=3-break-NEG
‘He did not break the good/straight arrow.’

(18) *awujete i-powyj-a ore-raha ko=wa*
luckily 3-heavy-a lEXCL-carry PART=MS
‘luckily we carried her heavy (load)’

The two major alternative analyses of descriptive roots as nouns or verbs rely on different criteria.<fnref n="12" /> On the basis of the syntax/discourse criterion, descriptive roots should be described as a sub-class of verbs because they are most frequently used as predicates. On the basis of the morphological criterion, they should be considered a sub-class of nouns, because they are preceded by Set II indexes only. They function as predicates, in an existential construction,

<footnote n="12">¹² There is at least one author (Copin, 2012) that splits this class of descriptive roots as descriptive verbs and descriptive nouns, the latter being those that can function as heads of an NP.</footnote>
like possessible nouns do. In contrast to what has been discussed for nouns and verbs in the preceding section, here the two criteria do not coincide. Depending on the criteria used, descriptive roots are therefore considered as verbs (syntax/discourse criterion) or as nouns (morphological criterion). Other authors favor an analysis with a separate class of adjectives (Magalhães, 2007; Villafañe, 2004),<fnref n="13" /> on the basis that these show simultaneously both verbal and nominal properties (on the syntactic and morphological levels, respectively). The crucial facts used for determining the part of speech of descriptive roots are summarized in Table 2. Interestingly, this table shows that no word class is primarily used for modification in Maweti-Guarani languages. In the absence of a word class devoted to noun modification, a noun can be semantically specified by another noun used in apposition without particular morphology (Jensen, 1998: 513), or by a nominalized verb (Rose, 2011: 343-350).

<table><caption>Table 2. Comparison of Maweti-Guarani descriptive roots with nouns and verbs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Morphology</th><th>Main syntactic/discourse function</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Verbs</td><td>Set I for S/A</td><td>predication</td></tr><tr><td>Nouns</td><td>Set II for Poss</td><td>argument</td></tr><tr><td>Descriptive roots</td><td>Set II for S</td><td>predication</td></tr></tbody></table>

As a follow up of his hypothesis of a former omnipredicative stage (see Section 3), Queixalós (2006: 282) suggests that after the decline of omnipredicativity, “it was the conservation, in this later stage, of its functional indistinction that allowed the class of states [FR: descriptive roots] to lean, in subsequent stages, either towards nouns [...], or towards verbs [...].” There is actually one language with two clearly distinct classes of descriptive roots, Teko, a.k.a. Emerillon (Couchili et al., 2002).<fnref n="14" />

This section can be concluded with typological remarks regarding part of speech systems, and their interaction with syntax. First, the absence of adjectives in the presence of adverbs, at least in some Maweti-Guarani languages (see Section 6.4), does not respect the parts-of-speech hierarchy given in Hengeveld (1992), that has been later updated to account for similar counterexamples (Hengeveld & van Lier, 2010). Second, the flexibility of descriptive roots

<footnote n="13">¹³ Reiter (2011) also considers that there is an adjective class in Awetí, but it includes only two items.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ One of the descriptive root classes is comparable to the class of words discussed in this section, while the other includes roots that need additional morphology (specific to this class) to function as predicates and to be additionally nominalized to be used as modifiers or arguments.</footnote>
varies depending on their analysis. If descriptive roots are considered a sub-class of verbs, word class flexibility is then just partial: some verbs only (descriptive ones) can be used as noun modifiers without additional morphology. If descriptive roots are considered a sub-class of nouns, word class flexibility is again partial: many nouns (including descriptive ones), but not all, can be used as predicates without additional morphology. If descriptive roots are considered as a separate word class, its flexibility is not bi-directional: they can be used as predicates and (sometimes) noun modifiers without additional morphology, while verbs cannot be used as noun modifiers without additional morphology.

Another interesting typological remark is that noun modification using a lexical modifier is not very frequent in Maweti-Guarani languages. Published descriptions of noun phrases with descriptive modifiers are short and examples scarce. Other morphosyntactic means to modify nouns are sometimes mentioned, such as the use of augmentative and diminutive morphology (Dietrich, 2000: 256), or noun+noun and noun+verb compounding to create semantically more specific nouns (Jensen, 1998: 511-512; Rodrigues, 1951, 1996: 63-64).

A final typological remark is that the analysis of descriptive roots has a strong effect on the description of major aspects of the syntax of Maweti-Guarani languages. Most remarkably, it has an impact on the description of its alignment system (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010: 224). If descriptive roots are analyzed as verbs, there is a split-intransitivity system between two classes of verbs, the active class taking Set I indexes and the descriptive class taking Set II indexes. If descriptive roots are analyzed as nouns, verbs show a nominative-accusative system, with Set I for Sa and A, and Set II for P. Split-intransitivity can then only be described at the level of predicates: verbal predicates take Set I indexes, while non-verbal predicates (i.e. nouns, including descriptive roots) take Set II indexes (Rose, 2008: 453).

**5. Construction parallelism with verbs, nouns and postpositions as heads, and relational morphology**

This section discusses how Maweti-Guarani postpositions share syntactic, morphological and lexical behavior with both nouns and verbs. Verbs, nouns and postpositions are often described as ‘the three major lexical classes’ or ‘the three inflected parts of speech’ (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010: 223). This section will also deal with ‘relational prefixes’, a topic of much debate.
Adpositions are treated in the typological literature as being syntactically more similar with verbs than with nouns (Jaworska, 1999).<fnref n="15" /> The literature on Maweti-Guarani instead regularly highlights some similarities between postpositions, verbs and nouns, in sharp contrast with adverbs, particles and conjunctions. Below is a list of three features shared by these three word classes. In fact, the comparison targets all postpositions, but among verbs transitive verbs only and among nouns obligatorily possessed nouns only.

i) The dependent of the three word classes is obligatory, although the object of transitive verbs is not always overtly expressed, but it is always semantically present (the referent is always recoverable), and is often inferred from the hierarchical indexation pattern on the verb, as in (34) (see section 6.1). It is then interpretable anaphorically.

ii) The dependent of the three word classes is either expressed by a noun phrase as in (19) and (20) or a Set II index as in (21) to (23), and immediately precedes the head. This means that postpositions are inflected, as visible in (22) (see Jaworska, 1999: 304, on the notion of inflected adposition). It is cross-linguistically common that possessed nouns, postpositions, and verbs mark their dependent element similarly (Bakker, 2013).

Teko (Rose, 2011: 162, 123, 66)

(19) **apam-a-baʔekʷər-a-kom**
foreigner-a-custom-a-PL
'the customs of the foreigners'

NP + N

(20) *Françoise o-ho Surinam-a-pope.*
Françoise 3.I-go Surinam-a-in
'Françoise went to Surinam.'

