I

ArticlesA Contrastive Study of
Future Tenses in the
Languages of Papua New
GuineaMasahiko Nose

Shiga University / Associate Professor

Introduction

Tense, aspect, and modality are necessary
parts of grammar (Aikhenvald 2014: chapter
7.2, Binnick 2012, Bybee et al. 1994), and thisstudy pays special attention to the future tense.
The future tense is one of tense features, andmany studies are conducted from a standpointof modal meanings, for example, there are twoforms in English; be going to and will and thisdifference is an issue in semantics (including
modal meanings) and cognitive linguistics(Dahl 2000, Tyler and Jan 2016, Velupillai2016). This study tries to clarify the features ofthe future tense in the Papua New Guinea area.1)
This study chose six languages from several
language families in the area. The sample languages are the following six languages: Amele,
Bel, Kobon, Manam, Waskia, and Tok Pisin(see Figure 1). This study examined these six
languages and checked tense features in termsof contrastive-typological points. In particular,
I want to examine morphological and semantic
features of the future tense, and moreover, I
will summarize differences and common functions. Amele, Kobon, and Waskia belong to theTrans-New Guinea genera, Bel and Manam arefrom the Austronesian genera, and additionally, Tok Pisin is an English-based creole. These
languages are spoken in the Madang Provinceof Papua New Guinea, the north-west coast area of New Guinea Island (cf. Nose 2016a,
2016b).
Section 2 is an introduction of previous studies of the general investigation of tense andlanguage descriptions of Papua New Guinea
and then shows the purposes of this study. Section 3 demonstrates the data of the future tense
1) Papua New Guinea is famous for its diversity of lan-

guages and there are around 800 languages including
Papuan/New Guinea, Austronesian, and creole languages. Their grammars are different to each other and they
have several rare grammatical characteristics which cannot be observed in European languages (Foley 2000,
Nose 2016a).

004

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2017 / No.413

Figure 1: Sample languages of this study (Generated by the WALS language viewer)of the sample languages. Section 4 is a discussion of form/meaning of the future tense andsection 5 is a conclusion.

II

Tense studies andthe languages ofPapua New Guinea

This section illustrates a typological study offuture tense forms and then observes several

previous studies of tense in the New Guinea area. First, there is one typological study of the
future tense, conducted by Dahl and Velupillai(2005). Dahl and Velupillai created Figure 2 asa result of their typological survey. They classified 222 languages of the world into two types:
inflectional future (black circles, 110 languages)
and no inflectional future (white circles, 112
languages).

Figure 2: The Future Tense, WALS feature #67 (Dahl and Velupillai 2005)

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the Languages of Papua
New Guinea

Masahiko Nose005

We find several observations in Figure 2.
First, European and Asian languages tend tohave no inflectional future. Second, Indian,
American languages, New Guinea, and Austral ian lang ua g es have a tendenc y to use
inflectional futures. For example, Finnish does
not have a morphological future as in (1a), andtemporal adverbs such as “today” and “tomorrow” indicate present or future meanings, as in(1b). Thus, Finnish is a language which has no
future tense.
(1) Finnish:a. Tänään on kylmää.
		
today
is cold.parti2）“It is cold today.”b. Huomenna on kylmää.
tomorrowiscold.parti“It will be cold tomorrow.”
In English, there are two kinds of futuretense forms, but neither is inflectional, as in (2).
Tyler and Jan (2016) discuss the “be going to”

form as a metaphorical extension of the meaning “go” and “will,” so this future is based on amodal meaning “intention.”(2) English:
a. I am going to study English.
b. I will study English.
On the other hand, Spanish has an inflectional future, as in (3). Inflectional “-é”
indicates the 3rd person singular future tense
form and it is involved in verbal morphology.
In this case, it is not easy to find the original
meaning of the future tense form, but these inflectional future forms are more
grammaticalized in time-references.
(3) Spanish: (Uryuu 2006:116)
Tomar-é
el trende las ocho.
Take-fut.3sg the train of the eight“I will take the 8 o’clock train.”

Figure 3: The Future tense in New Guinea Island (Dahl and Velupillai 2005)

2) The following abbreviations are used: parti = parti-

tive; pl = plural; pred = predicate; pres = present; sg =singular; fut = future; ir = irrealis; 1, 2, 3 = first person,second person, and third person, respectively.

