I

ArticlesPerfective Aspect in the
Languages of Madang
Province, Papua New
GuineaMasahiko Nose

Shiga University / Associate Professor

Introduction

When we consider tense and aspect in thegrammars of the languages in the world, theperfective aspect and the related usages (completive, terminative, and imperfective) are
important features (Bybee et al. 1994: chapter
3). This study examines perfective usages ofTrans-New Guinea languages and Austronesian languages spoken in Madang Province,
Papua New Guinea. 1) Though Trans-New
Guinea languages and Austronesian languages
are grammatically and lexically different fromeach other (Foley 2000), this study tries to findcommon aspectual features by contrastingthese sample languages (Lynch 1998: 62-64,
Nose 2016a, Nose 2016b).
This study chose the four sample languages
spoken in Madang Province at the north-westof Papua New Guinea: Amele and Kobon inTrans-New Guinea, and Bel and Manam inAustronesian (see Figure 1). These languages
might have connected Trans-New Guinea andAustronesian languages and their grammars
could have influences each other (cf. Dempwolff n.d., Nose 2016b, Ross 2002). As a result,these languages generally maintain partly complicated elements in their grammars (Foley
2000). Moreover, they have dense contacts
with Tok Pisin, the lingua franca of Papua New
Guinea.
This study examines the perfective features ofthe sample languages and summarizes them interms of functional perspective. Finally, thisstudy works to clarify aspectual features in thearea and explain their perfective usages interms of their semantic characteristics (Frawley
2013, Nose 2019).

1) Trans-New Guinea languages are sometimes called as

Papuan languages, they are the language group of morethan 500 languages in Melanesian area (Foley 2000). In
Madang Province, there are several Austronesian languages, spoken along the coast and the rest of the languages are Trans-New Guinea.

036

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2019 / No.421

Figure 1: Sample languages in Madang Province, Papua
New Guinea (modified by WALS language viewer (Haspelmath et al. 2005))2)

Section 2 offers an overview of previous studies that have investigated perfective aspect andlanguage descriptions of Papua New Guinea.
The purposes of this study are then presented.
Section 3 examines the data of perfective usagesof the sample languages. Section 4 is a discussion of form/meaning of the perfective aspect,
and Section 5 is a conclusion.

II

Preliminary studies andpurpose of this study

This section deals with previous studies oftense and aspect and summarizes several studies of the perfective and the languages in Papua
New Guinea. In linguistic studies, there aremany studies on perfect/perfective aspect in
the grammar; classical studies: Comrie (1976,1985), and further functional studies: Bybee etal, (1994), Bybee and Dahl (1989), Bybee et al.
(1994), and also Dahl (1985). Recently, moreadvanced studies on tense and aspect have been
conducted by Smith (1997), Bhat (1999), andDahl and Velupillai (2005).

First, this study focuses on the perfective, notperfect usages of the languages. The difference
between them are discussed by Comrie (1985;
Aspect) and Bybee and Dahl (1989) (Kroeger
2005:158). The perfective and the perfect are
not semantically similar, and the term perfective indicates the opposite of imperfective, but
the opposite of perfect does not exist. However, recent studies prefer using the term perfect.
Nevertheless, this study chose the perfective,
contrasting imperfective (or past).
General linguistic studies have been conducted on New Guinean languages, including
by Lynch (1998), Foley (2000), and Aikhenvald (2015). There are around 1,000 languages
spoken in Melanesia area and more than half ofthem are classified as Papuan or Trans-New
Guinea languages. Despite the existence of many previous studies and descriptive grammars,
we cannot find common grammatical traits(such as tense or aspect features) which we candetect the Trans-New Guinea features (see also,tense and aspect studies of Nose 2016a, 2016b,
2019).
Typologically, many languages in the worldlack perfective marking grammatically. Dahl
and Velupillai (2005a, 2005b) investigated thegrammatical marking of perfective and the perfect usages cross-linguistically. First, Dahl and
Velupillai (2005a) classified the languages intogrammatical marking of perfective/imperfective aspect, as shown in Figure 2.
Overall, half of the world’s languages lackgrammatical marking of perfective and imperfective aspect. Particularly, the languages inSouth East Asia and Europe do not have thegrammatical marking, as well as Japanese andmany languages in the American continents.
Focusing on New Guinea Island, many lan-2) I have been conducting the fieldwork in Madang