NP + Postp

(21) **e-mebir**
1SG.II-child
'my child'

SetII-N

(22) *o-naʔaŋ-tar e-koti.*
3.I-meet-FUT 1SG.II-at

SetII-Postp

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Jaworska (1999) notes that, in English for example, verbs and prepositions take an object noun phrase, while complements of nouns are introduced with “of”. In Polish, only verbs and prepositions take accusative complements. This assertion is not explicitly dependent from the lexical origin of adpositions in serial verbs or relator nouns (see DeLancey (2005) on the sources of adpositions).</footnote>
'They meet at me (my place).'

(23) zawar e-suʔu. SetII-V
dog 1SG.II-bite
'A dog bit me.'

The situation with verbs is slightly different, with third person objects. Nouns and third person Set II index for objects may immediately precede the verb in some dependent clauses only, like (24) and (25). In independent clauses, verbs obligatorily take either a subject or an object index, within a so-called hierarchical indexation system (see Section 6.1). This verbal morphosyntax differs from that of postpositions and nouns.

Teko (Rose, 2011: 331)

(24) o-zoka bokal-itfig. NP + V
3.I-break jar-drop
'He broke the jar when dropping it'

(25) o-(w)erahoʔi-bi. SetII-V
3.I-carry water-in
3.II-throw
'She carries (it) and throws it in the water.'

iii) Some items within these three classes of words are said to take a 'relational prefix' when immediately preceded by their dependent (either a noun phrase, or a first or second person index, but not when a third person index).

Teko (Rose, 2011: 93, 95, 90)

(26) teko-r-apidz-a-te. NP+r-N
Teko-REL-house-a-FOC
'It is the house of Teko'

(27) nōde-r-apidz-am SetII-r-N
2.II-REL-house-TRANSL
'for our houses'

(28) o-sisig-a-r-ehe NP+r-Postp
3.COREF-sister-a-REL-POSTP
'with his (own) sister'

(29) de-r-ehe SetII-r-Postp
2SG.II-REL-POSTP
'at/with you'

(30) o-ho-tar **pureru-r-eka.**
3.I-go-FUT toad-REL-look_for
'He is going to look for the toad.'

NP+r-V

(31) d-e-r-aihi-dgi.
NEG-1SG.II-REL-like-NEG
'He does not like me'

SetII-r-V

The subset of lexical items taking the relational prefix cannot be predicted on a semantic or a phonological basis, though all of the items taking it start with a vowel. This prefix has been reconstructed for Proto-Tupi (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010; Rodrigues & Cabral, 2012; Rodrigues & Dietrich, 1997). It has been much discussed (Cabral, 2000b; Jensen, 1998: 498-502, 557-562; Payne, 1994) because its function is difficult to define: it is usually defined by its distribution, and is thus said to be marking the head-dependent relationship. There are two other analyses of the relational morpheme. Payne (1994) analyses it as a marker of inverse (see section 6.1), but this analysis does not account for its use on nouns and postpositions. Meira and Drude (2013) argue that it results from historical morphophonological changes undergone by the initial consonant of the root, conditioned by both the phonological context and the morphosyntactic structure. In their view, the relational morpheme should therefore not be reconstructed, since it is not a morpheme.

The three word classes are split in several inflectional classes depending on the allomorphs of the relational morpheme that they take (the distribution is only partly predictable on the basis of phonology). Because the same inflectional classes also seem to predict the form of the third person index for possessor, object and object of postposition, most authors consider that third person indexes belong to a paradigm of four different relational prefixes (see for example Cabral, 2000b; and Rose, 2011: 97-103 for alternative analyses).

i) *r-* (or allomorphs) when the dependent (noun or first or second person index) immediately precedes the head;

ii) *i-* (or allomorphs) when the dependent does not immediately precede the head. Elsewhere it is simply analyzed as a Set II index.

iii) *o-* when the dependent is coreferential with the subject. Elsewhere it is analyzed as a person index.
iv) *t-* when the dependent is a non-specific human being. Elsewhere it is analyzed as a dummy marker when an obligatorily possessed noun has no specific possessor.

The different constructions are illustrated in Table 3 with nouns of two different classes in Teko, *owa* ‘face’ that takes the relational prefix and *kija* ‘hammock’ that does not.

<table><caption>Table 3. Teko possessive constructions of nouns with or without the relational prefix</caption><tr><td>e-r-owa</td><td>e-kija</td><td>1st person</td></tr><tr><td>X-(a)-r-owa</td><td>X-(a)-kija</td><td>noun phrase</td></tr><tr><td>Ø-owa</td><td>i-kija</td><td>3rd person</td></tr><tr><td>o-owa</td><td>o-kija</td><td>3rd person coreferential</td></tr><tr><td>t-owa</td><td>kija</td><td>non-specific possessor</td></tr></table>

The common behavior of nouns, verbs and postpositions is summarized in Table 4. Postpositions share with some sub-classes of nouns and verbs their syntax (they all enter a similar construction where they head a dependent), their morphology (set II indexes, and relational prefixes for some), and their inflectional classes (determining which allomorph of the relational prefix they take). Additional information on postpositions will be given in Section 6.3.

<table><caption>Table 4. Comparison of Maweti-Guarani postpositions with subclasses of nouns and verbs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Morphology</th><th>Inflectional classes<br>taking different<br>allomorphs of the<br>relational prefix</th><th>Syntactic<br>construction with<br>dependent<br>expressed as an N</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Transitive verbs</td><td>Set I for S/A,<br>Set II for P</td><td>yes</td><td>N(-a-REL)-V<br>in dependent<br>clauses</td></tr><tr><td>Possessible nouns</td><td>Set II for Poss</td><td>yes</td><td>N(-a-REL)-N</td></tr><tr><td>Postpositions</td><td>Set II for Object</td><td>yes</td><td>N(-a-REL)-POSTP</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 6. Major features of lexical word classes

## 6.1. Verbs

As discussed in Section 3, verbs in Maweti-Guarani are defined either as the class of roots that is most often used as predicates, or as the class of roots that can combine with Set I
indexes. This section will discuss reduplication (a typical feature of Maweti-Guarani verbs), the hierarchical indexation system (a typologically remarkable characteristic of verb morphology), and finally the syntactic sub-classes of verbs.

First, the process of reduplication expressing aspect has frequently been put forward as specific to verbs (Cruz, 2014; Dietrich, 2014; Drude, 2014; Everett & Seki, 1985; Lima, 2007; Rose, 2005, 2007). Jensen (1998: 538) reconstructs for Proto-Tupi-Guarani a distinction between monosyllabic reduplication, expressing event-internal plurality as in (32), and disyllabic reduplication, expressing event-external plurality as in (33), using here Cusic's (1981) terminology, distinguishing repetition within the limits of the event vs. repetition of the event itself (see more details in Rose (2007)). However, most modern Tupi (including Maweti-Guarani) languages do not clearly show this semantic distinction (Dietrich, 2014; Rose, 2007).