006

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2017 / No.413

Next, we will focus on the map of the New
Guinea area, Figure 3, created by Dahl and Velupillai (2005). Also, we will review several
previous studies of future tenses typologicallyand particularly, New Guinea languages. The
Papua New Guinea area shows dominantly inflectional futures except Tok Pisin and somelanguages (mainly, Austronesian languages).
Nose (2016a) and Foley (2000) claimed thatthe languages of Papua New Guinea show arich morphological past tense as well. These
complexities of morphology in the area are obser ved in Papuan or Trans-New Guinea
languages.
Previous studies of tense and aspect (Comrie
1976, 1985, Binnick 2012, Bybee and Dahl 1989,
Bybee et al. 1994, and Velupillai 2016) demonstrated that the future tense is partly related tomood in that its meaning includes uncertainty
or an irrealis situation. Moreover, in many languages, the present tense covers near-future
meanings and thus, some languages lack a morphological future tense in their grammars.
Particularly in the New Guinea area, Foley(2000: 381) pointed out that Austronesian languages have simple tense systems or often lackthe grammatical category altogether, instead
they employ a modal contrast between realisirrealis (see also, Elliot 2000). On the other
hand, Papuan (or Trans-New Guinea) languages may have complex tense systems throughmultiple deictic distinctions of distance fromthe present “now.” For example, Amele, one of
the Trans-New Guinea languages, has a complicated tense system, as shown in (4).

	Yesterday's past: Ija fi-g-an. “I saw (yesterday).”	Remote past: Ija fe-em. “I saw (before yesterday).”This study examines specific morphology offuture tenses and their meanings, and then, we
try to find common features of the sample languages. We analyze the data and we will explain
how the sample languages consider future tenses and the concept of time. For this purpose,
this study uses the following materials and thedata of the sample languages. Thus, this study
utilized the described data and partly my elicitation data (in particular, Amele and Bel).
Finally, this study and further studies will complete the data and description by adding stepby-step field data.4）◦A mele: Trans-New Guinea (TNG), coastarea; Roberts (1989) and my data◦K obon: TNG, mountain area; Davies(1989)◦W askia: TNG, coast area; Ross and Paol
(1978)◦B el: Austronesian (AUS), coast area;
Dempwolff (n.d.) and my data◦M anam: AUS, coast area; Lichtenberk(1983)◦T ok Pisin: English-based creole, Mihalic(1971) and my data

III

Syntax and morphology of
Future tenses:
Data of future tense(4) Amele: (Roberts 1987: 224–225) 3）
Present: Ija fi-gi-na. “I see.”
Past: Today's past: Ija fi-g-a. “I saw (today).”This section investigates forms and functionsof future tenses among the sample languages.
This section shows example sentence from each3) Amele has a portmanteau suffix of tense, person, and

4) The sample languages in Madang Province have already been described before. The quality of each description is enough to contrast them. Nevertheless, it is still
difficult to conduct a field study on the spot for somelanguages, and it is also hard to find good language consultants (cf. Aikhenvald 2014).

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the Languages of Papua
New Guinea

Masahiko Nose

number. Full conjugations of the verb jiga (to eat) are
shown in the Appendix.

007

language and the forms and meanings of the
future tense. Finally, we summarize the dataand contrast them in terms of future time reference.
First, Amele is a Trans-New Guinea language
and it has a morphological future, though thepresent tense form implies future meaning(present tense: hu-gi-na. “I come”). Thus,
Amele has present and future tenses, in addition to the rich past tense forms (Roberts 1989,
Nose 2016a). The inflectional future tense formin (5) is “-an” or “-en,” which can be inflectedwith person and number in a portmanteau
form. Moreover, Amele has distinctions among
the absolute future, relative future, and negative future tense forms as in (6).
(5) Amele (Roberts 1989: 229)
Uqa sabman-igi-an.
3sg food cook-3sg.fut“She will cook the food.”(6) Future tense forms in Amele◦ Future: -an/-en◦ Relative future: -a/-e◦ Negative future: -aunRoberts (1989: 229) describes that the usageof the relative future indicates an event that isabout to take place in the near future, as shownin (7).
(7) Uqa lotoc oso
faj-igi-a
He clothone
buy-3sg.relative fut
bili
wau-g ben tawen.
be-pred stomach-his big stand3sg.remote
past“He stood proudly about to buy a garment.”