There are more than 250 indigenous languages including
Trans-New Guinea and Austronesian in Madang Province and around 50–70 languages have been described,
but others are not described yet or already have been dying and switching to Tok Pisin.

Perfective Aspect in the Languages of Madang Province, Papua
New Guinea

Masahiko Nose

Province, and particularly in Amele and Bel area. In
contrast, the languages such as Kobon and Manam are
hard to reach the spots, and it is still difficult to find a
consultant at present. Fortunately, we can find several
kinds of descriptive grammars in Madang Province andthis study utilizes them (Davies 1989, Lichtenberk 1983).

037

Figure 2: WALS #65: Perfective/imperfective aspect: typological overview (Dahl and Velupillai 2005a)

Figure 3: WALS #68: The perfect: typological overview (Dahl and Velupillai 2005b)

guages lack grammatical marking of perfective/
imperfective.
Next, Dahl and Velupillai (2005b) examined
the semantic origins of the perfect, as shown in
Figure 3. There are four options: from possessive (7 languages), from “finish,” “already” (21languages), other perfect (80 languages), andno perfect (114 languages). European languages
prefer the possessive type, including “have” perfect, but this type is not common in the rest of

the world. Eurasian languages use other perfectand “finish”/“already” type can be observed inSouth East Asia. In New Guinea, we observe
the following in Figure 4.
In Figure 4, “finish”/“already” type, and other perfect, and no perfect types are observed in
the sample languages of Dahl and Velupillai(2005b)3)
Finally, in this study, we explore common
feature of perfective usages among the four3) Recent study of Dahl and Wälchli (2016), the “al-ready” type perfect is called as Iamitive.

038

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2019 / No.421

First, Amele is a Trans-New Guinean language and spoken near the coast area. There are
five kinds of past tenses with remoteness distinctions and other additional tenses, as shownin (1) and (2).

Figure 4: Perfect in PNG (WALS #68)

sample languages. The languages of Trans-New
Guinea and Austronesia in the area had contacts each other and affected their grammars(Foley 2000, Lynch 1998, Nose 2019). Thus,
this study will examine grammatical perfective(or not), original meaning of the perfective,
and other related usages in the sample languages.

III

Perfective data ofTrans-New Guinea andAustronesian languages

This section presents the data of the sample
languages and explains the grammatical mechanism of the perfectives in Trans-New Guinea
and Austronesian languages. Morphologically,
their forms are suffix, inflection, or other lexical forms, and this study confirms the meaningsof the various perfective forms. This study utilizes the interview data (Amele and Bel) andthe books of descriptive grammars (Kobon andManam). Because, the locations of Kobon andManam are hardly accessible in geography andthe quality of each grammar book is enough inthis study (Aikhenvald 2015: chapter 7).

Perfective Aspect in the Languages of Madang Province, Papua
New Guinea(1) Remoteness distinctions in Amele:
Present: Ija hu-gi-na.
I come-PRES/1sg”I come.”
Past:
Today’s past: Ija hu-g-a.
I come-PAST(today)/1SG“I came (today).”
Yesterday’s past:Ija hu-g-an.
I come-PAST(yesterday)/1SG“I came (yesterday).”
Remote past: Ija ho-om.
I come-PAST(remote)/1SG“I came (before yesterday).”(2) Two additional past usages in Amele:
Habitual past: Ija ho-l-ig.
I come-PAST(habitul)/1SG“I used to come.”
Negative past:
Ija qee ho-l-om.
I not come-PAST(negative)/1SG“I did not come.”
These past tense forms have inflections together with persons and numbers. In contrast,
aspect forms are poor (Roberts 1989: 224) and“(t)he perfective aspect is inherent to Today’s
past tense” (Roberts 1989): mate-a “cut(past)
today-today’s past.”
Generally, the perfect/perfective meanings
are realized by using the today’s past tense form

