Transforming the Images: Ergativity and Transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo)

Transforming the Images

W DE

G

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology

15

Editors Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin * New York

Transforming the Images Ergativity and Transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo)

by

Elke Nowak

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York 1996

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Nowak, Elke. Transforming the images : ergativity and transitivity in Inuktitut

(Eskimo) / by Elke Nowak. p. cm. — (Empirical approaches to language typology

; 15) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 3-11-014980-X (cloth) 1. Inuktitut dialect—Syntax. 2. Inuktitut dialect—Ergative con-

struction. 3. Inuktitut dialect—Transitivity. 4. Kalatdlisut dialect-Syntax. I. Title. II. Series. PM55.N69 1996 497'.1—dc20 96-15691

CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Nowak, Elke: Transforming the images : ergativity and transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo) / by Elke Nowak. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1996

(Empirical approaches to language typology ; 15) ISBN 3-11-014980-X

NE: GT

© Copyright 1996 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Gerike GmbH, Berlin. Binding: Mikolai GmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Contents

Abbreviations ix

Acknowledgements xiii

1. The pattern of investigation 1

1.1. Why, and for what purpose, would one investigate a language like Inuktitut 1

1.2. So what is the topic of this investigation? 6

2. First acquaintance with Inuktitut: groundwork for meeting the problem 11

2.1. Genetic affiliations 11 2.1.1. The Eskimo-Aleut language group 11 2.1.2. Eastern Eskimo: Inuktitut and Kalaallisut 11 2.2. History of research 13 2.3. Orthography and standard 16

3. A first grammar 21

3.1. Preliminary considerations 21 3.2. A traditional description of Inuktitut 23 3.2.1. Word formation: synthesis 24 3.2.2. Inflection 31 3.2.3. Minimal sentences 39 3.2.4. The matrix clause 42

4. Historiography 51

4.1. A look at the history of the discipline 51 4.2. Samuel Kleinschmidt's grammar 58 4.3. Nominality 64

5. Ergativity 73

5.1. Preliminaries 73 5.2. The dilemma of subject and object 74 5.3. Ergativity 80 5.4. Descriptive levels of sentence structure 89

vi Contents

6. Transitivity 95

6.1. Transitivity 95 6.1.1. Circumscribing the dimension 95 6.1.2. Specifying the term for Inuktiktut 99 6.2. Transitivity in verbal complexes 107 6.2.1. Intransitive verbal complexes 107 6.2.1.1. Selection of the nominal participle and indicative 107 6.2.1.2. Categorial properties of the nominal participle 117 6.2.2. Transitive verbal complexes 126 6.2.3. Synthetic verbal complexes 131 6.2.3.1. -si- 132 6.2.3.2. -jau-l-tau- 134 6.2.3.3. -tit- 135 6.2.3.4. -qu- 137 6.2.3.5. -ji- 137 6.2.3.6. -gi-l-ri- and -qaq- 139 6.3. Transitivity in sentences 141 6.3.1. Intransitive sentences in Inuktitut 141 6.3.2. Transitive sentences in Inuktitut 147 6.4. Word classes 152 6.5. Properties of predicative expressions 173

7. Ergativity in Inuktitut 191

7.0. Outline of the investigation 191 7.1. Ergativity in Inuktitut 192 7.1.1. Marantz's approach 192 7.1.2. Bittner's approach 202 7.1.3. Bok-Bennema's approach 206 7.1.4. Johnson's approach 209 7.1.5. The accessibility of noun phrases 212 7.2. Subjects in Inuktitut 214 7.2.1. A look back 214 7.2.2. Agreement 216 7.2.3. Case marking 218 7.2.4. Reflexivity 218 7.2.5. Passive and antipassive 219 7.2.6. Incorporation and synthetic processes 220 7.2.7. Coordination and relative clauses 221 7.2.8. Anaphoric coreference 229

Contents vii

7.3. Objects in Inuktitut 230 7.3.1. Scenario 230 7.3.2. The direct object 233

8. Transforming the images 237

8.1. Conclusion 237 8.2. Parva grammatica 245 8.2.1. Basic categories and components 246 8.2.2. The inventory 248 8.2.3. Synthesis 251 8.2.3.1. Constituents of synthetic processes 251 8.2.3.2. Grammatical marking 256 8.2.4. Syntax 261 8.2.4.1. Infi 261 8.2.4.2. Nominal constituents 264 8.2.5. Synthetic processes: passive and antipassive 267

Notes 279

References 291

Index of names 303

Index of subjects 305

A b b r e v i a t i o n s

indicates morpheme boundary äff affix Nuc nucleus Ν noun, nominal V verb, verbal Part particle (-N/-V) Prep preposition

sg singular pi plural

+/-mark marked/unmarked

itr intransitive tr transitive 1/2/3/4 first/second/third/fourth person -j/-t selects -juql-tuq inflection

I, Infi inflection Im matrix inflection Ijub subordinate inflection Agr, single agreement, absolutive case Agre double agreement, ergative and absolutive case Mod mood ModL matrix mood ModSttb subordinate mood ind indicative nom part nominal participle interrog interrogative Vpart, part (verbal) participle, participial mood caus(al) causal mood, causalis cond conditional mood, conditionalis

S sentence

IP inflection phrase, finite phrase IP» finite phrase with single agreement iPe finite phrase with double agreement

matrix finite phrase i,ubP subordinate finite phrase

χ Abbreviations

abs absolutive case (0, unmarked) erg ergative case (-up) obj objective case (-mik) term terminalis case (-mut) all allative case (= terminalis) abl ablative case (-mit) loc locative case (-mi) vial vialis case (-kkui) sim similiaris case (-titut)

sub subjective case

nom nominative case acc accusative case dat dative case

poss possessive

Pro Project

Su subject +/- log Sub +/- logical subject PRED predicate dO direct object iO indirect object oblO oblique object Gen genitive object OComp object of comparison

NP noun phrase noun phrase, indication of case marking

VP verb phrase

AG(ENT) semantic role AGENT TH(EME) semantic role THEME (NONAGENT) PAT(IENT) semantic role PATIENT CAUS semantic role CAUSE(R) GOAL semantic role GOAL EX(PERIENCER) semantic role EXPERIENCER LOC semantic role LOCATIVE; DIRECTIONAL COMP semantic role COMPARISON

Abbreviations xi

pass passive ap antipassive verb. verbalizing affix cause causative affix neg affix indicating negation past affix indicating event in the past fut affix indicating event in the future

SB South Baffin NB North Baffin AQ Arctic Quebec

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank, first, the people who have helped me to understand Inuktitut a little better, Shuvinai Mike, Aatami Pitseolak, Morgan Arnakallak, Nauliaq Amaquq, Melanie Paniaq and her friend Jesintha, the translator and interpreter class of Susan Sammons in fall 1992, the students from the Eastern Arctic Teacher Education Program and their teachers in fall 1992, and last but not least Mick Mallon and Susan Sammons.

I am grateful to Darcy Bruce Berry who translated the original German version of the book into English and to Traude Gugeler who looked after the production of the camera-ready copy.

I received support from the Thyssen Stiftung, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the University of Stuttgart, the Science Institute of the Northwest Territories and Foreign Affairs Canada.

Chapter 1 The pattern of investigation

1.1. Why, and for what purpose, would one investigate a language like Inuktitut?

This work comprehends several levels, each of which is unthinkable without the others; and the treatment of each would be incomplete without the others.

It is a theoretical work insofar as it is concerned with concepts, categories, and parameters.

It focuses on methodology insofar as it examines the application of these concepts, categories, and parameters to a specific language, as well as the resultant ways of describing and representing the language.

It is a historical work insofar as it considers the origin and historical underpinnings of both the theoretical and the methodological aspects and interprets them not as independent notions but as determined by the historical development of the science called "linguistics".

Finally, it is an empirical work insofar as it contemplates the appropriate description of Inuktitut. This part of the work presupposes all the others: it is a result of them, yet it is at the same time reflected on all levels. What a precarious enterprise it is to attempt to check theory and method against empirical fact, I am fully aware. But using empirical procedures to unveil new aspects that change or redefine the object of inquiry seems to me not only possible, but necessary. In the course of discussion a number of very elementary problems, mistakes, and misconceptions are pointed out - all of them could be formulated only after the thorough empirical investigation had been carried out. All of them bear consequences for further, future investigation as well as for the general understanding of basic linguistic presuppositions.

Probably the most elementary insight is that it is absolutely necessary to reconsider the mutual relationship between explanatory devices and discovery procedures. Taking science as a historical process reveals its relative character, its dependence on the spirit of the times and on coincidences. Errors, too, are brought to light, and paradigms that may have been accepted for hundreds of years are viewed today as prejudices, even superstition. Even the attitude of modem science that myths must be rejected as explanations cannot fully safeguard us against concealed, scientifically camouflaged myths. Myths are, in the sphere they define for themselves, explanatory and hermetic; their weaknesses emerge only if one distances oneself from them. It is seldom possible to break down myths from the inside, since the importance of internal explanatory problems can be recognized only with

2 1. The pattern of investigation

difficulty. Apparently minute details may represent indications of fundamental explanatory weakness. The magnitude of such seemingly trivial problems can be comprehended only when one pries them free from their carefully arranged theoretical apparatus and their hermetic environment. Viewed from a new angle, such defects become symptoms, clues as to the need for a new explanatory framework. Empirical investigations which yield "aberrant" data play an important part in this process. Empirical investigations are not only applications of theories and methods. Just as a good empirical study can never be carried out without theory and method - and awareness regarding them - so also must its independence be respected. This independence permits influence to flow in the opposite direction; the empirical investigation affects theory and method alike, and under some circumstances results in the revision of both. Two possible understandings of "theory" must be clearly separated: 1. concrete linguistic proposals which vary in their assumptions and correspondingly put their individual stamp on methods; examples of such lines of thought are structuralism, Relational Grammar, Government-Binding Theory, or modem typology. 2. Obviously, theories in this sense compete as far as explanatory adequacy is concerned; simultaneously they operate on implicitly or explicitly shared assumptions associated with basic syntactic concepts like subject or object and with the sentence structure implicitly postulated in these concepts. Mostly, these basic concepts are openly introduced and then employed without further comment; sometimes, however, they show up only implicitly, in the form of tacitly presupposed structures and hierarchies. Sometimes they are not treated as basic concepts anymore, but are decomposed into single components which interact but reappear as composite concepts again. But even then they are often treated like archetypes, which one can fall back on without having to substantiate or explain them. I will show that this is not so.