008

However, my field data show that anotherfuture tense form “-ig on” can be used in several
verb forms as in (8) and (9). These forms aredifferent from the future tense form “-an/-en”(see also, Appendix).
(8) Ija rais jig on.
1sg rice eat-1sg.fut“I will eat rice.”(9) a. Ija buk sia-niga.
1sg book read-1sg.pres”I read a book.”b. Ija uqada
buk sianig on.
1sg tomorrow book read-1sg.fut“I will read a book.”
To summarize, Amele has three kinds of inflectional future tenses: absolute future, relative
future, and negative future. However, another“-ig on” form is observed in some discourses.
Amele has rich past tense forms (today, yesterday, and remote) and it has morphologicalmeans expressing temporal sequences of thepast events.
Second, Manam is an Austronesian language
spoken in the north part of Madang Province.
Lichtenberk (1983) is a comprehensive descriptive grammar which this study utilizes. Manam
does not have a formal future tense. Instead,
Manam has a distinction between irrealis andrealis and the irrealis prefix form carries future
meaning, as in (10).
(10) Manam (Lichtenberk 1983: 184)
Zama
?usi
ne-gu
tomorrow loincloth possessive-1sg
mi-asa?-i.
1sg.ir-wash-3sg“I will wash my loincloth tomorrow.”

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2017 / No.413

The form “mi” is a mood marker and it is aprefix which indicates an irrealis meaning (Lichtenberk 1983: 183). Lichtenberk (1983)
explains this irrealis as events that will (willnot) take place in the future in relation to thetime of the speech act or some other event.
Similarly, another prefix “masa” indicates indefinite irrealis and it also carries future
meaning, as in (11).
(11) Masa ?aba m-purain-ir again 1sg-come“I will come again.”
Third, Tok Pisin is a lingua franca of Papua
New Guinea and it has been developed as an
English-based creole since the 19th century(Mihalic 1971). Tok Pisin has an independent
future marker “bai,” derived from the English
form “by and by.” The form “bai” has a longer
form “baimbai” as in (12). Romaine (1995)
claimed that “bai/baimbai” have grammaticalized into irrealis. The present form (so called“zero form”) in (13) can indicate future meaning as well by using the temporal adverb“tomorrow.”(12) Tok Pisin:
Mi bai (baimbai) go long town.
I fut			go to town
“I will go to a town.”(13) Mi go long town tumora.
I go to town tomorrow“I will go to a town tomorrow.”
Next, Bel is also an Austronesian like Manam, which was described by Dempwolff
around 1940–1950. His description (Demp-

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the Languages of Papua
New Guinea

wolff n.d.) was already old, and this study
confirmed the sentence examples by the author
in 2015–2016 (cf. Nose 2016b). Bel has an enclitic marker “-oi/ -woi.” This enclitic carries anirrealis meaning and it has future meaning as
well. Its suffixal tendency is a result of language
contact with Trans-New Guinea languages (forexample, another Austronesian Manam uses aprefix. cf. Takia, Ross (2002)). The sentences(14) and (15) carry the future tense, and Dempwolff (n.d.: 13) points out that the form “-oi/-woi” is usually like the English “shall” and“will,” auxiliary verbs and additionally, the imperative may be expressed by this form.
(14) Bel: The same as present tense
Nga ngarag-oi.
I
go-irrealis“I go/ I will go.”(15) Tamol imat-oi.
Man die-ir“the man will die.”
Next, Waskia is a Trans-New Guinea language, which has heavy contacts with theneighboring Austronesian Takia and Bel (Ross
2002). As a result, its grammar is similar toAustronesians (Ross and Paol 1978). Thus, it isremarkable that Waskia has rather a distinction
between realis and irrealis, in particular, realis
subject-tense-mood suffix and irrealis subjecttense-mood suffix (Ross and Paol 1978 42, 6768, see also Appendix). Realis forms have threekinds of tense forms and meanings: present,
habitual past, and simple past. Irrealis forms
carry future, imperative, and desiderative
meanings. All forms are suffixes and partly inflect with person and number. Its future suffix
is “-uko” or “-uki” as in (16) and (17).