Tupinambá (Jensen, 1990: 128-129)

(32) oro-pópór
1EXCL.I-jump.RED1
‘We jumped, one after the other.’

(33) oro-poropór
1EXCL.I-jump.RED2
‘We jumped frequently.’

Second, a feature of Maweti-Guarani verbs that is typological important (though not used in the definition of verbs) and plays a central role in the literature since Monserrat and Soares (1983) is the hierarchical person indexation system on transitive verbs. A first explicit definition of hierarchical indexing systems is found in Nichols (1992: 66): “Access to inflectional slots for subject and/or object is based on person, number, and/or animacy rather than (or no less than) on syntactic relations.” In practice, this means that the participant that is higher on the hierarchy is favored over the one that ranks lower. Inverse systems (a special case of hierarchical systems) indicate specifically whether the direction of the action respects the hierarchy or not. Maweti-Guarani languages are said to follow a person hierarchy, often 1>2>3, determining which of the two arguments of a transitive predicate is to be represented in the unique index slot of the predicate. There are two sets of person markers that qualify for this slot, Set I for A and Set II for P. When the A argument is the highest on the hierarchy, it
is indexed on the verb with Set I. This is illustrated in (34) for 1 → 3 (X → Y stands for 'X is acting on Y'). When the P argument is highest on the hierarchy, it is indexed on the verb with Set II. This is illustrated in (35) for 3 → 1. When two third persons interact, only the third-person A argument is indexed on the verb (36).

Avá-Canoeiro (Borges, 2006: 158-160)

(34) **a-pitim**
**1SG.I-pinch**
'I pinched him.'

1 → 3

(35) **juati-Ø t/i=kutuk**
**thorn-a 1SG.II=pierce**
'The thorn pierced me.'

3 → 1

(36) **o-apik**
**3.I-braid**
'(S)he braided (her hair).' 3 → 3

The hierarchical indexing system is summarized in Table 5. Arguments against an analysis of this system as an inverse system (Payne, 1994) have been given in Rose (2009).

<table><caption>Table 5. The ‘canonical’ hierarchical indexing system of Maweti-Guarani languages</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>1P</th><th>2P</th><th>3P</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>1A</th><td></td><td>A</td><td>A</td></tr><tr><th>2A</th><td>P</td><td></td><td>A</td></tr><tr><th>3A</th><td>P</td><td>P</td><td>A</td></tr></tbody></table>

A survey of Tupi-Guarani languages (Rose, 2015b) shows that only two languages out of twenty-eight exemplify this canonical system, Avá-Canoeiro (Borges, 2006) and Kayabí (Dobson, 1997). The great majority of languages support a 1/2 > 3 hierarchy, but with a more complex encoding of configurations involving two speech act participants, that do not clearly support a robust 1>2 hierarchy. This can be seen, for example, in the detailed description of the Teko indexation system (Rose, 2009). The hierarchy between the two speech act participants is in fact cross-linguistically debatable (Zúñiga, 2006). It has also been argued that the person hierarchy has not been the functional motivation responsible for the creation of
hierarchical systems, but that the latter basically result from independent historical
morphological processes (Rose, 2018). It is suggested that these systems originate from the
absence of third-person forms in the pronominal paradigms.

Finally, sub-classes of verbs in Maweti-Guarani languages are not much discussed beyond
the questions already presented above, i.e. the distinction between intransitive (37) and
transitive (38) verbs, and that between two classes of intransitive verbs (cf. “descriptive roots”
in Section 4). Two additional sub-classes are sometimes discussed: first, extended intransitive
verbs (39), which mark their subject with Set I and have a second obligatory argument
marked with a postposition; second, ditransitive verbs (40), with a third obligatory argument,
introduced by a postposition.

Araweté (Solano, 2009: 184, 187, 186, 189)

(37) *ere-ja ku ne brazišə-hi*
2.I-come FOC 2 Brasilia-ABL
‘You come from Brasilia.’

(38) *Iwaneru ku u-juka mitu*
Iwaneru FOC 3-kill curassow
‘Iwaneru killed a curassow.’

(39) *ere-maʔe ku kujī r-ehe*
2.I-look FOC woman REL-for
‘You look at the woman.’

(40) *u-meʔe ku kafše ure r-e*
3.I-give FOC coffee 1EXCL REL-for
‘He gives us coffee.’

## 6.2. Nouns

Beyond the issue of distinguishing nouns from verbs (and possibly adjectives), grammars of Maweti-Guarani languages usually discuss two issues concerning nouns: first, the scarce morphology that is specific to nouns, and second, the sub-classes of nouns depending on possessibility.

As far as morphology is concerned, we have already seen that nouns can be distinguished
from (most) verbs in that they do not take the « subject person prefixes » (Set I indexes). They
instead take Set II indexes for their possessor but these are also found on verbs, either for the
object of transitive verbs or for the subject of stative intransitive verbs (often called descriptive).<fnref n="16" /> Another type of morphology that distinguishes nouns and verbs, or rather nominal phrases and predicates, is negation (Chousou-Polydouri et al., 2016; Dietrich, 2017), but it is actually extremely rarely invoked for distinguishing word classes (Reiter, 2011 is an exception). Also, number marking is rarely invoked, probably because it varies a lot within the family (Gasparini, 2011).

When considering the morphology specific to nouns, authors describing Tupi-Guarani usually discuss the -a suffix, cases and the so-called “nominal tenses”. The -a suffix that has already been discussed in Section 3 is sometimes described as a case (“argumentative case” or “nuclear case”, etc.). As mentioned before, the -a suffix is not really specific to nouns, since it is also used on verbs when they serve as arguments. There are four other case suffixes, three locative ones like -pe in (41), and a “translative” one, expressing temporary qualities as in (42). Nouns in Maweti-Guarani languages are supposed to be devoid of case suffixes only when used as vocative, in compounds and as predicates, except that most languages are in the process of losing these suffixes, at least in some contexts (Rodrigues, 2000). Only two of the locative cases are found in Mawé and Awetí, while the -a, the translative suffix and the third locative case are absent (Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010: 203-207).

Asuriní do Tocantins (Cabral, 2000a: 10, 13)

(41) más-a kaʔá-**pe**
snake-a forest-LOC.PUNCT
‘There are snakes in the forest.’

(42) sahý-a sekwehé akoma’é-ramo pané
moon-a in_the_old_days man-TRANSL FRUSTR
‘In the old days, the moon had been a man.’