This work is not beholden to any theory or linguistic school in the first sense. The primary reason for this is the fact that there exists no comprehensive description of Inuktitut within any single theory which can be called satisfying. On the contrary, all attempts at Inuktitut leave the reader with the strong impression that the language strains the descriptive capacities, let alone the explanatory capacities, of each and every approach beyond its limits. Inuktitut is "aberrant" in various ways: in its morphological structure, which is described as polysynthetic but does not fit into typological characterizations of polysynthetic languages;1 and in its syntactic structure, which is identified as ergative. But as will be shown, this characterization does not exhaust the peculiarity of Inuktitut syntax.

Ergativity as a notion belongs equally to language typology and to syntactic theory. Consequently, both aspects will be discussed and it will become clear

1.1. Why, and for what purpose, would one investigate a language like Inuktitut? 3

that - although emphasizing perspectives - typology and syntactic theory rely heavily on each other. The present investigation itself is a typological one insofar as it aims in the end at a general conclusion concerning possible types of syntactic structures. It is not a typological investigation as far as the number of languages taken into account is concerned. In my opinion the findings presented in the following could be obtained only because of this specific approach, because not a large number of languages was observed. Assumptions not only concerning possibilities of variation - the typological view - but also the most elementary understanding of sentence structure per se - the view of syntactic theory - were applied in (some) depth to a specific language. This language was chosen intentionally: not in order to suppoit both views, but to test them. It probably would be too far-reaching and premature to claim to have arrived at a different approach to typology. But I am convinced that typology cannot just rely on the concepts and theoretical and methodological means provided by linguistic theory in general and syntactic theory in particular. This "relying on" is prerequisite for the comparative investigation of a large variety of language data; but on a theoretical level it is the "relied on" which must be open for discussion and, if necessary, for revision. Viewed from this perspective, the present study is an attempt to introduce into typology a complementary level of investigation as far as data (languages) are concerned: the in-depth or, to be more precise, the in-greater-depth investigation of languages as opposed to the comparison of a wide range of predefined aspects of grammar such as "passive" or "tense and aspect". Or ergativity.

Inuktitut is the central object of this investigation to the extent that the disparate attempts at describing and explaining ergativity are held up to the language and are critically scrutinized one after the other. This examination shows that all proposals are deficient. It would be natural to suppose that the cause lies in the peculiarities of the linguistic theory at hand. We will see in the course of the investigation, however, that it is the archetypes behind the theories which cause the problems in explaining and describing, not specific aspects or technicalities of the theories. On the contrary - within the individual theoretical framework, the interpretations seem perfectly rigorous. The flaw lies in the fact that the whole language is made to seem eccentric and backwards functioning or even inferior.

The first question I set out to answer was: How generally do basic grammatical concepts and categories obtain? What implications do they contain, and what are they founded on?2

The second question was: What effects do these concepts and categories, if used uncritically, have on an object of study which is foreign to them and for which they were not developed? How great is the discrepancy between the expectations associated with these concepts and the individuality of the language, and what consequences issue from this discrepancy?


This line of thought made it necessary to contend with a further question: How reliable and exhaustive are the sketches/descriptions provided of this language? How extensive is the body of data serving as the foundation, and from what source does it originate?

Out of the first, theoretical question arose the need for an empirical investigation of Inuktitut. The need deepened with the second question. From the diversity of the explanations and descriptions it is more natural to infer that these are inadequate than that the language is in error. The language, as an empirical object, thereby gains a central function: it sets up a standard and serves to correct the explanations and descriptions. The insight that the defect shared by all proposals is located in tacitly disseminated fundamental assumptions is a result of my study. This result clears the way for interpretations that permit themselves a critical distance and are able to develop on a newly defined scale.

At the beginning of the task stood my impression of the language's strangeness and the difficulty in confirming the linguistic explanations for it; furthermore, and this was very important, I undertook to dissect Kleinschmidt's grammar (1851), which on the one hand introduced the historical dimension, on the other hand presented an alternative attempt at description. I originally planned to take Inuktitut as an example of how, seen from a historical point of view, linguistic analyses deal and dealt with languages that diverge in essential ways from the exceedingly influential Indo-European pattern. Ergativity is a very odd concept, a concept that refers to a sentence structure for which the semantic role AGENT does not have the canonical, type-setting importance it does in Indo-European languages yet is named after the actor, ergates, and by virtue of that fact alone expresses its deep commitment to the more familiar kinds of structure. Consider what the reverse situation would be like: languages like English and German might be called "thematic languages" because the direct object that is added in transitive sentences usually bears the semantic role THEME and has case marking - a skewed angle that a model of grammar developed on the basis of ergative languages might be stuck with.

In following up the historical development of grammar writing, particularly of Greenlandic, I became skeptical as to how self-critical linguists are, and how sensitive towards the language to be described - or how much sensibility "their" theory allows them. Thus, Inuktitut became for me a test case for the application of linguistic models and the reciprocating effect of theory, method, and the empirical results shaped by them. Since the inquiry could not stop there, this work turned into a work about Inuktitut: with all the restraint and caution which originate with the consciousness of my (still) insufficient knowledge of the language, I will suggest alternative interpretations and representations. Of course, this has become possible only after intensive research into both the language itself and existing descriptions of it.

1.1. Why, and for what purpose, would one investigate a language like Iruiktitut? 5

Consequently, this work spans various levels of discussion, which are inseparably bound to one another: a very general, theoretical level which focuses on basic concepts and categories and which constitutes the primary level of discussion; a level taken up with concrete grammars and linguistic studies; a level concerned with historical development and limitation; and finally, the level of the individual language Inuktitut. The discussion moves continually from one level to another in every chapter, each individual aspect must be treated that way. For this reason, the chapters do not contain headings referring to the levels of discussion just mentioned. Rather, the chapters focus on the object Inuktitut and the questions that arise about its grammar.

As work was in progress, the following problems presented themselves: 1. I had to acquire knowledge of the language beyond that offered in the available grammars, textbooks, or even linguistic works. Moreover, I had to collect data pertinent to the questions that were cropping up; for example, it was necessary to devise relevant tests. These data naturally had to be independent from already published material. My linguistic material on Inuktitut stems primarily from two sources: In fall 1987 I took a three-week intensive course in Iqaluit, Baffin Island, under the direction of S. T. Mallon. I also have Mallon to thank for a quantity of written material; in addition, he made himself available time and again thereafter for written and oral consultation. In summer 1988 I stayed in Iqaluit for eight weeks to conduct research. The two research trips were supported by the Thyssen-Stiftung and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, respectively. In fall 1992 I spent another month in Iqaluit, to recheck the material gathered during the previous stays and the conclusions I had drawn from it. In addition further perspectives, especially concerning subordinate clauses, emerged. This trip was made possibly by a Faculty Enrichment Award of the Canadian Government and further supported by the Science Institute of the Northwest Territories and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

In 1988 Melanie Paniaq and her friend Jesintha, both from Iglulik were my consultants. Naullaq Arnaquq, at that time at Arctic College, now with the Baffin Divisional Board of Education, aided me with two long interviews. With her I was able to check linguistic data and also discuss her scientific views. In 1992 my consultants were Shuvinai Mike from Panniqtuuq (Pangnirtung), Aatami Pitseolak from Kinngait (Cape Dorset), and Morgan Amakallak from Mittimatalik (Pond Inlet). All interviews were held in English and recorded on cassette, together covering over 22 hours. In addition to this I had the opportunity to discuss selected topics in larger groups. One was the translater/interpreter class at Arctic College, the other a group of students from the Eastern Arctic Teacher Education Program, together with two teachers. Susan Sammons, Shuvinai Mike, and Naullaq Arnaquq made these meetings possible.


A great number of talks with individuals, people devoted to the conservation and development of Inuktitut, people in public life in the Baffin Region, people engaged in language policies in the Northwest Territories and future Nunavut have contributed heavily to the overall picture of Inuktitut and the Inuit in the Canadian Eastern Arctic. 2. Although the work I had done on Kleinschmidt's grammar3 had made me partially familiar with the historical background, many questions on this topic remained open, for there have been hardly any comparable works on the history of linguistics to date. Two exceptions are Holtved (1964) and Bergsland and Rischel (1986). The research I undertook on missionary grammars was complicated by the political situation that prevailed until 1990 yet in the end was so fruitful that I will refer to these works only selectively here.4

3. In the progress of discussion, the closely interwoven nature of the individual concepts became clear time and again, particularly the concepts of transitivity and ergativity; but simultaneously it was plain that the two terms are used quite differently. A major portion of this work is therefore devoted to clarifying these terms. Just as slippery and noncommittal upon close inspection turned out to be those concepts and categories that apparently stand behind each theory and belong to its basic toolkit. Terms are used differently in the individual theories, often unprefaced by explanation. What is fatal about this is that it gives rise to the impression that the terms have already been explained or that they require no explanation. Only later does it become obvious that this is not at all the case. To track down and clear up these vacillations was necessary, but often less than simple, since the standards of judgment themselves became fuzzy, bordering on the incomprehensible: the confusion surrounding concepts seemed in places to lead to the concepts' dissolution.