Masahiko Nose009

(16) Waskia (Ross and Paol 1978: 69):
nu misese urat biter-uko labo
He today work do-fut.3sg perhaps“He will probably work today.”(17) (Ross and Paol: 1978: 15)
mukolase nu Madang namer-uki.
Tomorrow he Madang go-fut.3sg“He will go to Madang tomorrow.”
Finally, Kobon (Davies 1989) is spoken in themountain area of Madang Province. It is said
that it has the grammatical tendency of thehighland languages (Foley 2000). Kobon has
rich inflections with tenses such as Amele, andit has the following several tenses with inflections. Tense markings are classified in simple
past, remote past, present, future, and perfectaspect (see the Appendix, future tense morpholog y in Kobon). However, the present
tense can express future meaning in Kobon, asin (18). The difference between present and future is slight in forms: 1st singular present: “abin” / future: “nab-in,” and only infix “n” form
indicates a future meaning as in (19).
(18) Kobon (Davies 1989: 166)
Uri nöp		ar-ab-in.
Now emphatic
go-pres-1sg“I am going (will) right now.”(19) a. Ar-ab-in “I go”
b. Ar-nab-in “I will go.”
The data observed is shown in table 1 in the
Appendix. Now, we will summarize the observations. First, there are two tendencies, possibly
Trans-New Guinea (TNG) and Austronesian(AUS) features. TNG type is based on the semantic distinction past versus non-past.
Moreover, a verbal suffix is preferred to express

010

tense distinctions, and these suffixes carry several tense meaning s such as remotenessdistinctions (near past and remote past) among
past, present, and future. It is also noted thatthe present tense can imply future meaning. In
contrast, Austronesian type (AUS) has a semantic distinction between realis and irrealis.
The irrealis form carries a future meaning andmorphologically a prefix or a suffix. It is remarkable that the future form does not imply
present, because present tense event indicatesrealis meaning. Romaine (1995) claims that“bai” has grammaticalized into irrealis like “Baiyumi go (Let’s go).” Thus, the future form in
Tok Pisin belongs to AUS type.
We claim that the sample languages preferinflectional futures, and they are mostly suffix,
but AUS type is semantically based on irrealis
future. Among the sample languages, Amele
has the most complicated tense system.

IV

Discussion

This section discusses the future tenses incontrast. The languages in Papua New Guinea
have quite different grammars from typical European languages (Foley 2000), and this study
will discuss two points: one is what are thecommon features in the sample languages andanother point is how the languages consider
time and grammar in functional-cognitive
terms (cf. Dahl 2000, Sinha et al. 2011).
First, this study considers the common
feature(s) of the sample languages and willshow how differently each grammar uses the
future function. Both types (TNG and AUS
types) have morphological markers for the future tense. Future forms are marked rather inverbal inflections, as a suffix. This suffixal fea-

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2017 / No.413

ture is mainly observed in Trans-New Guinea
languages. We cannot identify a common feature between the two types. This study foundthat Austronesian languages have a futuretense, originally derived from irrealis meaning.
In contrast, TNG languages have a continuumof past-present-future sequence, past/non-pastmodel (cf. Dahl 2000, Elliott 2000). Moreover, it is remarkable that Amele has a positive/
negative distinction (Roberts 1987). By theirlanguage contact processes (cf. Sinha et al. 2011,
Ross 2002), Waskia and Tok Pisin acquired anirrealis system although Waskia is Trans-New
Guinea and Tok Pisin is a creole language.
Thus, the irrealis future is dominant in the languages in the area.
Second, we consider time and grammar incognitive terms. This study clarified that there
are two kinds of future markings: past/nonpast and realis/irrealis viewpoints. TNG type
has past/non-past distinction and AUS type
and Tok Pisin have realis/irrealis distinction,
but Waskia has changed to irrealis future inspite of Trans-New Guinea. Bel is an Austronesian and it keeps a realis/irrealis distinction,
but its usage is similar to non-past. Sinha et al.
(2011) described the Amondawa language in
the Amazon that does not have the concept oftime. But even Amondawa has temporal adverbs such as “tomorrow” or “next month,” andgenerally, all languages have grammatical or
lexical means for future reference. Therefore,
there are several kinds of grammaticalization or
lexicalization paths for expressing future time
meaning. TNG type has a marked future form,
which indicates “not past” and “not present.”
In contrast, AUS type has a marked future,
which indicates “it is not real (in the territoryof mood).”