Most Maweti-Guarani languages also show two nominal suffixes that are usually glossed ‘past’ and ‘future’ but are importantly never found on verbs. Tonhauser (2006, 2007) has studied this phenomenon in detail in Paraguayan Guarani. She argues that Guarani -kue and -rã do not locate the noun phrase in time like tense markers locate the state-of-affairs in time,

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ This parallelism between transitive verb roots and their object and nouns and their possessor drove Dietrich (2001) as well as Cabral (2007a) to consider ‘verbal roots’ with a Set II index as forming a nominal phrase. According to them, the translation of ‘(s)he hits me’ should in fact be analyzed as ‘(there is) my action of hitting (= hitting that concerns me)’.</footnote>
but instead « express a temporal precedence relation: they specify that the property (or relation) denoted by the nominal predicate is true of the individuals denoted by the noun phrase prior and subsequent to another time, respectively. » In (43), the woman whose existence is expressed in the noun phrase will be a wife in the future, while in (44), the possessive relation precedes the time at which the whole noun phrase is interpreted.

Paraguayan Guarani (Tonhauser, 2007: 833 and 836)

(43) O-ho peteĩ arriéro o-jeruré-vo la h-embireko-rã-re.
3.I-go one man 3.I-ask.for-at LA 3.II-wife-RA-RE
‘A man went to ask for his future wife.’

(44) Che a-reko peteĩ lívro de medisína, che-aguélo mba'e-kue.
PRO1SG 1SG.I-have one book of medicine 1SG.II-grandfather thing-KUE
‘I have a medicine book, it was my grandfather’s.’

All grammars similarly describe three classes of nouns, based on their behavior in regard to adnominal possession. The relational nouns (also called obligatorily possessed, dependent or inalienable) are those that cannot appear without a possessor being expressed. In Wayampi, for example, relational nouns comprise parts of a whole (body or not) and bodily excretions, and kinship terms (Copin, 2012: 37-38). The autonomous nouns (also called optionally possessed, possessible or alienable) may appear with or without a possessor. In Wayampi, autonomous nouns comprise artefacts, social status, cyclic times of day or year, properties, natural phenomena, and food and drinks (Copin, 2012:41-42). Avalent nouns (also called non-possessible or absolute) cannot be expressed with a possessor. In Wayampi, these include human beings, ethnic names and animals (Copin, 2012:44-45). The adnominal possession construction does not differ for those nouns that can or must be possessed, but the avalent nouns referring to animals can sometimes enter a different possessive construction, where they are possessed with the help of a relational noun for ‘catch’ or ‘pet’ in a construction reminiscent of possessive classifiers (Copin, 2012:45; Rose, 2011: 163-166).

Wayampi (Copin, 2012:45)

(45) e=lemija ka'i o-mo-kã'ẽ=ta
1SG.II=catch monkey.sp 3.I-CAUS-be_smoked=FUT
‘She will smoke my brown capuchin monkey.’ (lit. She will smoke my catch brown capuchin monkey)
## 6.3. Postpositions

Rodrigues (2000:1) states that “most languages of the Tupi-Guarani family mark dependent nouns with [case] suffixes as well as postpositions.”<fnref n="17" /> In practice, it seems there is some confusion about these terms, for several reasons: first, postpositions may be seen as formal expressions of semantic cases (for example Cabral, 2000a; Solano, 2009: 164-173); second, postpositions may be described formally as suffixes (as for example in Dietrich, 1986: 55-56; Villafañe, 2004: 55) or as clitics (as in Vallejos, 2010: 163), and last of all, there have probably been some historical changes which led to variation among Maweti-Guarani languages, and a less straightforward distinction in individual languages (da Cruz, 2011: 222-224). Rodrigues (2000:1) indeed suggests that “it is possible that some of these languages have lost marking with case suffixes and have replaced them entirely with the use of postpositions”.<fnref n="18" />

A dozen of postpositions have been reconstructed for Proto-Tupi-Guarani (Jensen, 1998: 514), but individual languages may have innovated new ones, either through compound postpositions or combinations of a relational (locative) noun with a case suffix or a postposition (see for example Copin, 2012: 95-102). It has been shown in Section 5 that Maweti-Guarani postpositions are inflected adpositions (Jaworska, 1999, p. see: 304, on this notion): if the noun phrase they introduce is not overtly expressed, then it is indexed on the postposition with a Set II index.

Finally, in some languages like Awetí (Reiter, 2011: 150) and Teko (Rose, 2011: 368-370, 2013), some postpositions function as subordinators (see Rose, 2006 for a typological investigation of formal identity between postpositions and subordinators), along more specific subordinating suffixes reconstructable to Proto-Tupi-Guarani (Jensen, 1998: 528).

## 6.4. Adverbs

Central pieces of comparative work (Jensen, 1998, 1999; Corrêa-da-Silva, 2010) and the pioneering and influencial description of a Maweti-Guarani language (Rodrigues, 1953, on Tupinambá) do not mention a class of adverbs. Dietrich (2000: 255) asserts that there is no class of adverbs in Tupi-Guarani languages. Nevertheless, most descriptions of individual

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ My translation for: « A maioria das línguas da família Tupi-Guaraní marca os nomes dependentes por meio tanto de sufixos como de posposições. »</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ My translation for: « É possível que algumas dessas línguas tenham perdido a marcação por sufixos casuais e a tenham substituído inteiramente pelo uso de posposições. »</footnote>
Maweti-Guarani languages do include a category of adverbs. These are described as non-inflected words, mainly used as modifiers of the predicate. They are easily distinguished from nouns, verbs and postpositions by not taking person indexes. Two properties of adverbs are often put forward: i) they can be nominalized with a specific de-adverbial nominalizer as in (46) (this also applies to postpositional phrases) and ii) when in clause-initial position, they trigger a special form of the verb, differing from that of regular main verbs by taking a suffix and following a different person indexation pattern as in (47).<fnref n="19" />

Asuriní do Xingu (Pereira, 2009: 163)

(46) karukame-war-a
yesterday-NZR-a
‘the one of yesterday’

Kamaiurá (Seki, 2000: 76)

(47) ikue rak i-ker-i
yesterday AT 3.II-sleep-CIRC
‘Yesterday he slept.’

The usual sub-classes of adverbs are temporal, locative, and manner adverbs. Note that in
several grammars, numerals (often only three items) are considered adverbs, on the basis that
they are often used to modify a predicate, can be nominalized with the de-adverbial
nominalizer (48) and trigger the special (oblique-topicalized) verb form (49). In other
languages, numerals are considered a separate word class, on the basis that they are generally
used either as modifiers of a noun or as predicates; or they are considered as adjectives or
nouns.

Asuriní do Xingu (Pereira, 2009: 167)

(48) mukuj-war-a
two-NZR-a
‘the two’

Kamaiurá (Seki, 2000: 78)

(49) mojepete i-ker-i
one 3.II-sleep-CIRC

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ This is called either Indicative 2 (following Rodrigues, 1953: 132), circumstantial mood (see for example Pereira, 2009: 162) or oblique-topicalized verb form (Jensen, 1998: 526).</footnote>
‘One (day) he slept.’