1.2. So what is the topic of this investigation?

The topic of the investigation is the basic categories of syntax (subject, object, and predicate) and the elementary sentence structure that they are used to describe and explain. The topic of this investigation includes two further categories and structures that are derived from these basic categories or are relevant to them: transitivity and ergativity.

However, it is not the sole purpose of this investigation to discuss the above categories and concepts theoretically, whether from a historical point of view or within a particular well-defined theoretical framework. For concepts and categories are bom of attempts to grapple with concrete languages and serve in their explanation and description. The concepts derived from the basic categories, such as ergativity, were invented to

12. So what is the topic of this investigation? 7

represent linguistic structures that diverge from the type of structure described by the basic categories. Thus, these categories are also the result of empirical investigations. In discussing them, then, one must pay attention to both aspects: the question of empirical adequacy and the question of theoretical adequacy. Since the two stand in a perpetual reciprocal relationship - the theory prepares the analysis of the empirical material, and in fact makes the analysis possible in the first place, yet the analysis can lead to modifications of the theory - this often painstaking and seemingly too strict path must be taken several times over during the course of discussion. The main point here is not to check the empirical basis in the sense of trying to determine whether certain data were correctly elicited and interpreted - although this quite prominent aspect will prove important. Instead, it is imperative to observe in what form the basic categories axiomatically set up the frame for interpretation and how the derived categories remain deeply obligated to this frame, serving to squeeze into it linguistic phenomena that originally did not seem to fit The term "ergativity" does not name a new concept that is intended to deal with a linguistic phenomenon by breaking with the traditional grammatical categories, but rather a derived concept that would not be thinkable without these basic categories. In the course of the investigation, which will necessitate recurrent reference to the language to be described, several things will become clear: how the traditional concepts and categories shape the object of research (here, the Inuit languages Kalaallisut and Inuktitut) by giving a specific form to the grammar; how the classic notions guide all syntactic descriptions, implicitly or explicitly, and even affect theories that outwardly manage to get by without them; how the traditional basic categories determine in the long run what other syntactic forms can be considered theoretically possible - reaching beyond their own dominion, they mold the conception and perception of the alien.

This fundamental, axiomatic character, which is so obvious that it seemingly needs no explanation, and the centuries old - if not millennia old - history of use of these concepts and categories engender vagueness and multifariousness, which by creating a feeling of agreement, acquaintance, and knowledge make available a variety of uses and connotations. Therefore, one must continually review what an author actually understands under the concepts subject, object, ergativity, and transitivity; and here as well it is necessary to refer directly to Inuktitut. This review shows that the individual variants sometimes differ widely from one author to another; however, it also shows where they are similar and thus identifies the core of the concept shared by all. The next step then consists of testing the validity of the "core categories" against Inuktitut: Are the assumptions regarding sentence structure that are contained in them and generally accepted compatible with the inferences drawn under critical analysis of the empirical data? What revisions


are to be recommended, and how do they affect our understanding of ergativity? Finally, what consequences do they bring for the classification and description of sentence structures that fundamentally differ from those which the basic categories were originally devised for?

Two languages of the Inuit group are of particular importance in this work: Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), as the Inuit language which has been described repeatedly since the early eighteenth century and for which numerous grammars are available, permits us to trace the development of grammatical theory and outlook on the problems. Inuktitut, closely related to Kalaallisut and areally its western neighbor, is the language that induced me to undertake this investigation and is its primary object. Unlike Kalaallisut, Inuktitut has only begun to be described in the last few years. In the current study I make use of this material but nevertheless rely principally on my own data, which I gathered during my trips to Iqaluit, Baffin Island. I am of course responsible for any imprecision or errors in this material.

The examples taken from grammars, dictionaries, and papers I cite to the greatest extent possible in their original form. Since Inuktitut lacks a standard orthography, the deviations are sometimes considerable; where necessary, however, I inform the reader of deviations or alternations made by me. I myself use Mallon's orthography, which most closely resembles the spelling officially used in the Northwest Territories of Canada today.

In the following, second chapter I will first make the reader familiar with Inuit (Eskimo) languages in general and thereafter with Inuktitut in particular. For the grammatical introduction, which I give in the third chapter, I start out fully dependent upon the generally accepted grammatical terms; only in this way can I make the language accessible to the reader. This fragment of grammar is largely, although not completely, comparable with other grammars and follows their tradition. This chapter, I repeat, serves only to provide the reader with basic knowledge of the language and an idea of its peculiarity. It is a necessary first step, without which the later revisions would be incomprehensible.

The fourth chapter opens the historical dimension and begins with an excursus into the history of grammar writing in general. This is followed by a sketch of the history of grammar writing in Greenlandic as the longest, most commonly, and most carefully described Inuit language. Two problem areas in particular are delineated in preparation for the coming discussion: (1) the analysis of sentence structure proposed by Kleinschmidt in his grammar (1851) and (2) the "Nominalist Hypothesis", which raises the question whether Inuit languages have the category verb and, if so, in what form. Kleinschmidt's syntactic analysis and the Nominalist Hypothesis each grapple with the fundamental difficulties the language offers in a historically conditioned manner, yet they also illuminate with other words and a different

12. So what is the topic of this investigation? 9

perspective the very problems that are discussed in the next chapters: ergativity and transitivity. The fifth chapter introduces "ergativity" as a linguistic term and as an attempt to describe a certain characteristic sentence structure. It addresses the following questions: What does "ergativity" refer to? How was ergativity characterized in traditional grammars? What was the role of the concepts subject and object? In examining these questions it becomes clear that the understanding of ergativity is not possible without another concept, that of transitivity.

In the sixth chapter transitivity is thoroughly discussed, particularly as applied to Inuktitut. This chapter is the most voluminous of the present work and contains its principal empirical component. In the first half, transitive and intransitive verbal complexes are scrutinized; in the second, I turn to simple transitive and intransitive sentences. This investigation reveals that "transitivity" in Inuktitut means something entirely different from "transitivity" in German or other Indo-European languages. In the literature on Inuktitut, "transitivity" is the ability of a verb to agree with a second nominal constituent.

The status of these nominal constituents that agree with the finite verb is the topic of the seventh chapter. Exploration of their status of course involves the question whether one of these noun phrases can be labeled the subject, and if so, which one. Then it is necessary to ascertain what the criteria are for identifying subjects. Naturally, the same basic question must be asked for objects: can one of these nominal constituents be characterized as an object, and if so, which one? These questions are especially prickly because the term "ergativity" and the sentence structure designated by it incorporate both notions, presupposing them in their traditional interpretation. The investigation allows of only one conclusion: if one wants to use the traditional concepts of subject and object at all, one must accept that the Inuktitut sentence can have two subjects, both of which are morphologically coindexed by case and agreement. In Inuktitut the finite verb assigns case to up to two external arguments, whose semantic roles are fixed to a large extent. The question whether there is a direct object in Inuktitut and which noun phrase is a possible candidate is more difficult to answer. Whether one can assume a direct object as a structural position depends chiefly on the interpretation of intransitive verbal complexes. The discussion of antipassive contributes to answering this question.

In the last chapter the results of the preceding chapters are brought together and conclusions drawn from them: Ergativity must be redefined for Inuktitut The manner in which this is accomplished represents a fundamental problem for typological theories and for theories of universal grammar. Finally, I apply some of the results of this work in describing Inuktitut itself. I am fully aware of the sketchy nature of this parva grammatica.

Chapter 2 First acquaintance with Inuktitut: groundwork for meeting the problem

2.1. Genetic affiliations

2.1.1. The Eskimo-Aleut language group

The Eskimo-Aleut language group is today considered to consist of Aleut, which is spoken by only a small number of remaining native speakers, and Eskimo, the language of the Inuit peoples (Eskimo). It is remarkable that these languages, as well as the culture of their speakers, enjoy comparatively great homogeneity despite enormous areal distribution. The traditional material culture of the Inuit, which has been devolving since the beginning of contact with Europeans, has changed drastically in the entire Arctic, especially during the last fifty years, under pressure from modem technology, the growing presence of the respective governments and their representatives such as administrations, schools, and conception of the law. This increasing intrusion, combined with drastic economic changes and the ever increasing influence of foreign ways of life has changed the life of Inuit peoples dramatically. This development has also had its influence on the languages.5

Regionally, however, wide variation is to be found, ranging from immediate danger of extinction, for instance, of Aleut and the languages of the Mackenzie Delta, to continued flourishing, as in the eastern Arctic and especially in Greenland.

The Inuit languages are generally divided into two subgroups: (a) Yup'ik, or Western Eskimo, and (b) Eastern Eskimo.

Yup'ik comprehends the languages that are spoken in westernmost Alaska, on some islands in the Bering Strait, and in northeast Asia. In Alaska, Yup'ik boasts a comparatively large population of speakers. Since governmentally supported measures to preserve the native languages were undertaken a few years ago, at least Central Alaskan Yup'ik appears to be out of immediate danger of extinction, although the number of people is no longer equal to the number of speakers.

