Richard J Compton

North American languages exhibit a variety of agreement systems, including nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, hierarchical/direct-inverse, and agent-patient patterns, as well as phenomena such as object agreement, inverse number, and omnivorous number. This chapter examines the patterning and exponence of agreement in these languages, including the φ-features tracked by agreement, types of agreement systems and how these systems reflect grammatical alignment, debates about the syntactic status of agreement markers (as genuine agreement or clitics), and the points at which agreement can occur in the clausal spine.

This paper examines the nature of person complementarity in Eastern Canadian Inuktitut (Eskimo-Aleut), arguing that despite its apparent patterning as a Person Case Constraint (PCC) effect, it is not due to the presence of a defective intervener blocking person agreement with a lower argument, as is often the case in other languages. Instead, the observed effect is caused by a defective or missing person probe on C that cannot value local person features on absolutive arguments. Given the use of the PCC as a diagnostic for differentiating clitics and agreement, this result has implications for the proper identification of φ-marking in Inuktitut.

This chapter examines the phenomenon of ergativity in Inuktitut, with particular focus on the manifestations of ergativity in the case system and the agreement morphology of the language. While the ergative-absolutive case alignment in Inuktitut is o en presented in the literature in the classic frame of an ergative-marked agent and absolutive-marked patient, data from ditransitives and causatives are used to highlight the structural nature of absolutive case assignment. Further indicative of the syntactic nature of ergativity, the agreement morphology in the language is shown to follow an ergative pattern insofar as the exponents of patient phi-features in transitives also index the subjects of intransitives.  e use of the antipassive construction as a type of differential object marking for indefiniteness is also discussed.

This chapter examines adverb ordering within polysynthetic words in Inuit to shed light on the formation of these words. I argue that this adverb -ordering data poses a challenge to the ‘standard’ account of the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985, 1988b) whereby these complex words are derived via head movement, particularly if other common assumptions regarding antisymmetry (Kayne 1994) and adverb licensing (Cinque 1999) are maintained. Instead, I propose that the variable ordering of these adjuncts is expected if the words containing them are right-headed XPs, following arguments for the existence of right-headed structures by Abels and Neeleman (2012), XP-sized words by Compton and Pittman (2012), and in favour of semantically based licensing of adjuncts by Ernst (2002).

This paper examines the semantics of adjectives in Inuit, with particular emphasis on Eastern Canadian Inuktitut. Although traditionally the literature on Eskimo-Aleut languages has not recognized a separate category of adjectives, this paper begins by briefly presenting evidence for two classes of adjectives in Inuit dialects: a set of strictly-attributive suffixal adjectives and a set of verb-like adjectives. Next, having laid out the syntactic evidence for recognizing adjectives as a syntactic category, we turn our attention to the semantic properties of these adjectives. While we might expect the semantic denotations of the members of both sets of adjectives to be similar in nature, it is shown that there is a semantic constraint on the suffixal class of adjectives whereby this set lacks members with intersective denotations. Two possible explanations for this constraint are outlined: a lack of Predicate Modification in the language and nouns being of type <e> or entities.

Previous work on Inuit has analyzed the morpheme pi as a ‘dummy root’ or ‘empty stem’; a morphological or phonological filler which satisfies a language-specific requirement that words contain lexical roots. We argue instead that pi is a pro-form similar to English ‘do so’ and ‘one’. As evidence for this analysis we examine the use of pi to avoid repeating constituents, its ability to replace VP-sized constituents, the need for discourse markers in some constructions containing pi, similarities with ‘stem ellipsis’ in Arctic Quebec Inuktitut, and pi’s behaviour in noun-incorporation.

Recent work by Preminger (2009), Woolford (2010), Arregi & Nevins (2008), Nevins (2011), and Kramer (2014) has called into question the existence of real object agree- ment. These authors have recast a number of cases of apparent object agreement as instead being object clitics (and thus clitic doubling when the object argument is present). In particular, Nevins (2011) has proposed that all cases of apparent object agreement may in fact be clitics. And yet, Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) is described as having both subject and object agreement, as in the following example from South Baffin Inuktitut. Is this genuine object agreement or should these phi-indexing morphemes (or parts of them) be recast as clitics too? In this paper I claim that Inuit dialects possess genuine object phi- agreement. Evidence for Inuit having real object agreement is drawn from (i) co-variance of the exponence of object agreement and mood, (ii) the relative position of genuine clitics in the language, and (iii) the diachronic origin of declarative third person object phi-agreement forms.