**6.5. Ideophones and interjections**

According to Dingemanse (2019; this volume), “a canonical ideophone is a member of an open lexical class of marked words that depict sensory imagery”. A class of ideophones has been identified in many Maweti-Guarani languages. They are often only briefly mentioned, but there are a few more detailed studies (Langdon, 1994; Rose, 2011: 400-409; Rose et al., 2019) and an extraordinarily comprehensive and detailed investigation of ideophones in Awetí (Reiter, 2011).

Leaving aside the phonosemantic and prosodic properties of ideophones, these can be distinguished from other parts of speech by their usual absence of morphological combinatorics except reduplication, and their variable syntactic integration. They can indeed be extra-clausal (50), introduced by a light verb (the same that introduces direct speech, *e’i* in (51)) or the sole predicate of a clause with its own arguments (52). They are often repeated in discourse, as in (51).

Awetí (Reiter, 2011:338, 346, 337)

(50) **Powowowo**, o-to a'yn.
IDEO.fly 3-go PART
'It flew off.' (lit.: '(There was) powowowo, it went off.')

(51) **Tyryk tyryk**, e'i a'yt ti n=eko-tu a'yn.
IDEO.limp 3.say EMOT EVID 3=walk-NZR PART
'Tyryk tyryk', the poor (animal) does when it walks.'

(52) **Wej-t-atī** tsān a'yn. **Pywpywpyw** n-emi'ūkangut.
3-EPEN-wrap.up 3PL.PRO PART<sup>20</sup> IDEO.tie 3-rest.of.food
'They wrapped it up. Pywpywpyw a leftover.'

In Yuki (Villafañe, 2004: 101-102) and Siriono (Schermair, 1949: 252), it is explicitly said that ideophones do not form a separate word class but are instead a subclass of verbs distinguished by their taking subject person suffixes. However, given that these “suffixes” have a form similar to the conjugated verb ‘say’, it is at least reasonable to suggest that what

<footnote n="20"><sup>20</sup> *a’yn* is a sentence-final particle.</footnote>
has been analyzed as verbal suffixes is at least historically the ‘say’ verb, postposed to ideophones in a light verb construction (Dahl, 2014: 107, 114). The close study of Awetí lexicon also shows that some verbs may have been historically derived from ideophones (Reiter, 2011: 454-455, 488-495). Also, Reiter (2011: 459) points to non-random correspondences between Awetí and Teko ideophones, hinting at the reconstructability of some ideophones at the Proto-Maweti-Guarani stage.

Interjections are not often described in grammars as a separate word class, except for Awetí, where Reiter specifies how they differ from ideophones (Reiter, 2011: 161-163). Interestingly, they can occur in this language with morphology and be used as a predicate with their own arguments. In many grammars, interjections are instead mentioned as a sub-class of particles (see below). An interesting fact is that interjections are specified as being specific to men's and women's speech in several languages: Old Guarani (Ruiz de Montoya, 1640), Guarayu (Höller, 1932), Tupinambá (Barbosa, 1947) and Bolivian Guarani (Ortiz & Caurey, 2012). In South American languages in general (Rose, 2015a) and Tupi languages in particular (Rose & Chousou-Polydouri, 2017), a genderlect distinction is in fact often observed in various types of discourse markers (interjections or particles).

## 6.6. Particles

The term “particle” is mentioned in most descriptions of Maweti-Guarani languages, with detailed accounts of the use and behavior of this class of words in most grammars. Particles are defined as uninflected independent words. They are usually classified depending on their position: fixed in the clause, either in second (53) or final (54) position; or variable, following the constituent they have scope over (55). They cover a wide range of functions, with major functions being epistemicity/evidentiality as with the inferential in (53) (see the comparative study by Cabral, 2007b), information structure as with the restrictive in (55), TAM as with rã’ẽ in (54), negation, interrogation as with tã in (54) and deixis. As the term “particle” became associated with these functions and distribution, other authors call “particles” items with similar functions, even though these are not considered words, but suffixes (as in Tapieté (González, 2005)), clitics (as in Teko (Rose, 2011)) or forms belonging to the same phonological word than the preceding element (as in Avá-Canoeiro (Borges, 2006: 202)).

Tapirapé (Praça, 2007: 163, 173, 177)

<footnote>(53) *marare-ø pa* ‘ã-wo a-ka</footnote>
cow-refer **INFER** DEM-LOC 3.I-be
'The cows are around (hearing the bellow of the cattle).'

(54) mayn tā ākaj ere-a āxe'i rā'ē
why INTER C.I.COM 2SG.I-go yesterday PST
'Why did you go yesterday?'

(55) kotātāi-wer-a xe rō'ō ke ākaj 'ā-wo a-a rā'ē
girl-PL-a REST N.ASS DUB C.I.COM DEM-LOC 3.I-go PST
'I think that only the girls went there.'

Example (55) shows five particles in one clause: *xe* with variable position, the second
position particles *rō'ō*, *ke* and *ākaj*, and clause-final *rā'ē*. They contribute to the expression of
information structure (*xe* 'only'), tense (*rā'ē* 'past') and epistemicity (*rō'ō*, *ke* and *ākaj*
encode that the informational content of the clause is shared by the speaker and the addressee
but non-asserted by the speaker that expresses some doubts towards it). Particles are in fact
really frequent in spontaneous discourse, even though they are not obligatory (Borges, 2006:
202). They are thus markers of native identity. In some languages, particles additionally show
a genderlect distinction (Rose & Chousou-Polydouri, 2017). For example, the affirmative
particle of Mawé is *ta'i* for men and *hē* for women (da Silva, 2010: 241).

7. Conclusion

This paper has presented the major parts of speech of Maweti-Guarani languages. The central
issue concerns the noun/verb distinction, a question that also concerns words with adjectival
meaning. The noun/verb distinction in Maweti-Guarani is blurred by several facts: i) the items
that are most often used as arguments (i.e. nouns) can function as predicates without any
additional morphology; ii) verbs in some languages can function as arguments without any
additional morphology (i.e. with the referential -a suffix only); iii) transitive verbs,
possessible nouns, postpositions and descriptive roots (candidates for either the noun or verb
class) share most of their morphology and syntax. Besides the issue of the noun/verb
distinction, this paper also presents the main characteristics of all major word classes: nouns,
verbs, postpositions, adverbs, ideophones and interjections, and particles. It presents not only
the features that are crucial in identifying these word classes, but also their sub-classes and
typical features, some of which are also typologically remarkable (such as the hierarchical
indexation system on transitive verbs, or tense marking on nouns).
This paper also gives an image of issues concerning word classes in South America in
general, and Amazonia in particular. To start with, in many Amazonian languages various
word classes can be used as predicates without additional morphology (Aikhenvald, 2012:
136-137). A set of person indexes shared by nouns and verbs is also one of the features
proposed in Dixon & Aikhenvald (1999: 9) for an “Amazonian” profile, in contrast to an
“Andean” one. And the term “particle” is part of the descriptive tradition of lowland South
American languages (Dooley, 1990). Also, South American languages rarely show an
independent status of adjectives (Aikhenvald, 2012: 139; Krasnoukhova, 2012: 140). The
function of words with adjectival meaning is noteworthy: few South American languages
have a possibility of attributive modification by adjectives, whereas predicative use is always
available (Krasnoukhova, in preparation, 2012: 158, 184). Many Maweti-Guaraní languages
adhere to this general South American profile. Finally, the parallel construction of possessible
nouns, transitive verbs and postpositions with their arguments, including the use of a
relational prefix, is one of the features for positing the historical relationship between the
Tupi, Carib and Macro-Jê families of Amazonia (Rodrigues, 2009).