Masahiko Nose039

(Roberts 1987: 227), or by using the adverbial
word wele “already,” as in (3) and (4).
(3) Uqa wele
nui-a.
He already go-PAST(today)/3sg“He has already gone.” (Roberts 1987:232)(4) Uqa na
wele
He wood alreadymate-a.
cut-PAST(today)/3SG“He has already cut the wood.”
There is another option to use the verb “hedoc”(to finish, complete), as shown in (5).
(5) Uqa na
meti-hedo-ya.
He wood cut-finish-PAST(today)/3SG“He finished cutting the wood”
Next, this study observes another Trans-New
Guinea language, Kobon. Kobon is spoken in
mountain area in Madang Province, and Amele
and Kobon are geographically far and do not
influence each other. Kobon has a complicatedpast tense system with near and remote pasts,
but it has the perfect aspect form (cf. Nose
2016a). The perfect aspect form in Kobon isthe element -b-, which is inserted between theverb-base and person/number inflection, suchas “Verb-b-in,” Um-öb. “He had died” (Davies
1989: 168), and examples (6) and (7). Therefore, Kobon has a perfective grammatical formin verbal morphology. But at the same time,
simple past tense forms are often used with aperfect aspectual value (Davies 1989: 167-169).
(6) Al-öp.
Shoot-PERF/3SG“He has shot.”040(7) Ar-bal.
Go-PERF/3PL“They have gone.”
Moreover, Kobon can utilize the verb “pis” (tofinish) to imply the perfective. Davies (1989:
171-172, 176) refers to this usage as terminative
aspect, as shown in (8) and (9).
(8) Kanim anom im
pis gi-pal.
Banana sucker plant finish-PERF/3PL“They have finished planting the banana.”(9) Yadning pis gi-pin.
Ieatfinish PERF/1SG“I have finished eating it.”
Another possibility is the perfective with theadverb “already.” Davies (1989:140) described
the adverb “midönöp” (already), but there is no
description of “already type” perfective in Kobon.
Next, we observe the region’s Austronesianlanguages, Bel and Manam, both of which are
spoken in Madang Province. Austronesian andTrans-New Guinea languages are totally different from each other in their grammars andlexicons, but both have come into contact in
the area over time, and several grammars havethus affected each other (cf. Foley 2000, Ross
2002, Nose 2016b). Generally, the Austronesian languages spoken in Papua New Guinea
are poor in tense and instead have several aspect forms or Tense-Aspect-Mood markers.
Moreover, verbs have no inflection and no person/number marking in verbal morphology. In
addition, the languages have prefix or (and)suffix uses (sometimes included in person/
number marking).

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2019 / No.421

First, Bel4) is spoken in the coast area, near
Madang city. Bel is quite similar to another
Austronesian language, Takia (Ross 2002), regarding grammar and lexicon.5) The grammarof Bel was briefly described by Dempwolff
around 1940-1950, which is now understood as
outdated. But the enclitic (this is not suffix, according to Dempwolff ) “-lak” is used as amarker of past, past perfect and perfect tenses,
as shown in (10). Practically, this form “-lak”
can be described as realis marker.
(10) Am a-god-lak.
we ask-REAL“we asked for/we have asked for/we had
asked for”(situations in reality)
I gathered the Bel data on the spot, and it
turned out that the enclitic “-lak” can be used
to imply perfective, but there are other options
as well. They are by using the adverb “get” (already) and by using the verb “bini” (to finish),as shown in (11a, b).
(11) a. Already type:Ƞa getbuk mustig.
I
already book read
“I have already read the book.”b. Finish type:Ƞa getbuk mustig bini.
I
already book readfinish“I have already read the book.”
In (11a, 11b), the adverb “get” and the adverb“get” (already) are a necessary and simple solution of perfective in Bel.
Manam is another Austronesian language,
spoken in Manam island, Madang Province.6)
The grammar was described by Lichtenberk
4 ) Bel has a lternative na mes, Gedaged, or Graged(Dempwolff n.d.).
5) Linguists consider that Bel and Takia are different interms of their phonology and morphology, nevertheless,many Takia and Bel people told me that they are thesame language.