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the Languages of Papua
New Guinea

V

Conclusion

This study claims that the sample six languages have at least one future tense marker,
but their forms are two-fold: one is TNG typeand another is AUS type. Many languages haveinflectional futures, but some have a simple future marker only. Thus, we cannot identify
common features. This study found that Austronesian languages, Tok Pisin and Waskia (itis a Trans-New Guinea lang uage, but itchanged its grammar) have future tenses, originally derived from irrealis and within the areaof Mood. In contrast, TNG languages have acontinuum of past-present-future sequence,
based on past/non-past distinction. We examined the future tense in a global context in
Figure 1 and found that half of languages do
not have an inflectional future tense form (112of 222 languages), but particularly the majorityof languages in New Guinea island have rather
an inflectional future tense except Tok Pisin
and a few languages.
These findings mean that these languages’
grammaticalization paths differ significantly
and the languages themselves are radically different from English and other European
languages. Furthermore, we should rememberthat New Guinea people are bilingual speakers
of native indigenous languages and Tok Pisin,and they can understand easily and translateeach concept of future time (in both TNG and
AUS types), sometimes by the help of temporaladverbs.
【Acknowledgement】
I would like to thank Neret Tamo, Benroy
Long, Lel Fita, and Based Bok, and the villagers in Sein and Kranget Island, Madang

Masahiko Nose011

Appendix
Verbal morphology in Amele: Jiga “to eat”
Present

Today’s past

Yesterday’s past

Remote past

1sg: jigina

1sg: jiga-(on)1sg: jigan-(on)1sg: je-em

2sg: jaga

2sg: jaga-on

2sg: jagan-on

2sg: je-em

3sg: jena

3sg: jeya-on

3sg: jeyan-on

3sg: jen

1pl: jobona

1pl: joba-on

1pl: joban-on

1pl: jon

2/3 pl: jegina

2/3 pl: jeisa-on

2/3 pl: joban-on

2/3 pl: jein

Habitual past

Negative past

FutureNegative future

1sg: jigina-on

1sg: jerim

1sg: jig-on

1sg: jigin

2sg: jagana-on

2sg: jerem

2sg: jeg-on

2sg: jegen3sg: jena-on

3sg: jeer

3sg: jigi-on

3sg: je-dami

1pl: jobona-on

1pl: jorun

1pl: je-nu

1pl: jobon

2/3 pl: jegina-on

2/3 pl: jerin

2/3 pl: jobaig-on

2/3 pl: jowain

Irrealis Subject-Tense-Mood suffixes in Waskia (Ross and Paol 1978: 68)
1sg: -iki

1pl: -naki

2sg: -i/ zero

2pl: -ani

3sg: - uki

3pl: -uni

Future tense morphology in Kobon (Davies 1989: 166):
1sg: nab-in

1dual: nab-ul

1pl: nab-un

2sg: nab-ön

2/3dual: nab-il

2pl: nab-im

3sg: nab-φ

3pl: nab-öl

Table 1: A contrastive result of future tense forms in the sample languages
Morphology

Meanings

Future nuance in

Other points

Amele (TNG)

Verb inflection,

Absolute, Relative,

present tense
Yes

Negative future and relative

Kobon (TNG)(suffix)
Verb inflection,and negative
Absolute future onlyYes

futureFuture form is similar to

Waskia (TNG)(suffix)
Subject-tense-

IrrealisNo?

present
Realis/Irrealis distinction

Bel (AUS)

mood suffix
Enclitic in the verb Irrealis

Yes(AUS type)Irrealis, but it means present

No
Yes

tense
Irrealis future
Longer “baimbai”Irrealis (AUS

(suffix)
Manam (AUS)
Modal prefix
Irrealis mood
Tok Pisin(Creole) Independent future Irrealis, English “bymarker “bai”

012

and by”

type)

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2017 / No.413

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 Various
Dimensions of Contrastive Studies (VDOCS
2016), University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland,
Oct. 24-25, 2016. I am grateful to the audience
for their comments and criticisms of earlier
versions of the paper.
References
⦿Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2014. The art of grammar: a practicalguide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

⦿ Binnick, R. I. 2012. The Oxford handbook of tense andaspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

⦿ Bybee, J. and Ö. Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense andaspect system in the language of the World. Studies in
Language 13: 51-103.