**Abbreviations (differing from the Leipzig Glossing rules)**

AT attested; C.I.COM shared information; CIRC circumstancial mode; COMPL completed; COREF coreferential; DUB dubitative; EMOT emotional particle; EPEN epenthesis; EVID evidential particle; FRUSTR frustrative; IDEO ideophone; INFER inferential; INTER interrogative; LA borrowed Spanish definiteness marker *la*; LOC.PUNCT locative punctual; MS male speaker; N.ASS non commitment of speaker; NZR nominalizer; PART particle; POSTP postposition; PRO pronoun; RE argument marker; RED1 monosyllabic reduplication; RED2 bisyllabic reduplication; REL relational prefix; REST restrictive; TRANSL translative.

**References**

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). *The Languages of the Amazon*. Oxford University Press.

Bakker, D. (2013). Person Marking on Adpositions. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath, *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online* (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology). http://wals.info/chapter/48

Barbosa, A. L. (1947). Nova categoria gramatical tupi: a visibilidade e a invisibilidade nos demonstrativos. *Verbum*, 4(2), 67-74.

Barbosa, A. L. (1956). *Curso de Tupi Antigo: Gramática, Exercícios, Textos*. Livraria São José.

Birchall, J. (2015). A comparison of verbal person marking across Tupían languages. *Boletim Do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi*. *Ciências Humanas*, 10(2), 487-518.
Borges, M. V. (2006). *Aspectos fonológicos e morfossintáticos do Avá-Canoeiro (Tupi-Guarani)* [Doctorate dissertation]. Unicamp, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem.

Cabral, A. S. (2000a). *Aspectos da marcação de caso no Asuriní do Tocantins*. XIII Encontro Nacional da ANPOLL, CD Rom.

Cabral, A. S. (2000b). *Flexão relacional na família tupí-guaraní. ABRALIN, Boletim Da Associação Brasieira de Linguística*, 25.

Cabral, A. S. (2001). *Observações sobre a história do morfema -a da família tupí-guaraní*. In F. Queixalós (Ed.), *Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question*. LINCOM Europa.

Cabral, A. S. (2007a). As categorias nome e verbo em Zo'é. In A. Rodrigues & A. S. Cabral (Eds.), *Línguas e Culturas Tupí: Vol. I* (pp. 241–258). Curt Nimuendajú.

Cabral, A. S. (2007b). L'expression des notions de l'épistémique et de l'aléthique dans la famille tupi-guarani. In Z. Guentchéva & J. Landaburu (Eds.), *L'énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l'information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes* (pp. 267–292). Peeters.

Caldas, R., & DaSilva, T. (2002). Verbos de actividades mentais em Ka'apór e outras línguas da família Tupí-Guaraní. In A. S. Cabral & A. Rodrigues (Eds.), *Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras. Fonologia, Gramática e História. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL: Vol. Tomo I*. Editoria Universitária U.F.P.A.

Chousou-Polydouri, N., Gasparini, N., Michael, L., O'Hagan, Z., & Rose, F. (2016, May 24). *Reconstructing Negation Morphemes and Constructions in the Tupí-Guaraní Family*. Amazonicas VI, Leticia, Colombia.

Copin, F. (2012). *Grammaire wayampi* [PhD Dissertation]. Paris 7.

Corrêa-da-Silva, B. C. (2010). *Mawé/Awetí/Tupí-Guaraní: Relações Linguísticas e Implicações Históricas* [Thèse de Doctorat]. Universidade de Brasília.

Corrêa-da-Silva, B. C. (2013). O mundo a partir do léxico: Reconstruindo a realidade social Mawé-Awetí-Tupí-Guaraní. *Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica*, 5(2), 385–400.

Couchili, T., Maurel, D., & Queixalós, F. (2002). Classes de lexèmes en émérillon. *Amerindia*, 26/27, 173–208.

Croft, W. (1991). *Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information*. University of Chicago Press.

Cruz, A. da. (2014). *Reduplication in Nheengatu*. Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004272415/B9789004272415_006.xml

Cusic, D. (1981). *Verbal plurality and aspect* [PhD Dissertation]. Stanford University.

da Cruz, A. (2011). *Fonologia e Gramática do Nheengatú. A língua geral falada pelos povos Baré, Warekena e Baniwa* [PhD Dissertation]. Vrije Universiteit.

da Silva, R. G. P. (2010). *Estudo morfossintático da língua sateré-mawé* [PhD]. Unicamp.

Dahl, Ö. (2014). *Siriono. In M. Crevels & P. Muysken (Eds.), Lenguas de Bolivia*. Plural Editores.

DeLancey, S. (2005). Adpositions as a non-universal category. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. S. Rood (Eds.), *Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories* (Vol. 72, pp. 185–202). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.10del

Dietrich, W. (1977). Las categorías verbales (partes de la oración) en tupí-guaraní. *Indiana*, 4, 245–261.

Dietrich, W. (1986). *El idioma chiriguano: gramática, textos, vocabulario*. ICI.

Dietrich, W. (2000). Problema de la categoría del adjetivo en las lenguas tupí-guaraníes. In H. van der Voort & S. van de Kerke (Eds.), *Indigenous languages of Lowland South America* (pp. 255–263). Universiteit Leiden.
Dietrich, W. (2001). Categorias lexicais nas línguas tupi-guarani (visão comparativa). In F. Queixalós (Ed.), *Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question* (pp. 21–37). LINCOM Europa.

Dietrich, W. (2014). *Forms and Functions of Reduplication in Tupian Languages*. Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004272415/B9789004272415_012.xml

Dietrich, W. (2017). Tipologia morfossintática da negação nas línguas do tronco Tupi. *LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas*, 17(1), 7.

Dingemanse, M. (2019). “Ideophone” as a comparative concept. In K. Akita & P. Pardeshi (Eds.), *Iconicity in Language and Literature* (Vol. 16, pp. 13–33). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.16.02din

Dixon, R. M. W., & Aikhenvald, A. (1999). *The Amazonian languages*. Cambridge University Press.