2.1.2. Eastern Eskimo: inuktitut and Kalaallisut

The languages of the eastern group extend from northern Alaska to eastern Greenland. All but Greenlandic share the following features: They have very

12 2. First acquaintance with Inuktitut: groundwork for meeting the problem

small numbers of speakers, who live spread out over broad areas with dispersed settlements that range in population from a few hundred to at most a few thousand.6 This concentration of the population in settlements, hamlets, and small towns represents a recent development and is due to administrative manipulation. Only a few decades ago most Inuit lived in camps comprising just a few families. In spite of these circumstances, which might be expected to induce a high degree of variation among the different languages, they bear strong resemblance to one another. Adjacent forms are mutually intelligible, often exhibiting only minor lexical and phonetic distinctions. But even widely separated variants show - at least for the linguist - great structural similarity. Although the division into Western and Eastern Eskimo is structurally motivated, the further division into linguistic subgroups is tentative and cannot be viewed as distinguishing between different languages as these are known from Europe, for example. The subclassifications are also largely oriented around the geographic region and take up the local native name: Inupiaq (northern Alaska), Inuktitut (northern Canada and the Arctic Archipelago), Inuttut (Labrador), and Kalaallisut (Greenland). Within Inuktitut, the following dialects or regions are recognized: the Mackenzie Delta and the islands lying to the north; Keewatin, along the western coast of Hudson Bay; the central northern coast and the Baffin region, which in addition to Baffin Island includes the islands of the High Arctic. Of these subgroups the Western dialects Inuvialuktun and Inuinaqtun are each spoken by only a few hundred people; both dialects are at the verge of extinction. Thus the overall figure of 16,565 Inuit, or 28% of the population of the Northwest Territories is misleading with respect to the aboriginal languages spoken.7

In Alaska and Canada, the influence from the ever growing presence of western culture has become increasingly important, affecting not only general conditions but also the language. The changes are particularly striking in the "city-centers" such as Iqaluit and in the areas under economic exploitation such as the Mackenzie Delta (off-shore oil drilling). Here, the relatively easy accessibility from the south, the school system, general cultural pressure, and immigration have often endangered the continued existence of the language of the Inuit population, or at least not supported it. In the economically uninteresting, so-called remote areas, the linguistic situation is more favorable, although here, too, the school system, where English is invariably the language of instruction, has noticeably detrimental effects.8 The same is true of Arctic Quebec, since in the regions inhabited by Inuit English is likewise the language used in the schools.

In every way, Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) occupies a special position in the language group. Greenland, which has belonged to Denmark since the early eighteenth century, has undergone an entirely different political development

22. History of research 13

from that of the North American arctic. From a linguistic standpoint, the situation differs from the outset, since Greenlandic has far and away the greatest number of speakers, approximately 45,000. In Greenland itself, Greenlandic is the general language of communication, and additionally the language of the schools, so that it does not suffer from the pressure that usually weighs upon a minority language. The Scandinavian influence of the mother country Denmark is nevertheless ubiquitous; this synthesis of Scandinavian and Inuit traditions is characteristic of contemporary Greenland. Still, the differentness and independence of Greenland is just as prominent, an impression that is underscored by its political semiautonomy and considerable rights of self-govemment.

It is generally assumed that the linguistic differences between Inuktitut and Kalaallisut are so small that they represent less two languages than two dialects. Certainly the distinction between West Greenlandic and Inuktitut is no greater than that between West and East Greenlandic. What has promoted contention over the extent of similarity between the two, however, is the debate as to how "ergative" they are. I will return to this matter at a later point.

Since Inuktitut, in contrast to Kalaallisut, has not been comprehensively described, verification of similarities and differences between them is not easy to gain. Such a comparative study would surely be able to contribute to the development of a standard for Inuktitut, which to date is unfortunately lacking although it is desperately needed to secure the continued existence of the language. Notwithstanding, it is certain that the similarities between Inuktitut and Kalaallisut far outnumber the differences. Even if speakers of the languages tend to attach weight to differences in vocabulary or pronunciation, these appear negligible to the linguist, whose eye is turned upon general structures, such as those of morphology or syntax.

2.2. History of research

Unlike many other North American languages, which did not become the subject of scientific inquiry until the end of the nineteenth century or the twentieth century, the oldest fragments, word lists, date to the sixteenth century; first rudimentary grammars for Greenlandic date to the early eighteenth century. After Hans Egede founded a mission in western Greenland in 1721, the region was in constant contact with Europeans, and at the same time the language began to be studied.

As early as the sixteenth century, Davis Strait was frequented by European whalers; from the same period come the first word lists, which can be found in the journal of John Davis's second voyage in search of the northwest


passage (1586), in Olearius's Muscowitischer Reyse (1656) and in Resen's Atlas Danicus (1677). Hans Egede knew and used these lists, so that he did not come fully unprepared to Greenland, at least as far as the language is concerned. Egede's interest, however, was in the descendants of the Vikings who had founded a colony in Greenland around the year 1000, but to whom contact had long since been lost. Instead of them he encountered only Greenlanders, who were not only heathens but also spoke this entirely alien language. Out of necessity, Egede took much time and trouble to learn the Greenlandic language. He was aided in his work by his helper Albert Top and later by his son Paul, as well. Egede's earliest manuscript dates from 1725. His documents were, of course, intended primarily for practical use in learning the language.

Egede's son Paul had come to Greenland at the age of fourteen and was systematically urged by his father to learn the language. He eventually, unlike his father, became a master in it, not only putting in great service as informant to his father and Top, but also composing the first real grammar, the "trailblazer", as Kleinschmidt later put it (1851: IV). This grammar actually was to a considerable extent based on Hans Egede's and Albert Top's work and must be viewed as the fruit of the combined efforts of all three.9

With the arrival of the Moravian Brethren in 1733, work on the language intensified, with the result that quite a series of manuscripts, grammar fragments, word lists, and the like were produced from then on. In addition to Paul Egede's Grammatica (1760), new grammars were produced at regular intervals: Johann Beck's Grammatische Einleitung (1755), Königseer's Verbesserte grönländische Grammatica (1777), and Fabricius's Fors0g til en forbedret Gr0nlandsk Grammatica [An attempt to improve the grammar of Greenlandic] (1791). The grammars of the Moravian brethren were never published but circulated within the society and were also distributed to the missionaries setting out for Labrador in 1771.10

For Greenlandic itself, as well as for the development of grammar writing, Samuel Kleinschmidt's Grammatik der grönländischen spräche mit theilweisem einschluss des Labradordialects (1851) is of critical importance. Kleinschmidt came from an old Moravian family and was born in Greenland in 1814. Beginning in 1824, he lived in Europe while receiving his education at various Moravian institutions; when he returned to Greenland in 1841, he already had a number of grammars at his disposal. His skeptical and rather repudiative attitude is nevertheless well known.11 Kleinschmidt's grammar was, and still is today, a standard work on Greenlandic; and it was a long time before a new grammar was written. Christian Rasmussen's Sproglcere [Grammar] (1887) was patterned after Kleinschmidt's grammar; indeed, it is nothing more than a more didactic version in Danish. Schultz-Lorentzen's grammar of 1945 gave many the impression of a not necessarily successful

22. History of research 15

condensation. In recent times two grammars of Greenlandic have appeared: Bergsland's Grammatical Outline of the Eskimo Language of West Greenland (1955) and Fortescue's West Greenlandic (1984). In 1986 the first grammar of East Greenlandic appeared, Tunumiit Oraasiat [The language of the East Greenlanders], by Dorais and Robbe.

Although Greenlandic can look back upon a truly long research tradition, this does not hold of the other Inuit languages. In general, the amount of contact to individual Inuit groups depended on how economically interesting, and how accessible, their territory was to Europeans or Americans. Decisive factors here were whaling, which was pursued with great intensity until the late nineteenth century, and trapping. As a result, contact was at first limited to the easily reachable coasts in the east and extreme west. While the coasts of Labrador and Baffin Island saw much European and American whaling traffic, Alaska and particularly the Aleutian Islands became the victims of radical exploitation, at first by Russian fur traders and whalers of all nations; later the land suffered through the gold rush and its consequences. The Inuit groups in Canada's far north, by contrast, were entirely unaffected, since these regions were opened to "white" economic use only very late. Unlike the missionaries, neither whalers nor fur traders had any interest in the aboriginal language, and thus the number of documents and old grammars is small despite continual contact. Of mention are the Aleut grammar of Veniaminov (1834/1944) and the Labrador Inuttut grammar of Theodor Bourquin (1891). An important figure is Rev. Peck, who helped to establish the syllabic writing in the Eastern Arctic that had been introduced to the Inuit by John Horden and E.A. Watkins in the 1850s.12

Detailed scientific work on Inuktitut is only a few years old. Even so, one must recognize the existence of two different research goals, which in turn have an influence on the results: On the one hand, the tradition of grammar writing and studying the language for didactic purposes continues; most of the resultant works are purely descriptive and are intended as tools for learning the language or as textbooks for Inuktitut speakers. On the other hand, Inuktitut and the other Inuit languages are increasingly the subject of linguistic, especially syntactic, investigations. The peculiarities of these languages in the syntactic and morphological domains are the focus of no little theoretical interest.

Both ways of doing research are associated with typical deficiencies. The traditional language studies often exhibit methodological and theoretical weaknesses; especially because these descriptions tend to be widely disseminated, the problems should not be underestimated. The theoretical investigations often utilize the Inuit languages as mere sources of material. Moreover, the generally superficial knowledge on the part of researchers frequently leads to this material's being treated insensitively. Just such


superficial, one might even say colonial, treatment must be avoided; the two directions need to be unified for the use of the Inuit and linguistic research alike.

2.3. Orthography and standard

Particularly important, since it is particularly problematic, is the development of an orthography for the individual Inuit languages. Except for Kalaallisut, none of the languages is possessed of a standard orthography, so that several variations coexist.

The grammars, word lists, and so forth for Greenlandic from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries display great variability. Often they even fail to remain consistent within a single work, since they were prepared generally by linguistic laypeople such as missionaries.13

Greenlandic has had a standard for about 140 years, based on the orthography in the grammar of Samuel Kleinschmidt. The language has consequently had a written tradition for the same length of time. This standard was developed to reflect West Greenlandic, the dialect spoken on the west coast, the chief area of settlement. Clearly diverging from West Greenlandic are the dialect in the Thüle (Qaanaaq) region and the dialect spoken in eastern Greenland.