Perfective Aspect in the Languages of Madang Province, Papua
New Guinea(1983), who posits that the verbal structure in
Manam can be formalized as prefix-verb-suffix(104). The prefix indicates subject and moodinformation (realis/irrealis) and suffix includes
object, directional and other information, as
shown in (12).
(12) U-doʔ-i.
1SG/SB(REAL)-take-3SG/OB“I took it.”Manam also has realis mode and the suffix“-doi” carries this realis meaning (Lichtenberk
1983:202-203). The form “-doi” indicates completion of an event (realis situation); theperfective, as shown in (13).7)(13) U-moanʔo-doi.
I(REAL)-eat-completive“I have finished eating/I have eaten.”Moreover, Lichtenberk added that the adverb“abe” (already) can enhance the perfective
meaning, as in (14).
(14) Abeu-ruʔu-doi.
already I(REAL)-wash-completive“I have washed already.”IV

Discussion

The data in Section 3 show that each of thesample languages has partly grammatical orpartly lexical perfectives, but there are no common characteristics among them. Amele andKobon have a diverse tense system, includingnear and remote past, and sometimes near past
forms imply perfective meaning. On the other
hand, Bel and Manam formally distinguish be6) Recently (2018-2019), a volcano of Manam island is

still active and several eruptions occurred. The road conditions from Madang to Bogia are not safe, and I gave up
going there.

7) According to Lichtenberk (1983: 182-183), there are re-alis and irrealis prefixes on verbs and the form “-doi” canappear with the realis prefix.

Masahiko Nose041

Table 1: Perfective usages and their meanings in the sample languages in
Papua New Guinea
Tense

Perfective usages

Adverb “Already”

Verb “Finish”

Amele

Rich

Lexical

wele

Hedoc

Kobon

Rich

Grammatical(perfective)(midönöp)

Pis

Bel

Poor

Grammatical (realis enclitic)

(get)

bini

Manam

Poor

Grammatical (realis prefix)

(abe)

---

tween realis and irrealis, and the realis marker
carries past and perfective meanings, as shownin Table 1.
The findings in Table 1 show that Amele andKobon (Trans-New Guinea) have rich tense
systems, and only Kobon has grammatical perfective involved in verbal morpholog y. In
contrast, Bel and Manam (Austronesian) havegrammatical realis (and some grammaticalforms) carrying perfective meaning (cf. Bybee
and Dahl 1989, Bybee et al. 1994). Moreover,there are two options: “already”-type and“finish”-type, and “already”-type is preferred inAmele, but the adverb “already” is used to enhance the perfe ctive meaning in otherlanguages (Dahl and Velupillai 2005b). Alternatively, the “finish”-type can be used as lexical
perfective in Amele, Kobon and Bel.
Overall, the perfective can be realized grammatically (Kobon, Bel and Manam) andlexically (Amele). All sample languages utilize
lexical aid of “already” or “finish,” which are
not grammaticalized yet.
Here, we consider the perfective in Tok Pisin, the lingua franca in Papua New Guinea.
There is the perfective marker “pinis” in Tok
Pisin, as shown in (15).