Dobson, R. (1997). *Gramática Prática Com Exercícios da Língua Kayabi*. Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística.

Dooley, R. (1990). The positioning of non-pronominal clitics and particles in Lowland South American Languages. In D. Payne (Ed.), *Amazonian linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American languages* (pp. 475–493). University of Texas Press.

Drude, S. (2002). Fala masculina e feminina em Awetí. In A. S. Cabral & A. Rodrigues (Eds.), *Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras. Fonologia, Gramática e História. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL* (pp. 177–190). Editoria Universitária U.F.P.A.

Drude, S. (2006). On the position of the Awetí language in the Tupí family. In W. Dietrich & H. Symeonidis (Eds.), *Guaraní y “Mawetí-Tupí-Guaraní”. Estudios históricos y descriptivos sobre una familia lingüística de América del Sur* (pp. 11–45). LIT Verlag.

Drude, S. (2009). Nasal harmony in Awetí and the Mawetí-Guarani family (Tupí). *Amerindia*, 32, 239–276.

Drude, S. (2014). Reduplication as a tool for morphological and phonological analysis in Awetí. In G. Goodwin Gómez & H. van der Voort (Eds.), *Reduplication in South-American languages* (pp. 185–215). Brill.

Everett, D., & Seki, L. (1985). Reduplication and CV Skeleta in Kamaiurá. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 16(2), 326–330.

Franceschini, D. (1999). *La Langue Sateré-Mawé: Description et Analyse Morphosyntaxique* [PhD dissertation]. Université Paris VII Denis Diderot.

Galucio, A. V., Meira, S., Birchall, J., Moore, D., Gabas, N. J., Drude, S., Storto, L., Picanço, G., & Rodrigues, C. R. (2015). Genealogical relations and lexical distances within the Tupian linguistic family. *Boletim Do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas*, 10(2), 229–274.

Gasparini, N. (2011). *L'expression du nombre dans les langues tupí-guaraní* [Master 1]. Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Gerasimov, D. (2016). *Predicative Possession in Paraguayan Guaraní: Against the Zero Copula Hypothesis*. Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters 2016.

González, H. (2005). *A grammar of Tapiete (Tupi-Guarani)* [PhD]. University of Pittsburgh.

Hammarström, H., Haspelmath, M., & Forkel, R. (2019). *Glottolog 4.0*. Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. http://glottolog.org

Hengeveld, K. (1992). Parts of Speech. In M. Fortescue, P. Harder, & L. Kristoffersen (Eds.), *Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective* (pp. 29–56). Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.23.04hen

Hengeveld, K., & van Lier, E. (2010). An implicational map of parts of speech. *Linguistic Discovery*, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.348

Höller, A. (1932). *Guarayo-Deutsches Wörterbuch*.
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. *Language*, *60*(4), 703–752.

Jaworska, E. (1999). Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases. In K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.), *Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories* (pp. 304–311). Elsevier.

Jensen, C. (1990). Cross-referencing changes in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. In D. Payne (Ed.), *Amazonian Linguistics, Studies in Lowland South American Languages* (pp. 117–158). University of Texas Press.

Jensen, C. (1998). Comparative Tupí-Guaraní Morpho-syntax. In D. Derbyshire & G. Pullum (Eds.), *Handbook of Amazonian languages: Vol. IV* (pp. 490–603). Mouton de Gruyter.

Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-Guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), *The Amazonian languages: Vol. Chapitre 5* (pp. 125–163). Cambridge University Press.

Kakumasu, J. (1986). Urubu-Kaapor. In D. Derbyshire & G. Pullum (Eds.), *Handbook of Amazonian languages: Vol. I* (pp. 326–403). Mouton de Gruyter.

Krasnoukhova, O. (in preparation). *Becoming a Noun Phrase: Towards a typology of attributive modification and their source constructions in South American languages*.

Krasnoukhova, O. (2012). *The Noun Phrase in the Languages of South America* (Vol. 301). LOT.

Langdon, M. (1994). Noise words in Guaraní. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. Ohala (Eds.), *Sound symbolism: Vol. Chapter 7* (pp. 94–103). Cambridge University Press.

Launey, M. (1994). *Une grammaire omnipédicative : essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique*. CNRS Ed.

Leite, Y. (1990). Para uma tipologia ativa do Tapirapé. Os clíticos referenciais de pessoa. *Cadernos de Estudios Linguisticos*, 18, 37–56.

Lima, S. O. de. (2007). *Duplicação, Supleração, Afixação e Alternância Verbal em línguas Tupi: pluralidade de sintagmas nominais ou de eventos?* IX ENAPOL (Encontro dos Alunos de Pós-Graduação em Lingüística da Universidade de São Paulo), São Paulo.

Magalhães, M. (2007). *Sobre a morfologia e a sintaxe da língua Guajá (família Tupí-Guaraní)* [PhD Dissertation]. Universidade de Brasília.

Meira, S. (2006). Mawé Stative Verbs and Predicate Possession. In H. Symeonidis & W. Dietrich (Eds.), *Guaraní y “Mawetí-Tupí-Guaraní”. Estudios históricos y descriptivos sobre una familia lingüística de América del Sur* (LT Verlag, pp. 47–68).

Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2013). Sobre a origem histórica dos “prefixos relacionais” das línguas Tupí-Guaraní. *Cadernos de Etnolingüística*, 5(1), 1–30.

Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A Summary Reconstruction of Proto–Maweti-Guarani Segmental Phonology. *Boletim Do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas*, 10(2), 275–296.

Michael, L., Chousou Polydouri, N., Bartolomei, K., Donnelly, E., Meira, S., Wauters, V., & O'Hagan, Z. (2015). A Bayesian phylogenetic internal classification of the Tupí-Guaraní family. *Liames*, 15(2), 193–221.

Michael, L., & Lapierre, M. (2018, October 20). *Nasal Harmony in Tupí-Guaraní: A comparative synthesis*. SSLA II, UMass Amherst.

Monserrat, R., & Soares, M. F. (1983). Hierarquia referencial em línguas Tupi. *Ensaios de Linguística*, 9, 164–187.

Ortiz, E., & Caurey, E. (2012). *Diccionario etimológico y etnográfico de la lengua guaraní hablada en Bolivia*. Plural Editores.

Payne, D. (1994). The Tupi-Guarani inverse. In B. Fox & P. Hopper (Eds.), *Voice: Form and Function* (pp. 313–340). John Benjamins.

Pereira, A. A. (2009). *Estudo morfossintático do Asuriní do Xingu* [PhD dissertation]. UNICAMP.
Pottier, B. (1972). *Langage des hommes et langage des femmes en cocama (tupi)*. In J. Thomas & L. Bernot (Eds.), *Langues et Techniques, Nature et Société: Vol. I* (pp. 385–387). Editions Klincksieck.