⦿ Bybee, J, R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolu-⦿Mihalic, F. 1971. The Jacaranda dictionary and grammarof Melanesian Pidgin. Hong Kong: Jacaranda.

⦿ 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.

⦿Roberts, J. R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.
⦿ Romaine, S. 1995. The grammaticalization of irrealis in

Tok Pisin. In: Bybee, J.L. and S. Fleischman(eds.). Modality in grammar and discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 389-428.

⦿ Ross, M. 2002. Takia. In: Lynch, J., Ross, M., & Crow-ley, T. The Oceanic languages, Richmond/Surrey: Curzon Press: 216-248.

⦿Ross, M. and J. N. Paol. 1978. A Waskia grammar sketch

and vocabulary. Pacific Linguistics B-56, Canberra: Australian National University.

⦿Sinha, Ch. et al. 2011. When time is not space: The social

and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. Language and Cognition 3:137-169.

tion of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

⦿ Tyler, A. and H. Jan. 2016. Be going to and will: talking

⦿ Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

⦿ Uryuu, R. 2005. Spain-go no nyuumon (Introduction toversity Press.

⦿Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

⦿Dahl, Ö. 2000. The grammar of future time reference inabout the future using embodied experience. Language
and Cognition 2016: 1-34.
Spanish). Tokyo: Hakusuisha.

⦿ Velupillai, V. 2016. Partitioning the time: a cross-lin-

guistic survey of tense. Studies in Language 40: 93-136.

European languages. Empirical Approaches to Language
Typology 6: 309-328.

⦿ Dahl, Ö. and V. Velupillai. 2005. The future tense, In:

Haspelmath, M. et al.(eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford: Oxford University Press:
WALS feature #67.

⦿Davies, J. 1989. Kobon. London: Routledge.
⦿ Dempwolff, O. n.d. Grammar of Gedaged language.

Mimeo. Narer, Karkar Island: Lutheran Mission.

⦿ Elliott, J. R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and con-cepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic typology 4: 55-90.

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

nual review of anthropology 29: 357-404.

⦿ Lichtenberk, F. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press.

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the Languages of Papua
New Guinea

Masahiko Nose013

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the
Languages of Papua New Guinea
Masahiko Nose

This study tries to clarify the functions of future tense forms in the area of Madang
Province, Papua New Guinea; particularly, thesample languages are Amele, Bel, Kobon, Manam, Waskia, and Tok Pisin. This study
examined the six languages and checked tensefeatures in terms of contrastive-typologicalpoints.
Amele, Kobon, and Waskia are a Trans-New
Guinea language, and Bel and Manam are Austronesian and additionally, Tok Pisin, an
English-based creole.
According to Dahl and Velupillai (2005), themajority of the languages of New Guinea Island use inflectional future tenses. But somelanguages such as Tok Pisin have no inflectional future. Generally, Trans-New Guinea
languages tend to depend on verbal morphology and in contrast, Austronesian languages
have less verb inflection.
This study tries to clarify the characteristicsof the future tense of the sample languages, andexamines how their future features are combined in verbal morphology and consider theirlexical origins. In (1)-(3), we show several examples of future tenses.

(2) Manam (Lichtenberk 184):
By using irrealis prefix
Zama?usi ne-gu mi-asa?-i. “I will wash my loincloth tomorrow”(3) Tok Pisin:
By using independent marker with irrealis
meaning
Mi bai go long town. “I will go to a town”
Amele has a morphological future tense affix“-an,” and Austronesian Manam has also morphological, but the prefix marker “mi-”indicates an irrealis meaning. Tok Pisin has adistinctive future marker “bai,” originated fromEnglish “by and by.”Finally, this study claims that the sample languages have at least one future tense marker,
but their forms are various and we cannot identify common features. This study found that
Austronesian languages (AUS type) have future tenses, originally derived from irrealis andwithin the area of Mood. In contrast, other languages (Trans-New Guinea languages, TNGtype) have a continuum of past-present-future
sequence.

(1) Amele (Roberts 1989: 229):
By using inflectional future
Uqa sab man-igi-an. “She will cook the food”

014

THE HIKONE RONSO

Autumn / Sep. 2017 / No.413

A Contrastive Study of Future Tenses in the Languages of Papua
New Guinea

Masahiko Nose015