(15) Mi ridim buk pinis.
I read book PERF
“I have (already) read the book.”
This perfective marker “pinis” is derived fromthe English verb “finish,” but its meaning in
Tok Pisin is “already” (i.e., iamitive). This usage
in Tok Pisin might affect the “already”-type
and “finish”-type in sample languages.8)
Finally, this study claims the perfective aspect markers in all languages are more or lessrelated to simple (or near) past tense (and realis situation in Austronesian languages), andthis fact means that the languages of the area
do not clearly distinguish past tense and perfective aspect meanings (cf. Frawaley 2013,
Bhat 1999). The Trans-New Guinea languages
prefer tense-conscious and Austronesian languages are based on realis/irrealis grammaticalforms. Because of this, there is no common feature among the sample languages. However,their usages of “already”/“finish” perfective
might be affected by the “pinis” in Tok Pisin
and this point (the perfective derived via “pinis” in Tok Pisin) is a common feature basedon the language contact with Tok Pisin.
There is a distinction of the perfective formati o n b e t w e en Tr a n s - Ne w Gu i n e a a n d8) I obser ved that native speakers of Amele and Bel

know the difference between the simple past “bin” andthe perfective “pinis” in Tok Pisin. They are bilinguals ofeach native language and Tok Pisin and they know theconcept of the perfective in their native languages.

042

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2019 / No.421

Austronesian languages, because Austronesianlanguages have realis/irrealis moods in theirgrammars (cf. Aikhenvald 2015, Frawley 2013).
Their grammar and perfective meanings aredifferent from typical Indo-European languages, but similar phenomena can be observed inneighboring area (inside Melanesia and around
South East Asia).

V

Conclusion

This study claims the perfective aspect is realized in se veral ways among the sample
languages in the area, and their usages are
mixed with grammatical aspect forms and lexical (rather “already”-type). The perfective
meaning is realized in realis (or simple/near
past tense) situations in the sample languages,
and there is no clear distinction between pasttense and perfective (cf. Bybee and Dahl 1989).
Therefore, “already”-types and “finish”-types
are supplementary for enhancing the perfective
meaning. They are considered to be an influence of Tok Pisin “pinis” perfective. However,further investigation of behaviors of the perfective usages in other languages in the area isnecessary.

Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Neret Tamo and thevillagers in Sein and Kranget Island, Madang
Province, and Papua New Guinea for their data
and kindness. I claim sole responsibility for any
errors. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15K02478. An earlier
version of this paper was presented at the 17th
International Conference on the Processing of
East Asian Languages and the 9th Conferenceon Language, Discourse, and Cognition (ICPEAL 17 – CLDC 9) Joint Conference,
National Taiwan University. I am grateful tothe audience for their comments and criticismsof earlier versions of the paper.
References
⦿Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2015. The art of grammar: a practicalguide. Oxford University Press.

⦿ Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, andmood. John Benjamins.

⦿Bybee, J, R. and Ö. Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense andaspect systems. Studies in Language 13: 51–103.

⦿ Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The

evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in thelanguages of the world (Vol. 196). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

⦿Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge University Press.
⦿Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press.
⦿Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect system. Basil Blackwell.

Abbreviations
SB: subject; OB: object; PAST (today, yesterday, remote) : past tense marker (today’s
past, yesterday’s past and remote past); PERF
grammatical perfective marker; PRES: present
tense marker; REAL: realis marker; SG: singular; PL: plural; 1, 2, 3: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person,
respectively.

⦿ Dahl, Ö. and V. Velupillai. 2005a. Perfective/Imperfec-

tive aspect, In: Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds.). The World
Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford University Press,
WALS feature #65.

⦿ Dahl, Ö. and V. Velupillai. 2005b. The perfect, In:

Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford University Press, WALS feature #68.

⦿ Dahl, Ö., & Wälchli, B. 2016. Perfects and iamitives:

two gram types in one grammatical space. Letras deHoje, 51: 325–348.

⦿Davies, J. 1989. Kobon. Routledge.

Perfective Aspect in the Languages of Madang Province, Papua
New Guinea

Masahiko Nose043

⦿ Dempwolff, O. n.d. Grammar of Gedaged language.