The spelling system that Kleinschmidt introduced in his grammar (1851) and employed consistently thereafter was used unrestrictedly as the obligatory written form of the language until the early 1970s. In the wake of orthographic reform, diacritics were no longer used, nor was the special sign κ introduced by Kleinschmidt to represent /q/. The system was for the most part so organized as to reflect the phonemic inventory; one exception here was the retention of e and o, which Kleinschmidt in his time had also preserved out of consideration for his European contemporaries. He repeatedly stressed that Greenlandic possessed only three vowels, namely, /a/, /i/, and /u/, yet he kept the allophones [e] and [o] represented in the orthography (see Nowak 1987a).

äipersarissat1' erssiutit2)

misarqassut3) qingäkörtut4) nilälassut5)

neriligtarmiut6* q rng r a qilämiut7) k ng g oqarmiut8) t η s,ss,lj i qardlumiut9) ρ m ν u

Nebenstehende benennungen bedeuten etwa: 1) die mit einem zweiten versehen werden müssen; 2) durch welche (der andere laut) deutlich wird; 3) platzenden ton gebende; 4) durch die nase gehende; 5) durchzischende; 6) Zäpfchenbewohner, 7) gaumbewohner, 8) zungenbewohner, 9) lippenbewohner.14

23. Orthography and standard 17

11) *those which need another one'; 2) 'those which clarify the other sound'; 3) plosives; 4) nasals; 5) fricatives; 6) 'inhabitants of the uvula'; 7) 'inhabitants of the palatum'; 8) 'inhabitants of the tongue'; 9) 'inhabitants of the lips'] (Kleinschmidt 1870, in Holtved 1964: 73).

Kleinschmidt attempted to record the phonemes of Greenlandic with as consistent an orthography as possible; the reform of 1973 used this as a foundation and improved it according to the increased knowledge of phonology that had accumulated since 1850.

In Bergsland and Rischel (1986), the following phonemic inventory is given for modern West Greenlandic; only in the representation does it differ from Kleinschmidt's version:

Ρ t m η ν η j

(L) s ,§ (Bergsland-Rischel 1986: 31)

However, the phonological representation in this form was not appropriate for a practical writing system. The phonemic symbol /rj/ is therefore written ng, /N/ as rng, following the convention introduced by Kleinschmidt. The phonemes /§/ and /s/ are both spelled as s; thus, Kleinschmidt's orthographic distinction between ss and s has been abandoned. Kleinschmidt in his time had decided against such a solution: "...es tritt da auch der absolut hindernde umstand ein, dass das verdoppelte s und das einfache s nicht von einander zu unterscheiden wären..." [...then an obstacle absolutely precluding its adoption would arise in the fact that double s and simple s would no longer be distinguishable...] (Holtved 1964: 35). This very fiizziness was accepted into the reformed orthography, obviously for the sake of simplicity in the form of omitting diacritics. One possible factor making it easier to forgo differentiating /§/ from /s/ may have been that the distinction between them has lost some of its importance since 1850. In Inuktitut, at any rate, it is not observable (anymore).

The mission set up in Labrador in 1771 followed closely the already existing manuscripts concerned with Greenlandic, including the writing habits. The revision of orthography initiated by Kleinschmidt was rejected by the Labrador brethren.15 The pre-Kleinschmidt orthography is still in use and stubbornly defended. Although Greenlandic has had a written standard for nearly 140 years, Inuktitut has not. The contemporary situation in the eastern Arctic is difficult for two reasons: 1. Northern Quebec was and still is subject to French Canadian influence, whereas Baffin Island, the islands in Hudson Bay (Belcher Islands, or Saniqiluak), the high arctic archipelago, and Keewatin all fall under the

k q η (N) g r


administration of the Northwest Territories and are therefore subject to Anglo-Canadian influence. This is also true of Inuttut, to the extent it is spoken in parts of Labrador that belong to Newfoundland. Up until a few years ago, this meant that the Inuit of southern Baffin Island and their relatives in northern Quebec were at the mercy of two different school systems and learned two different second languages. This in turn led to a kind of administrative reduction in the number of speakers, who were not exactly multitudinous in the first place, to the tune of fifty percent Especially for the creation of instructional material, this was a heavy disadvantage. This dilemma has since been removed by teaching English as a second language to all Inuit, including those in Quebec. 2. Whereas Inuktitut has largely been written with a syllabic writing system, the neighboring Inuit languages Inuttut, Kalaallisut, and the dialects of the Western Arctic, Inupiaq as well as Yup'ik, all make use of the Roman alphabet, albeit each with a different orthography. These various traditions, which have great emotional value, have up to now been as much a factor in preventing the creation of a unified standard as has affiliation with province or country. Likewise failing to promote unification is an often high degree of regionalism in the individual communities.

In what follows, I will rely chiefly upon the orthography for Inuktitut utilized by Malion (1987).16 Mallon likewise attempts a strictly phonemic system; he differentiates three vowel phonemes - /a/, /i/, and /u/ - and the following consonants:

Ρ t k q s 1

ν t j g r m η η jn

His orthography mirrors the phonemic representation to a large extent, and he even retains the two symbols /!/ and /η/ in his orthography, but not /jl/ which is to be interpreted as equivalent to /N/ (Bergsland-Rischel), and rng (Kleinschmidt). This correspondence between orthography and phonemic representation has meanwhile become customary. The English based representation can still be found occasionally, especially with names, e.g. Igloolik vs. iglulik.

Dorais gives the following phoneme chart for Inuktitut (Iglulik dialect):

ρ t k q a s 1

ν L j γ R i

m n η u (Dorais 1978: 3)

In the orthography, /L/ appears as t, /γ / as g, /R/ as r, and /rj/ as ng.

23. Orthography and standard 19

Even this short summary of the phonemic systems of Kalaallisut and Inuktitut demonstrates that the differences between the languages in this area are not great. Only /§/, which occurs phonemically in Greenlandic, is not to be found in Inuktitut. Characteristic of both languages is /I/, which however is pronounced much more distinctly in Kalaallisut and in the North Baffin dialects. Moving south, Ν is at last entirely replaced by /s/ in Arctic Quebec. Kleinschmidt analyzed this sound as the diphthong /dl/ ("as in the German word Adler ['eagle']"); for this reason, it does not appear on his phoneme chart. The phonemic nature of /q/ he was able to prove to his satisfaction by directly comparing it with /k/ (Holtved 1964: 40).

Standardization remains for Inuktitut an unsolved problem, one that can be only touched upon here. The Inuit of the Canadian Arctic are left to hope that standardization can be implemented within a reasonable amount of time, thereby fulfilling a condition for official status. Only in this way can the overwhelming pressure from the powerful languages English and French be combated in the long run.

Chapter 3 A first grammar

3.1. Preliminary considerations

Whenever one reads a grammar or description of an Inuit language, one has the feeling that this language must have something special about it, that the usual descriptive categories are somehow employed differently and by dint of their known interpretation are supposed to refer to something different and unknown. This gives us reason to interpret the suggested representations as well as the employment of classical grammatical categories and divisions with extreme caution. At the same time, these very categories, these fundamental notions of how a grammar should be constructed, permit us to make a first characterization of a previously unknown language. Only in connection with this first attempt at description is it possible to name - one is tempted to say, to capture - the problems of representation that occur; only then is it possible to formulate critical questions that make us reexamine assumptions contained in the basic concept of grammar itself.

To begin with, I would like to bring up two fundamental difficulties which arise in the description of languages like Inuktitut.

Linguistics has always been, and continues to be, a science established within the western cultural sphere. It arose out of and is influenced by traditions of thought that have shaped western culture; the discipline itself took form in debate over Indo-European languages. The suspicion that this background has left its imprint on our entire conception of linguistics as science and as theory can scarcely be avoided.

One of the basic assumptions of any linguistic research is the fundamental equality of all languages. This idea accords with the philosophy that all humans are equal, which does not deny our heterogeneity but puts the emphasis on the unity within the variation. In a sense, the humanistic ideal is served by the linguistic one, namely, the theoretical and methodological claim that all languages can be described not only by the same methods, but also by application of the same basic principles. This notion of a universal grammar has a long tradition and today is more alive than ever.17

Nevertheless, under certain circumstances the problem may arise that research interest shifts to the maintenance or expansion of a specific theoretical model, and that "technical manipulations" are tolerated for this reason. Success then consists of having managed to incorporate the phenomenon under scrutiny into the model; the question of descriptive adequacy is reduced to secondary importance.

22 3. A first grammar

These two aspects, the restrictions imposed by historical-cultural tradition and the claim of a universal grammar, complement each other very effectively in creating a rigorous discipline. However, the study of languages that differ greatly from Indo-European may reveal the limits of this discipline, provided one is interested in seeing such limits and utilizing them to further develop - indeed enrich - the theory. A closer examination and determination of these limits should contribute to our understanding of the relationship between language and individual languages. This plan of research can be effectively carried out only when the variation and peculiarity of individual languages are not treated from the outset as aberrations on the template of a unified base structure; rather, the possibility of revising this base structure must always be kept in mind. That is to say, the assumptions which are made in linguistic theories are often much more far-reaching and the "general structures" are envisioned much more concretely than is necessary or meaningful. Ergativity is an example of this problem. Notwithstanding - and this possible objection must be refuted right away - it would be misguided to deny the existence of structural underpinnings common to all languages. The question, however, is how we should conceptualize these common aspects, how very general and therefore empty our concepts must be in order to encompass the wildly diverse array of linguistic constructions. In the concrete investigations to be described here, we will see that the usual terms and their associated structures are not at all empty; in fact, they are insufficiently empty to accomplish their mission.

Two of the most basic categories accepted without question and utilized to generally understand, represent, and explain languages are "word" and "sentence". Without going into the historical development of these terms, one can certainly claim that they designate elementary units of human speech. In fact, these terms are so elementary that it seems impossible to settle upon one definition for each of them.18 Apart from their colloquial uses, which likewise cover quite a range, they are incorporated into various linguistic subdisciplines in diverse ways and consequently restricted in meaning. "Restriction" here should not be interpreted as a "narrowing in meaning". It should rather be understood as an increase in precision conditioned by the research approach. This increase in precision can in some cases be a purely quantitative expansion. Within a syntactic theory, for example, "sentence" will be more comprehensively defined - in the sense of containing numerous subdefinitions and specifications - than in a morphological theory, where the term "sentence" is brought into play primarily as the final limit of "word".