Praça, W. (2000). *Orações independentes com núcleos verbais e nominais em Tapirapé*. *Universa*, 8(3).

Praça, W. (2007). *Morfossintaxe da língua Tapirapé* [Tese de Doutorado]. Universidade de Brasília.

Queixalós, F. (2001a). *Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question*. LINCOM Europa.

Queixalós, F. (2001b). Le suffixe référentiant en émérillon. In F. Queixalós (Ed.), *Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question* (pp. 115–132). LINCOM Europa.

Queixalós, F. (2006). The primacy and fate of predicativity in Tupi-Guarani. In X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (Eds.), *Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages* (pp. 249–287). Peter Lang.

Reiter, S. (2011). *Ideophones in Awetí* [PhD dissertation]. Christian Albrechts University.

Rodrigues, A. (1951). A composição em Tupi. *Logos, VI*(14, separata), 1–8.

Rodrigues, A. (1953). Morfologia do verbo Tupi. *Letras, Separata n°1*, 121–152.

Rodrigues, A. (1984). Relações internas na família linguística Tupí-Guaraní. *Revista de Antropologia*, 27-28, 33-53.

Rodrigues, A. (1996). Argumento e predicado em Tupinambá. *Boletim Da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística*, 19, 57-66.

Rodrigues, A. (2000). Caso em Tupí-Guaraní, particularmente em Tupinambá. *Anais Do XIII Encontro Nacional Da ANPOLL*. XIII Encontro Nacional da ANPOLL, CD Rom.

Rodrigues, A. (2001). Sobre a natureza do caso argumentativo. In F. Queixalós (Ed.), *Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question*. LINCOM Europa.

Rodrigues, A. (2009). A Case of Affinity Among Tupí, Karíb, and Macro-Jê. *Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica*, 1(1), 137–162.

Rodrigues, A., & Cabral, A. S. (2002). Revendo a classificação interna da família Tupí-Guaraní. In A. S. Cabral & A. Rodrigues (Eds.), *Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras. Fonologia, Gramática e História. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL* (pp. 327–337). Editoria Universitária U.F.P.A.

Rodrigues, A., & Cabral, A. S. A. C. (2012). Tupían. In L. Campbell (Ed.), *The Indigenous languages of South America* (pp. 495–574). Mouton De Gruyter.

Rodrigues, A., & Dietrich, W. (1997). On the linguistic relationship between Mawé and Tupí-Guaraní. *Diachronica*, XIV(2), 265–304.

Rose, F. (2002). My hammock = I have a hammock. Possessed nouns constituting possessive clauses in Emérillon (Tupi-Guarani). In A. S. Cabral & A. Rodrigues (Eds.), *Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras. Fonologia, Gramática e História. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL* (Vol. 1, pp. 392–402). CNPQ & Universidade federal do Para.

Rose, F. (2005). Reduplication in Tupi-Guarani languages: going into opposite directions. In B. Hurch (Ed.), *Studies on Reduplication* (pp. 351–368). Mouton de Gruyter.

Rose, F. (2006). Le syncrétisme adpositions/subordonnants. Proposition de typologie syntaxique. *Faits de Langues*, 28(Coordination et subordination : typologie et modélisation), 205–216.

Rose, F. (2007). Action répétitive et action répétée: aspect et pluralité verbale dans la réduplication en émérillon. *Faits de Langues*, 29(La réduplication), 125–143.

Rose, F. (2008). A typological overview of Emerillon, a Tupi-Guarani language from French Guiana. *Linguistic Typology*, 12(3), 431–460.
Rose, F. (2009). A hierarchical indexation system: the example of Emerillon (Teko). In P. Epps & A. Arkhipov (Eds.), *New Challenges in Typology. Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions* (pp. 63–83). Mouton de Gruyter.

Rose, F. (2011). *Grammaire de l'émérillon teko, une langue tupi-guarani de Guyane française*. Peeters.

Rose, F. (2013). Finitization. A shift of dependency-coding strategy from Proto-Tupi-Guarani to Emérillon. *Diachronica*, **30**(1), 27–60.

Rose, F. (2015a). On male and female speech and more. A typology of categorical gender indexicality in indigenous South American languages. *International Journal of American Linguistics*, **81**(4), 495–537.

Rose, F. (2015b). When “you” and “I” mess around with the hierarchy: a comparative study of Tupi-Guarani hierarchical indexation systems. *Boletim Do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas*, **10**(2), 347–369.

Rose, F. (2018). Are the Tupi-Guarani hierarchical indexing systems really motivated by the person hierarchy? In S. Cristofaro & F. Zúñiga (Eds.), *Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony* (pp. 290–307). Benjamins.

Rose, F., & Chousou-Polydouri, N. (2017, January 6). *A comparative study of genderlects in the Tupi family*. SSILA Annual Meeting, Austin.

Rose, F., Fillon, Mao-Line, & Krzonowski, Jennifer. (2019, August 21). *The prosodic features of Teko ideophones*. SLE Annual Meeting, Leipzig.

Ruiz de Montoya, A. S. J. (1640). *Arte, y bocabulario de la lengua guarani*. Iuan Sanchez.

Schermair, A. E. (1949). *Gramática de la lengua sirionó*.

Seki, L. (2000). *Gramática do Kamaiurá*. Editora da Unicamp.

Seki, L. (2001). Classes de palavras e categorias sintático-funcionais em Kamaiurá. In F. Queixalós (Ed.), *Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question*. LINCOM Europa.

Solano, E. de J. B. (2009). *Descrição gramatical da língua Araweté* [Thèse de Doctorat]. Universidade de Brasília.

Tonhauser, J. (2006). *The Temporal Semantics of Noun Phrases: Evidence from Guaraní* [PhD Dissertation]. Stanford University.

Tonhauser, J. (2007). Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. *Language*, **83**(4), 831–869.

Vallejos, R. (2010). *A grammar of kokama-kokamilla* [PdD Dissertation]. University of Oregon.

Vallejos, R. (2015). La indexicalidad de género en kukama-kukamiria desde una perspectiva tipológica. In A. Fernandez, A. Alvarez, & Z. Estrada (Eds.), *Estudios de Lenguas Amerindias 3: contribuciones al estudio de las lenguas originarias de América* (pp. 199–225). Universidad de Sonora.

Vieira, M. (2000). *As sentenças possessivas em Mbyá-Guarani: evidência para a distinção nome e verbo*. Séminaire sur les langues tupi-guarani, Cayenne.

Villafañe, L. (2004). *Gramática Yuki. Lengua Tupí-Guaraní de Bolivia*. Ediciones del Rectorado, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.

Zúñiga, F. (2006). *Deixis and Alignment. Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas*. John Benjamins.