Mimeo. Narer, Karkar Island: Lutheran Mission.

⦿ Foley, W. A. 2000. The languages of New Guinea. An-

nual review of anthropology, 357–404.

⦿Frawley, W. 2013. Linguistic semantics. Routledge.
⦿ Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B.

2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford
University Press.

⦿ Kroeger, P. R. 2005. Analyzing grammar: An introduc-tion. Cambridge University Press.

⦿ Lichtenberk, F. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Oceanic

Linguistics Special Publications, (18).

⦿ Lynch, J. 1998. Pacific Languages: an introduction. Uni-

versity of Hawai’i Press.

⦿ Nose, M. 2016a. The forms and meanings of past tense:

A contrastive study of Papua New Guinea. The Hikone
Ronso (Working paper of Shiga University) 409: 6–14.

⦿ Nose, M. 2016b. Borrowing temporal expressions in

New Guinea languages: a contrastive study of loanwords. Tohoku Studies in Linguistics 24: 95–104.

⦿ Nose, M. 2019. The verb “finish” as perfect in the TransNew Guinea languages : a diachronic explanation. A paper will be presented at the 24th International Conference of Historical Linguistics, Canberra, Australia.

⦿Roberts, J. R. 1987. Amele. Croom Helm.
⦿Ross, M. 2002. Takia. The Oceanic languages, 216–248.
⦿Smith, C. 1997. The parameter of aspect (second edition).

Kluwer.

044

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2019 / No.421

Perfective Aspect in the Languages ofMadang Province, Papua New Guinea
Masahiko Nose

This study tries to clarify the functions of aspect forms in Madang Province, Papua New
Guinea. It particularly focuses on the perfective
aspect forms in four sample languages: Amele,
Bel, Kobon, and Manam. Amele and Kobon
are Trans-New Guinea languages while, andBel and Manam are Austronesian languages.
Generally, Austronesian languages tend to haveaspect features, whereas Trans-New Guinea
languages lack instead have rich tense systems.
This study discusses their perfective behaviors
from a contrastive viewpoint.
I collected the data through fieldwork andfound that there are two kinds of aspect marking : with morpholog y and withoutmorphology. Morphologically, perfective aspect forms were incorporated into person andnumber of the verbs, as in (1a).
(1a) With aspect morphology
Bel: Am agod-lak. (realis marker)“We have asked for” (Dempwolff n.d. 11)
Bel: Nga book get mushuti-gbini. (past)“I have already read a book/I read book”
Manam: U-moanaʔ-dói.(completive suffix)“I have eaten” (Lichtenberk 1983:202)
Kobon: Um-öb. (recent past+perfect)“He has died” (Davies 1989:168)

Perfective aspect in the languages of Madang Province, Papua
New Guinea(1b) Without aspect morphology
Amele: Uqa wele (already) nui-a (today’s past).
“He has already gone” (Roberts 1987:232)
Amele: Uqa na meti-hedo-ya(cut-finish-today’s past).
“He finished cutting the wood”
Austronesian languages (Bel and Manam) arepoor in tense forms, but they have aspect morphology (realis marker) in verbs. However,Kobon has morphological perfective markers,
but their usages are related to the recent past
form. In (1b), Amele lacks aspect marker andinstead utilizes the temporal adverb “wele” (already) or the verb “finish” and today’s past
form. Therefore, this study found that each language has partly formal means indicating
perfective and Trans-New Guinea languages
utilize past tense forms, and Austronesian languages have bound morpholog y of tenseaspect-mood. Thus, perfective aspect is notcommon feature of the area, and perfective
meaning turns out to be realized differently.
Finally, this study claims the perfective aspectmarkers in all languages are more or less related
to simple (or near) past tense. In other words,
these languages do not significantly distinguishpast tense and perfective aspect meanings. Additionally, “finish”-type or “already”-type forms
can help implying the perfective meaning.

Masahiko Nose045