Inuktitut belongs to the Inuit sub-branch of the Eskimo-Aleut language family and is spoken in the Canadian Arctic. Inuktitut is part of a dialect continuum extending across the Arctic from Alaskan Inupiaq in the west to Greenlandic dialects in the east. Although the term ‘Inuit’ is typically used to refer to the Inuit people, it is also used in the literature to refer to the dialect continuum as a whole. Though much of the description of evaluatives below will extend to all of Inuit, it will focus primarily on data from the South Baffin subdialect of Inuktitut.

A central goal of syntactic research is to discover which properties of language are universal and which are subject to variation. While there is obviously a great deal of debate as to what specifically is universal and what varies, Evans & Levinson (2009) have made the rather bold claim that linguistic universals are a myth and that Universal Grammar (UG) does not exist. Among their arguments is the claim that lexical categories are not universal. Specifically, they point to Salish as an example of a language that lacks categorial distinctions; in particular, the noun-verb distinction. While Mathewson (2013:329) points out that this characterization of Salish is incorrect, citing evidence for distinguishing nouns and verbs, this still leaves open the possibility that other languages could validate their claim. In addition to nouns and verbs, another potential universal lexical category is that of adjectives. Baker (2004) and Dixon (2004) have both claimed that all languages possess an adjective class. And yet, many languages are still described as lacking adjectives, including Inuit. I argue here that Inuit data provide evidence for distinguishing a class of verb-like adjectives: adjectives masquerading as verbs. I also briefly discuss some implications regarding UG and the identification of lexical categories.

Abstract:

Inuit dialects with palatalization all distinguish between “strong i” and “weak i”: instances of surface [i] that cause palatalization and those that do not, respectively. All dialects that have completely lost this contrast also lack palatalization. Why are there no /i, a, u/ dialects in which all instances of surface [i] trigger palatalization? We propose that this typological gap can be explained using a contrastivist analysis whereby only contrastive features can be phonologically active, palatalization is triggered by [coronal], and contrastive features are assigned in an order placing [low] and [labial] ahead of [coronal]. In a three-vowel inventory only [low] and [labial] are contrastive, while in the four-vowel inventory [coronal] must also be contrastive to distinguish strong and weak i. It follows from these assumptions that [i] can trigger palatalization only if it is in contrast with a fourth vowel.

Résumé:

Les dialectes inuits avec palatalisation distinguent tous entre les «i forts» et les «i faibles» : les [i] de surface qui provoquent la palatalisation et ceux qui ne la provoquent pas, respectivement. Dans tous les dialectes où ce contraste est complètement perdu, la palatalisation est absente. Pourquoi n’existe-t-il pas de dialectes /i, a, u/ dans lesquels tous les [i] de surface déclenchent la palatalisation? Nous proposons que cet écart typologique peut être expliqué en utilisant une approche contrastiviste selon laquelle seuls les traits contrastifs peuvent être actifs dans la phonologie, la palatalisation est déclenchée par [coronal] et les traits contrastifs sont ordonnés de telle façon que les traits [bas] et [labial] sont assignés avant [coronal]. Dans un inventaire de trois voyelles, seuls les traits [bas] et [labial] sont contrastifs, tandis que dans un inventaire de quatre voyelles, [coronal] doit aussi être contrastif pour distinguer les i forts des i faibles. Il résulte de ces hypothèses que [i] ne peut déclencher la palatalisation que s’il est en contraste avec une quatrième voyelle.

This paper argues that wordhood in the polysynthetic Inuit language is predictable from syntactic structure and that words correspond to the domains of CP and DP. This entails that Inuit’s morphological component need not be any more complex than that of more isolating languages and that individual morphemes are not idiosyncratically specified as affixes. As evidence for our approach, we contrast a variety of free and bound elements, showing that in every case, subparts of words are smaller than CP/DP and full words correspond to CP/DP. We also discuss “stem” ellipsis, which we argue is further evidence that the elements which are usually bound in Inuit are not genuinely affixes.

