|Related to nouns|
|Related to verbs|
In linguistics, clusivity is a grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person pronouns and verbal morphology, also called inclusive "we" and exclusive "we". Inclusive "we" specifically includes the addressee (that is, one of the words for "we" means "you and I and possibly others"), while exclusive "we" specifically excludes the addressee (that is, another word for "we" means "he/she/they and I, but not you"), regardless of who else may be involved. While imagining that this sort of distinction could be made in other persons (particularly the second) is straightforward, in fact the existence of second-person clusivity (you vs. you and them) in natural languages is controversial and not well attested. While clusivity is not a feature of standard English language, it is found in many languages around the world.
The first published description of the inclusive-exclusive distinction by a European linguist was in a description of languages of Peru in 1560 by Domingo de Santo Tomás in his Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los Reynos del Perú, published in Valladolid, Spain.
Clusivity paradigms may be summarized as a two-by-two grid:
|Includes the addressee?|
I and you (and possibly they)
I and they, but not you
In some languages, the three first-person pronouns appear to be unrelated. This is the case for Chechen, which has singular so/, exclusive txo/, and inclusive vay/. In others, all three are related, as in Tok Pisin (an English creole spoken in Papua New Guinea) singular mi, exclusive mi-pela, and inclusive yu-mi (a compound of mi with yu "you") or yu-mi-pela. However, when only one of the plural pronouns is related to the singular, it may be either one. In some dialects of Mandarin Chinese, for example, inclusive or exclusive / w?men is the plural form of singular w? "I", while inclusive / zánmen is a separate root. However, in Hadza it is the inclusive, 'one-be'e, which is the plural of the singular 'ono ('one-) "I", while the exclusive 'oo-be'e is a separate[dubious ] root.
It is not uncommon for two separate words for "I" to pluralize into derived forms having a clusivity distinction. For example, in Vietnamese the familiar word for "I" (ta) pluralizes to inclusive we (chúng ta) and the formal or cold word for "I" (tôi) pluralizes into exclusive we (chúng tôi). In Samoan, the singular form of the exclusive pronoun is the regular word for "I", while the singular form of the inclusive pronoun may also occur on its own, in which case it also means "I", but with a connotation of appealing or asking for indulgence.
Where verbs are inflected for person, as in the native languages of Australia and many Native American languages, the inclusive-exclusive distinction can be made there as well. For example, in Passamaquoddy "I/we have it" is expressed
In Tamil on the other hand, the two different pronouns have the same agreement on the verb.
First-person clusivity is a common feature among Dravidian, Kartvelian, and Caucasian languages,Australian and Austronesian, and is also found in languages of eastern, southern, and southwestern Asia, Americas, and in some creole languages. Some African languages also make this distinction, such as the Fula language. No European language outside the Caucasus makes this distinction grammatically, but some constructions may be semantically inclusive or exclusive.
Several Polynesian languages, such as Samoan and Tongan, have clusivity with overt dual and plural suffixes in their pronouns. The lack of a suffix indicates the singular. The exclusive form is used in the singular as the normal word for "I", but the inclusive also occurs in the singular. The distinction is one of discourse: the singular inclusive has been described as the "modesty I" in Tongan, often rendered in English as one, while in Samoan its use has been described as indicating emotional involvement on the part of the speaker.
In theory, clusivity of the second person should be a possible distinction, but its existence is controversial. Some notable linguists, such as Bernard Comrie, have attested that the distinction is extant in spoken natural languages, while others, such as John Henderson, maintain that the human brain does not have the capacity to make a clusivity distinction in the second person. Many other linguists take the more neutral position that it could exist but is nonetheless not currently attested.
Clusivity in the second person is conceptually simple but nonetheless if it exists is extremely rare, unlike clusivity in the first. Hypothetical second-person clusivity would be the distinction between "you and you (and you and you ... all present)" and "you and someone else whom I am not addressing currently." These are often referred to in the literature as "2+2" and "2+3", respectively (the numbers referring to second and third person as appropriate). Horst J. Simon provides a deep analysis of second-person clusivity in his 2005 article. He concludes that oft-repeated rumors regarding the existence of second-person clusivity--or indeed, any [+3] pronoun feature beyond simple exclusive we - are ill-founded, and based on erroneous analysis of the data.
The inclusive-exclusive distinction occurs nearly universally among the Austronesian languages and the languages of northern Australia, but rarely in the nearby Papuan languages. (Tok Pisin, an English-Melanesian pidgin, generally has the inclusive-exclusive distinction, but this varies with the speaker's language background.) It is widespread in India, featuring in the Dravidian and Munda languages, as well as in several Indo-European languages of India such as Oriya, Marathi, Rajasthani, Punjabi, Sindhi, and Gujarati (which either borrowed it from Dravidian or was retained as a substratum if Dravidian was displaced). It can also be found in the languages of eastern Siberia, such as Tungusic, from which it was borrowed into northern Mandarin Chinese. In indigenous languages of the Americas it is found in about half the languages, with no clear geographic or genealogical pattern. It is also found in a few languages of the Caucasus and Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Fulani and Khoekhoe.