Yet more interesting than the individual definitions is the fact that, beyond these definitions, general agreement reigns as to what a sentence or a word is. Both terms offer no problems for comprehension, either within linguistics19

or in colloquial use, and are quite obviously part of very fundamental

32. A traditional description of Inuktitut 23

knowledge. Indeed, perhaps they are the most basic terms with which we, scientifically or prescientifically, relate to language. They appear to be basic terms of our cultural knowledge. Study of Inuktitut shows that even these basic terms are very much dependent on our own acquaintance with language and that they distort our expectations of foreign languages: word and sentence as conversational units have an entirely different scope and value in a polysynthetic language. In translation the distinction always becomes blurred: more often than not, words in Inuktitut must be translated as phrasal structures or even sentences. Sentences in Inuktitut are not composed of words in the same way as are sentences in Indo-European languages. Although I will not go into the problems associated with the polysynthetic character of the language, they nevertheless overlap with syntactic problems in certain important areas. In any event, possible misunderstanding must be prevented on two heads: (1) word and sentence in Inuktitut are not identical in Inuktitut, but rather are clearly distinguishable units; and (2) the constituents of sentences are almost never words in the sense of lexemes, but almost always derived word complexes. It is therefore impossible to view the sentences as a composition of lexemes.

To minimize beginning comprehension problems, I will at first follow widespread practice and make use of the terms "word" and "sentence" relying on general understanding. However, I will do so only to open the door to the individuality of a language that may be is so hard to grasp just because we employ this and other, comparable terms. Relativization of the terms "word", "sentence", "transitivity", and "ergativity" will eventually be arrived at in the current work, but this first grammar is necessary preparation.

3.2. A traditional description of Inuktitut

The description of Inuktitut below is a first sketch intended to give the reader initial access to the language. In drawing this sketch, I will proceed as though there were a language "Inuktitut" similar to "English" or "German". In other words, I will pretend that it is not an arbitrary slice of a dialectal continuum extending over several thousand kilometers of arctic northern Canada. I will not discuss the fact that there exist considerable differences among the dialects (although not in the basic structure, which is what I am interested in exploring here). Similarly, I will not take up the problem that no written standard for this language exists, despite the fact that a standard writing system in syllabic characters, as well as one in the Roman alphabet, has recently been introduced.20 Inuktitut in many ways embodies a classic minority language - even though the Inuit constitute the majority of the population in their region. All of these aspects, which of course are of the


greatest importance for the survival and vitality of a language like Inuktitut that is spoken by only a few thousand people, cannot be treated under the present topic.21 My interest is limited here to the formal aspects of Inuktitut In the following sketch I will start with morphology and word formation and go on from there to the elementary syntactic structures. As has already been emphasized, explication of the problems and critical discussion of descriptive parameters can be undertaken only after this first tentative picture has been drawn.

3.2.1. Word formation: synthesis

Inuktitut is, like all the other Inuit languages, a polysynthetic language.22 This means that the word does not exhibit the more or less determinate scope and complexity familiar to us, but rather is rebuilt and further derived according to the need of the moment. Inuktitut is maiked by its extreme morphological complexity and productivity. Although simplex words obviously exist, one will seldom find them applied to sentences in this form. Simple word forms essentially serve as the basis for the process of word formation, which is completed when an inflectional suffix is attached. This does not imply that there is no further derivation possible after an inflectional ending has been added. But, especially as far as verbal forms are concerned, an inflection is absolutely necessary to complete a series of morphemes to form a word.

In Inuktitut morphology one must make a first fundamental distinction between nuclei, which constitute the base for any further word formation, and affixes. Nuclei comprise free morphemes and roots. Free morphemes in Inuktitut can be - particles, which appear in sentences potentially unchanged: kisiani 'only',

uattiaru 'a little while ago ..." - the already mentioned nuclei that can actually appear in a sentence as free

morphemes, namely, nominals:

(1) nanuq 'polar bear' angut 'man' arnaq 'woman' nutaraq 'child'

Roots, or verbal nuclei, do not represent free forms per se, but rather become free forms only with the addition of an inflectional ending:

(2) pisuk - tunga walk - lsg Ί walk' pisuk - tut it walk - 2sg 'you walk' pisuk - tuq walk - 3sg 's/he walks'

32. A traditional description of lnuktitut 25

taku- 'see' niri- 'eat' uqa- 'speak' ikajuq- 'help'

In the following I will differentiate between "nucleus" (abbr. Nuc) and inflectional suffix (Infl/Case). The inflectional endings in lnuktitut consist of nominal inflection and verbal inflection. For example:

(3) pisuk- -tuq [Nuc - Infi: 3sg] 's/he walks'

nanuq [Nuc - Case: 0] 'polar bear'

A simple or complex word can be recognized as "finished", that is, it can be employed in a sentence by its having either case marking or an inflectional ending. All processes of word formation occur between the nucleus and the final inflectional suffix: affixes are inserted between the nucleus and the grammatical ending.

Formally, affixes are to be strictly distinguished from nuclei: they are never free morphemes, always requiring a nucleus as a host Affixes have a wide array of functions and meanings, and cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. For example, many functions which in German and English are fulfilled by adjectives or prepositions are here taken over by affixes. Moreover, affixes may have strictly grammatical functions such as passive, antipassive, or causative. Affixes may add an epistemic reading to a complex word. In contrast, the inflectional endings contain very specific information. Their position is terminal:

Nuc - affix - {Infl/Case}

Compounding, the linking of several roots to form a compound, is not possible in lnuktitut as it is in German:

(4) German compounds

Dampf - koch - topf steam cook pot 'pressure cooker'

Futter - napf fodder pan 'food dish*


On the other hand, the number of affixes that can be sequentially applied to a single word is essentially unlimited, being restricted only by comprehensibility. As a result, the pattern of word formation can be represented as follows:

Nuc - aff, - . . . - aff„ - {Infl/Case}

Clearly, affixes are combined not arbitrarily but rather according to rules and meaning. The statement, "Every nucleus can be built upon as desired", is qualified by, "if certain rules are adhered to." The resultant complex forms then receive an inflection appropriate to the categorial status (V/N) achieved or confirmed by affixation.

The inflectional endings in Inuktitut consist of nominal inflection and verbal inflection.

Nominal inflection includes, in addition to case marking, which here was introduced as representative of nominal inflection in general, number (singular, dual, plural) and a highly differentiated system of possessive markings, indicating number and case as well.

Verbal inflection indicates the person(s), number, transitivity (valence), and so-called mood of a verb.

A remark is in order as to the slant of our definitions up to now: Nominals are marked by case, number, and/or possessive. Verbs are marked according to person (participant[s]), number and mood. In these definitions, the word class is always assumed as given, and the inflection is treated as a mere accessory. But because synthesis is an open process, it is misleading to presuppose a circumscribed word class. To put it directly, a word is nominally or verbally inflected not because it is a noun or a verb; it is identifiable as a noun or verb because it is nominally or verbally inflected. This means nothing less than that noun (N) and verb (V) are primarily syntactically determined categories. Yet this statement is less categorial than it may seem to be. As will be discussed in great detail below, the distinction between (N) and (V) is notoriously problematic. Noun and verb are also morphologically defined: Nuclei that constitute bound morphemes and become free forms only in association with an inflectional ending are verbal. That they are roots rather than affixes can be easily seen in that they never can be combined with other verbal or nominal nuclei, but instead provide the foundation for morphological processes. Nominals can be characterized in a similar fashion: all nuclei to which the classic nominal markings case and number can be applied are nominal nuclei. They always represent free forms; they can appear in a sentence as they are. It is clear that this type of definition is a purely formal one, which is oriented around (1) inflectional marking, interpreted as a marking of syntactic function, and (2) the morphological distinction between bound and free morphemes.

32. A traditional description oflnuktitut 27

A major portion of the linguistic research into Inuit languages used to be concerned with the distinction between nominality and verbality or the establishment of unambiguous lexical categories.23 The relative security with which word classes can be delimited in German and other languages and with which the individual lexical entries ("words") can be assigned to a word class does not exist in Inuktitut. The principal reason is that words as we know them are equivalent to the nuclei of Inuktitut, yet words in Inuktitut are comparable to our spontaneous compounds and derivations, which are not lexicalized. Certainly it is possible to classify nuclei as either nominal or verbal; however, this must be understood as input for the next step of word formation. Nuclei can be viewed as lexemes only with reservations. It is true that I can describe

(5) nanuq 'polar bear'

as +N, and nanuq can appear without embellishment in a sentence:

(6) nanuq takuvanga 'he sees the polar bear'

Nevertheless, using the naked nucleus in this way is the exception, being looked down on as baby talk or poor style. In contrast, more complex forms such as (7) are perfectly fluent

(7) nanuqsiuqtuq 'he hunts a polar bear'

This very simple example not only can give an idea of the peculiarity of synthetic word formation; it also shows how a nominal nucleus, nanuq, can be turned into a verb by the addition of an appropriate affix, here -siuq-. The word thus created then receives the verbal inflection -tuq for third person singular intransitive. This process, sometimes called incorporation, is very frequent.34

Although the nucleus determines the next rule-governed step of word formation, there are so many possibilities for derivation that in fact every kind of derivation is available. Multiple changes of category are limited only by the memory capacity of the speaker and hearer.

In essence the rightmost affix modifies the entire complex to its left and functions as the head; derivation can be viewed as a binary process in that it treats the affected complex in the same way as a simple nucleus:

[[Nuc + affixN]N + [affixV]V]V

[[Nuc + affixN + affixV + affixV + ... + affixN]N + affix V]V

A synthetic derivation can of course be more than just the piling up of constituents that all belong to the same category. This is merely the simplest conceivable case.