This thesis explores the properties of adjectives and adverbs in Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut), with focus on the Inuktitut dialect group. While the literature on Eskimoan languages has claimed that they lack these categories, I present syntactic evidence for two classes of adjectives, one verb-like and another strictly attributive, as well as a class of adverbs. These categories are then employed to diagnose more general properties of the language including headedness, word-formation, adjunct licensing, and semantic composition.

In the first half of Chapter 2 I demonstrate that verb-like adjectives can be differentiated from verbs insofar as only the former are compatible with a particular copular construction involving modals. Similarly, verb-like adjectives can combine with a negative marker that is incompatible with genuine verbs. This contrast is further corroborated by an inflectional distinction between verb-like adjectives and verbs in the Siglitun dialect. A second class of strictly-attributive adjectives is argued for on the basis of stacking, variable order, optionality, and compositionality. The second half of the chapter examines semantic restrictions on membership in the strictly-attributive class whereby only adjectives with subsective and privative denotations are attested. These restrictions are explained by the proposal that Inuit lacks a rule of Predicate Modification, with the result that only adjectives with semantic types capable of composing with nouns via Functional Application can compose directly with nominals. Furthermore, to explain why this restriction does not extend to verb-like adjectives it is proposed that when these modify nominals, they are adjoined DP appositives and compose via Potts’s (2005) rule of Conventional Implicature Application.

In Chapter 3 I argue for a class of adverbs, presenting evidence including degree modification, variable ordering, speaker-oriented meanings, and the ability to modify additional categories. Finally, data from adverb ordering is used to compare syntactically oriented and semantically oriented approaches to adjunct licensing and verbal-complex formation. I present arguments in favour of a right-headed analysis of Inuit in which the relative position of adverbs inside polysynthetic verbal-complexes is primarily determined by semantics, supporting Ernst (2002), contra cartographic approaches such as Cinque (1999).

Dans ce cours nous allons recueillir et organiser des données d’une langue peu décrite (probablement une langue autochtone) et nous allons utiliser ces données pour préparer des résumés descriptifs de la langue, formuler et tester des hypothèses concernant des phénomènes particuliers dans cette langue, et finalement développer des analyses de ces phénomènes.

Ce cours va inclure la discussion des données, l’élicitation en classe auprès d’un locuteur natif de la langue ciblée, ainsi que les rencontres en petits groupes avec ce locuteur, hors de la salle de classe. Nous allons aussi enregistrer et transcrire une histoire pour obtenir un échantillon du discours connecté. Cette histoire devrait aussi nous présenter plusieurs énigmes grammaticales que nous allons examiner plus profondément dans les séances d’élicitation.

Ce cours sert d’introduction à la recherche traitant de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe de l’inuktitut, une langue autochtone parlée à travers l’Arctique nord-américain. Nous allons commencer le cours avec une vue d’ensemble de la langue : ses propriétés saillantes, son évolution diachronique et son statut sociolinguistique actuel. Ensuite, nous allons analyser les principaux processus phonologiques suivis des phénomènes morphosyntaxiques qui la caractérisent : la polysynthèse, un système de cas ergatif, les sujets et les objets nuls et l’ordre variable des constituants. De plus, nous allons explorer les grands débats dans l’analyse de l’inuktitut, tels que le statut des catégories lexicales, les marques d’accords et l’incorporation nominale. Tout au long du cours, les étudiants seront accompagnés dans le développement d’un projet de recherche sur un sujet de leur choix, soit dans un domaine théorique, soit dans un domaine quantitatif ou expérimental. Aussi, il sera possible de recueillir des données auprès des locuteurs natifs de l’inuktitut.

L'objectif de ce cours est de présenter aux étudiants les aspects linguistiques, historiques et sociaux des langues autochtones de l'Amérique du Nord. Les domaines explorés incluront les suivants : l'histoire des langues autochtones de l'Amérique du Nord, leur classification, leurs caractéristiques grammaticales les plus saillantes, leur importance culturelle, leur situation actuelle et les efforts de documentation et de revitalisation.