It is, of course, possible in any language to express the idea of clusivity semantically, and many languages provide common forms that clarify the ambiguity of their first person pronoun (English "the rest of us", Italian noialtri). A language with a true clusivity distinction, however, does not provide a first person plural with indefinite clusivity: where the clusivity of the pronoun is ambiguous; rather, the speaker is forced to specify - by choice of pronoun or inflection - whether they are including the addressee or not. This rules out most European languages, for example. Clusivity is nonetheless a very common language feature overall. Some languages with more than one plural number make the clusivity distinction only in, for example, the dual, but not in the greater plural. Others make it in all numbers. In the table below, the plural forms are the ones preferentially listed.
|Language||Inclusive form||Exclusive form||Singular related to||Notes||Language family|
|American Sign Language (ASL)||"K" tips up palm in (dual)
"1" tap chest + twist (pl)
|"K" tips up palm side (dual)
"1" tap each side of chest (pl)
|Exclusive plural||French Sign Language|
|Apma||kidi||gema||Neither||Subject prefixes are ta- (incl.) and kaa(ma)- (excl.). Dual forms, derived from the plurals, also exist.||Austronesian|
|Aymara||jiwasa||naya||Exclusive||The derived form jiwasanaka of the inclusive refers to at least 3 people.||Aymaran|
|Bislama||yumi||mifala||Both||The inclusive form is derived from the second person pronoun and the first person pronoun. There are also dual and trial forms.||English creole|
|Cebuano||kita||kami||Neither||Short forms are ta (incl.) and mi (excl.)||Austronesian|
|Fijian||kedatou+||keitou ("we" but excludes the person spoken to)||"kedaru" also means "we" but limited to the speaker and the person spoken to, can be translated as "you and me".
+ ("we" and includes person spoken to and the speaker as part of a finite group. If referring to a much larger group, like humanity or a race of people, "keda" would be used instead)
|Fula||(en), ? (e?en)||(min), (mi?en)||Exclusive (?)||Examples show short & long form subject pronouns.||Niger-Congo|
|Hawaiian||k?ua (dual); k?kou (plural)||m?ua (dual); m?kou (plural)||Neither||Austronesian|
|Ilocano||datayó, sitayó||dakamí, sikamí||Neither||The dual inclusives datá and sitá are widely used.||Austronesian|
|Kapampangan||ikatamu||ikami||Neither||The dual inclusive ikata is widely used.||Austronesian|
|Australian Kriol||yunmi||melabat||Exclusive||The inclusive form is derived from the second person pronoun and the first person pronoun. The exclusive form is derived from the first person sing. and the third person plural forms. There is significant dialectal and diachronic variation in the exclusive form.||English creole|
|Lakota||u?(k)-||u?(k)- ... -pi||Neither||The inclusive form has dual number. By adding the suffix "-pi" it takes the plural number. In the plural form no clusivity distinction is made.||Siouan|
|Lojban||mi'o||mi'a/mi||Both||There also exists the form ma'a, which means the speaker, listener, and others unspecified. It is of note that the first-person pronoun mi doesn't take number and can refer to any number of individuals in the same group; mi'a and mi'o are usually preferred.||Constructed language|
|Malay||kita||kami||Neither||The exclusive form is hardly used in informal Indonesian in (and spreading from) Jakarta. Instead, kita is almost always used colloquially to indicate both inclusive and exclusive "we". However, in more formal circumstances (both written and spoken), the distinction is clear and well-practiced. Therefore, kami is absolutely exclusive whereas kita may generally mean both inclusive and exclusive "we" depending on the circumstances. This phenomenon is less frequently encountered in Malaysian.||Austronesian|
|Mandarin||/ (zánmen)||/ (w?men)||Exclusive||is used both inclusively and exclusively by most speakers, especially in formal situations. Use of is common only in northern dialects, notably Beijing dialect, and may be a Manchu influence.||Sino-Tibetan|
|Southern Min||? (lán)||? (goán/gún)||Exclusive||Sino-Tibetan|
|Newar language||Jhi: sa:n (::)||Jim sa:n (? :)||Both are used as possessive pronouns||Sino-Tibetan|
|Pohnpeian||kitail (plural), kita (dual)||kiht (independent), se (subject)||There is an independent (non-verbal) and subject (verbal) pronoun distinction. The exclusive includes both dual and plural while the independent has a dual/plural distinction||Austronesian|
|Potawatomi||ginan, g- -men (short), gde- -men (long)||ninan, n- -men(short), nde- -men (long)||Potawatomi has two verb conjugation types, "short" and "long." Both are listed here, and labeled as such.||Central Algonquian|
|Punjabi||? (apan)||? (asin)||Indo-European|
|Sambal||tamo, hitamo||kami, hikami||Neither||Austronesian|
|Samoan||ʻitatou||ʻimatou||Exclusive||The dual forms are ʻitaʻua (incl.) and ʻimaʻua (excl.)||Austronesian|
|Shawnee||kiilawe||niilawe||Exclusive||The inclusive form is morphologically derived from the second person pronoun kiila.||Algic|
|Taiwanese||lán||goán||Exclusive (goá)||The third-person singular i (he/she/it) also pluralizes to in (they/them) via nasalization.||Sinitic > Southern Min|
|Tausug||kitaniyu||kami||The dual inclusive is kita.||Austronesian|
|Tamil||? (n?m)||? (nka?)||Exclusive||Dravidian|
|Telugu||? (manamu)||? (memu)||Neither||Dravidian|
|Tok Pisin||yumipela||mipela||Exclusive||The inclusive form is derived from the second person pronoun and the first person pronoun. There are also dual and trial forms.||English creole|
|Vietnamese||chúng ta||chúng tôi||Inclusive||The exclusive form is derived from the formal form of I, tôi||Austroasiatic|