(8) kuuk kuujuaq

river + t>ig river'

-juaq "big*

As a matter of fact, numerous conversions and derivations in the course of building a single word are much more the rule than the exception. In this connection it must be observed that affixes in the above sense have word-categorial features. Like nuclei, they can be identified as +N or +V, according to whether the synthetic complex they head is nominally or verbally inflected. Moreover, affixes must be specified as to the kind of complex or nucleus to which they can be attached as well as according to their derivational properties. Affixes may be used for the further specification of either a nominal or a verbal nucleus as shown in (8). But they may also have category-changing properties, turning a noun into a verb or vice versa, as shown in (7). Finally, there is an array of affixes with functions that would be called "grammatical" in traditional terminology. Most of these affixes, which primarily appear in verbal complexes, nonetheless have much more far-reaching functions, which could be called syntactic, sometimes even "speech act indicating". To illuminate what this can mean, I would like to introduce a few examples, some of which I will examine more closely later in the course of discussion. (i) The suffix -si- is treated in the literature as an "intransitive" or "antipassive" affix. Generally speaking, it causes a change in agreement behavior, such that an originally transitive verbal complex becomes detransitivized. That it affects not only the capacity to bear agreement but also extensive changes in the argument structure will be noted without further comment at this point25 Whereas some verbs can appear in both transitive and intransitive form, -si- is applied only to those that are exclusively transitive and cannot readily appear in intransitive form:

intransitive:

taku- -vunga taku- -vutit taku- -vuq

transitive:

Ί see' taku- -vara Ί see it' 'you see' taku- -vait 'you see it' Tie sees' taku- -vanga 'he sees it'

tigu- -vara Ί take it' tigu- -vait 'you take it' tigu- -vanga 'he takes it'

but not

*tigu- -vunga

32. A traditional description of [nuktitut 29

instead:

tigu- -si- -junga Ί take' tigu- -si- -jutit 'you take' tigu- -si- -juq 's/he takes'

(ii) The affixes -qaq- and -gi- are incorporating affixes and both mean 'to have'. They differ in that -qaq- is unambiguously intransitive whereas -gi- is transitive.

qimmiqaqtunga qimmi(q)- -qaq- -tunga dog have lsg,itr,nom part Ί have a dog/dogs'

vs.

uigijara ui -gi- -jara husband have lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί have him as my husband'

(iii) -galuak-/-kaluaq-/-raluaq- 'although' clearly has a modifying function; but it is not the word alone that is modified, but the scope of the affix covers the whole sentence.

nuvakkaluaqiuni nuvak- -kaluaq- -iuni cold although 3sg,part 'although s/he has a cold ...'

nuvakkaluaqiuni ilinniariaqtuq 'although s/he has a cold, s/he goes to school'

nalligigaluaqtara, ... nalligi- -galuaq- -tara love although lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί love him, but...'

Examples (iv)-(vi) cover so-called epistemic affixes, affixes that indicate a personal view.

(iv) -niraq- 'to say that...'

tamaaniilaungnginiraqtuq tamaani- -i- -lauq- -ngngit- -niraq- -tuq here be past neg say that 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he says that s/he wasn't here' (s/he = s/he)


(v) -rasugi-l-gasugi- 'to think that...'

aanniarasugijara aanniaq- -rasugi- -jara sick think that lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί think that s/he is sick'

(vi) -ngnguaq- 'to pretend to...'

siningnguaqtutit sinik- -ngnguaq- -tutit sleep pretend to 2sg,itr,nom part 'you pretend to be asleep'

It bears repeating that not every affix has category-changing abilities. For instance, -si- cannot be attached to a nominal nucleus, while -qaq- and -gi-are only attached to nominals. The affix in (6), -ngnguaq-, provides an example of a class of affixes that are unspecified with regard to lexical category; this affix may be attached to a noun as well, then creating 'the image of s.th.', 'picture of s.th.'

7. -ngnguaq 'image of s.th.'

nunangnguaq nuna -ngnguaq land image of. . . 'image of the land', i.e., map

The rightmost affix is the "landing site" for the nominal or verbal inflectional ending, whose attachment finishes off the morphological process, leaving the complex categorially unambiguous.

Affixes are not words in the classical sense; they are in no way free forms. It is therefore not unproblematic to call them "nominal" or "verbal". This could lead to the misguided interpretation that the affixes themselves belong to word classes. It is much more accurate to say that they are of a productive nature: they create words, which are then assigned to a word class. Their capacities must be specified in a subcategorization frame which contains a semantic characterization and a morpho-sy η tactic characterization.

Assignment to a word class depends directly upon the inflectional ending in question, which itself is linked to the morphological - i.e., synthetic -process on the one hand and to the possible syntactic function on the other. It cannot be emphasized enough how flexible and spontaneous this entire process is.26 One must thus conclude that there is no collection of "finished" words in Inuit languages; words are generally constructed according to the


need of the moment It goes without saying that the task of compiling a dictionary for Inuktitut presents major difficulties for this reason.

To summarize, words are chiefly formed spontaneously in Inuktitut. The starting point is a nucleus, which can be described as either +N or +V. Nuclei constitute either free morphemes, which can appear in a sentence fully unchanged (+N), or roots, which need an inflectional ending (+V). In practice, however, simple forms are hardly ever used. The normal case is an often multiple derivation whereby the word changes categories. Such word formation is highly productive, although it is subject to formal and semantic restrictions. The scope of an individual derivation and its degree of complexity are limited by memory and comprehensibility.

A fully formed word can be clearly identified as belonging to a word class, yet for nuclei and affixes membership in a word class, strictly speaking, represents a selectional restriction or procedural instruction. Although changes in category membership are rule-governed, they occur with great frequency. In contrast, the distinction between nuclei and affixes is fundamental and extremely restrictive. Neither can be substituted for the other, and their different roles are clearly determined formally.

[Nuc + affix 1 +...+ affixn]N/V + {Case/Infl} Ν / V

3.2.2. Inflection

While the extraordinarily productive derivational moiphology is a trademark of Inuktitut, the inflectional morphemes, too, differ in interesting ways from more well-known types.

Nominals may be simplex forms or nominal complexes. They are subject to three types of grammatical marking: Nominals are obligatorily marked for number (singular, dual, or plural). Almost obligatory is possession marking, which is applied with much greater frequency than possessive pronouns in English or German. Finally, Inuktitut has a case system featuring eight cases. Two of these cases are traditionally distinguished from the other six.

1. 2. "0 -mik objective -up -mut 'to' terminalis

-mit 'from' ablative -mi 'in' locative -kkut 'through . .., via ...' vialis -titut 'like ...' similiaris


The cases of the first group invariably agree with the verb. The unmarked case is referred to as "absolutive"; that marked by -up, as "relative" or "ergative".

The cases of the second group do not agree with the predicate and may be viewed as oblique cases. Traditionally, all of them are described in semantic terms. This view turns out not to be correct, as will be shown in detail in 7.3.

The case marked -mik, which is most often characterized as instrumental case, is not primarily a semantic case, although semantic aspects can be found. Much more this case must be viewed as a truly structural case and, for reasons elaborated below, will therefore be henceforth called "objective".

The other cases show a primarily semantic reading, though the terminalis and/or ablative, depending partly on dialect variation, can also be employed structurally. While terminalis, ablative, and locative are cases indicating location or direction (namely, 'to ', 'from 'in '), the vialis indicates a motion 'through ' or 'via ', and also expresses figurative meaning such as 'by means of The similiaris indicates likeness or similarity ('like a ').

Verbs are based either on a root which as a bound morpheme requires inflection

pisuk- 'go' taku- 'see'

or on a derived complex form which like the root requires an inflectional ending:

pisu(k) - lauq-go + past

nanu(q) - siu(q) - lauq-polar bear + hunt + past

Verbal inflection contains basically two aspects: (1) agreement, which includes person(s) and number, and (2) mood. Since the inflectional paradigms will be discussed in detail in chapter 6, they are here described only in their moiphological form.

The inflection of verbs falls into two fully separate paradigms, which are usually called transitive and intransitive. In anticipation of the coming discussion it should be noted that these terms refer to differential capacity for agreement.

Intransitive inflection expresses agreement with one noun phrase. In addition, as has already been mentioned, number, namely singular, dual and plural, is expressed, as well as mood. Besides imperative and interrogative forms, two paradigms are of special interest, which are differentiated only minimally in form. Their difference in meaning is discussed extensively in Chapter 6.2.1.


Indicative intransitive

(9) taku- -vunga 1 see see lsg,itr

-vutit 'you see 2sg,itr -vuq 's/he sees 3sg,itr

taku- -vuguk 'we two see ...' ldual,itr -vutik 'you two see ...' 2dual,itr -vuuk 'they two see ...' 3dual,itr

taku- -vugut 'we see...' lpl,itr -vusi 'you (pi) see ..." 2pl,itr -vut 'they see ...' 3pl,itr

If the final phone of the nucleus or stem to which the inflectional ending is attached is a consonant, either assimilation or truncation takes place and the first phone of the inflectional ending changes to [p]:

(10) tikippunga tiki(t)- -punga arrive lsg.itr Ί arrive'

aullaputik aulla(q)- ·putik leave 2dual,itr 'you two leave'

Since this process is quite regular, it is sufficient to represent the whole paradigm only once, noting the distributional pattern of the allomorphs:

voc + -vuq 3sg,itr indicative con + -puq 3sg,itr indicative

Although the difference between the indicative and the so-called nominal participle might seem to be of a similar nature, this is not the case. The two


moods comprise two different paradigms and are by no means allomorphs even if the paradigms are just differentiated by the initial phone. As with the indicative, a distributional pattern is easy to discern: if the final phone of the nucleus or stem is a vowel, the nominal participle ending begins with [j], if it is a consonant, it begins with [t].

voc con

+ +

-juq 3sgjtr nominal participle -tuq 3sg4tr nominal participle

Nominal participle intransitive

(ID

(12)

taku-

taku-

taku-

aullatunga aulla(q)-leave Ί leave'

tikittutit tikit-arrive 'you arrive'

tikittut tikit-arrive 'they arrive'

-junga lsg,itr -jutit 2sg,itr -juq 3sg,itr

-juguk ldual,itr -jutik 2dual,itr -juuk 3dual,itr

-jugut lpl,itr -jusi 2pl,itr -jut 3pl,itr

-tunga lsg,itr

-tutit 2sg,itr

-tut 3pl,itr

Ί see ...'

'you see ...'

*he sees ...'

'we two see ...'

'you two see ...'

'they two see

WC ···

'you (pi) see ...'

'they see ..."


Consequently, the indicative paradigm can be indicated as

-vuql-puq,

the nominal participle as

-juql-tuq.

Whereas the intransitive paradigm expresses only one participant relation and thus resembles the type of conjugational schemata that are well known from Indo-European languages, the transitive paradigm expresses relations to two participants as well as their relation to each other:

Indicative transitive

(13) takuvagit taku- -vagit see- lsg/2sg Ί see you'

(14) takuvara taku- -vara see- lsg/3sg 1 see him/her/it'

(15) takuvattik taku- -vattik see- lsg/2dual Ί see you two'

(16) takuvakka taku- -vakka see- lsg/3pl Ί see them (all)'

As examples (13>—(16) show, all relations are possible, in all persons and numbers except unambiguous reflexives. Special forms are used for the reflexive; therefore, forms showing third person-third person relations are never interpreted reflexively:

(17) takuvanga taku- -vanga see- 3sg/3sg "he sees him'

The full transitive paradigm is very extensive and cannot be listed here.27 It must be pointed out, however, that the moiphophonemic variation described for the intransitive paradigm holds for the transitive forms as well.


(18) takuvara tusarpara tusar- -para hear lsg/3sg,trjnd Ί hear it'

taku- -vara see lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί see it'

-vara

(19) takuvaanga tusarpaanga tusar- -paanga hear 3sg/lsg,tr,ind 's/he hears me'

taku-see 's/he sees me'

-vaanga 3sg/lsg,tr,ind

As with the intransitive indicative, the transitive paradigm is complemented by a 'participative' paradigm (Dorais 1988: 78ff).

-jaral-tara

The "participativity" of this paradigm is very hard to grasp; the differences discussed in 6.2.1 for the intransitive indicative and nominal participle do not hold for the two transitive paradigms (see 6.2.2). A semantic difference or a distributional difference cannot be stated. A pragmatic difference has not been investigated yet It remains to state that the two paradigms exist. What is tentatively called "participative" here is not to be confused with the participle (verbal participle) discussed below.

The distinction between transitive and intransitive is to be found in all moods, with the result that a precise, unequivocal marking of relations is possible.

The moods indicate the status of a verbal complex within the sentence; they show whether it is the verb phrase of the matrix sentence or the VP of a subordinate clause.

The matrix moods include the following: Indicative, nominal participle Imperative Interrogative and the corresponding negative paradigms.

The subordinate moods express the nature of the relation between the subordinate and matrix VP: Participle (Verbal participle): simultaneity Causality: "because-Mood" Conditionality: "if-Mood"

(20) takujara taku- -jara see lsg/3 lsg/3sg,tr

tusartara tusar- -tara hear lsg/3sg,tr Ί hear it' Ί see it'


All subordinate moods have in common that they distinguish the third person from a so-called fourth person. Fourth person marking serves to express nonidentity with the/a participant of the matrix clause. The third person, in contrast, imparts that the matrix and subordinate clauses refer to the same participant(s).28

The terminology used to designate the different moods varies from author to author. Only the name of the participle/verbal participle has been quite widely adopted.29 The forms thus called are very frequently employed: "fluent and comprehensible use of the Eskimo language depends on the mastery of the participle mood" (Harper 1974: 29). This mood serves to link simultaneous associated thoughts or actions to each other, in relation to a dominant verb. The coordination of hierarchically equal verbs in the indicative is not only poor style; because the relationship of the two verbs remains unclear, it is downright misleading and rejected throughout.

Whereas in German such coordinations are common and grammatically marked subordination here is not, in English, use of the participle is perfectly normal:

(21) not looking I made a mistake

So is the Inuktitut translation of (21):

(22) takunanga tammalauqtunga taku- -nanga tamma- -lauq- -tunga see part,neg,lsg,itr mistake past lsg,itr 'not looking, I made a mistake1

(Harper 1974: 27)

The German translation would have to be rather different:

(23) während ich nicht hinschaute, machte ich einen Fehler while I not looked-there made I a mistake 'while I wasn't looking that way, I made a mistake'

Another possibility would be

(24) weil ich nicht hinschaute, machte ich einen Fehler because I not looked-there made I a mistake 'because I didn't look that way, I made a mistake'

From the English translations it becomes plain why verbs in this mood are called "participles". It would perhaps be more appropriate to describe them as an instance of two (or more) different simultaneous events, expressed in different VPs, one of which should be in a matrix mood.30

The other moods, too, have important syntactic functions; they appear in causal or conditional subordinate clauses.


Dorais (1988) speaks of "perfective" and "imperfective", Mallon (1986a) of "becausative" and "conditional", Lowe (1985) and Haiper (1974) of "causative" and "conditional". Kleinschmidt (1851) refers to these moods as "conjunctiv" and "subjunctiv". None of these names is unproblematic. Particularly unfortunate is Dorais's terminology, since it evokes associations with tense. Both moods signify causal or conditional relationships in the sentence; though a temporal aspect can be traced down, any association with tense in a strict reading should be avoided.31 Mallon's "becausative", by contrast, is fully transparent but unlikely to be widely accepted. The rival term "causative" is already reserved for causative verbs and affixes, where it denotes an entirely different phenomenon.32 Still, this name seems to me appropriate - if one keeps in mind that it is being used to refer to a mood. The same obtains for the remaining mood, the conditional.

To illustrate the specific usage of each of these moods, I would here like to introduce a few examples.

(25) qiugama isiqpunga qiu- -gama feel, be cold lsg,itr,caus "because I'm cold, I come in'

(26) sikitumik niuviruni asivalaaqpuq sikitu -mik niuvi(q)- -runi asiva- -laaq- -puq snowmobile obj buy 3sg,itr,cond hunt future 3sg,itr,ind

'he/ 'he; 'if he buys a snowmobile, he'll go hunting'

(27) sikitumik niuviqpat quviasulaaqpuq sikitu -mik niuviq- -pat quviasu(k)- -laaq- -puq snowmobile obj buy 4sg,itr,cond be happy future 3sg,itr,ind

•he/ Tie/ 'if he; buys a snowmobile, hej will be happy'

As seen in sentences (25)-(27), all relations are possible between the matrix verb and the subordinate verb; furthermore, the fine distinction is made as to whether the participant of the matrix verb is identical with the participant of the subordinate verb. In English and German, this can be determined in the third person only by the context or background knowledge. Inuktitut makes this relationship unambiguous via the type of participant marking: in sentence (26) the two persons are identical; in sentence (27) they are not. If one inserted names, the same name would appear twice in (26):

isiq- -punga come in lsg,itr,ind


(26') Jaanii sikitumik niuvirunij Jaani, asivalaaqpuqi Jaani -φ sikitu -mik niuvi(q)- -runi John abs snowmobile obj buy 3sgjtr,cond

Jaani -φ asiva- -laaq- -puq John abs hunt future 3sg,iü\ind

'if John buys a snowmobile, he (= John) will go hunting'

Two distinct names would appear in (27):

(27') Jaanii sikitumik niuviqpatj Mikij quviasulaaqpuqj

Jaani -φ sikitu -mik niuvi(q)- pat John abs snowmobile obj buy 4sg,itr,cond

Miki -φ quviasu(k)- -laaq- -puq Mike abs be happy future 3sg,itr,ind

'if John buys a snowmobile, Mike will be happy'

The nominal inflection of Inuktitut includes eight cases. The verbal inflection consists of agreement and mood marking. Each of these in turn falls into two distinct groups: Agreement markings either are intransitive and link the verb to one participant or are transitive and express relations to two participants. The moods specify whether the verbal complex belongs to the matrix clause (indicative, nominal participle and "participative", imperative, interrogative) or to a dependent clause (participle, causative, conditional).

3.2.3. Minimal sentences

The often extremely complicated form of words in Inuktitut could lead to the impression that conversation for the most part consists of very complex words or one-word sentences. This assumption, however, is certainly false. By formal criteria, it can be clearly determined what a word is and what constituents it has. The same is true of the sentence. Yet following semantic and especially lexical criteria, a word or sentence is much more difficult to define. In German, for example, the semantic and lexical word boundary does not always coincide with the formal word boundary in the case of nonlexicalized compositions, that is, spontaneous constructions of the type Salatschlange, lit. 'salad line', 'line waiting at the salad bar'. Since in Inuktitut nearly all the words in the sentence constitute such nonlexicalized spontaneous derivations, the formal word boundary almost never agrees with the semantic boundary. Particularly in translation, which is important for


analyzing the semantics, a synthetic word almost always corresponds to a phrase or subordinate clause.

On the other hand, it is easy to determine the word boundary formally, employing well-known tests: substitution and movement in the sentence, final position of case marking or verbal inflection. It is therefore irrelevant whether two expressions like

(28) piqsiqtillugu

(29) maquktillugu (Mallon 1986a: Sec.II,10)

must be translated into both English and German with a phrase; in Inuktitut each is clearly a single word:

(281) piqsiqtillugu piqsiq -tillugu blizzard 4sg,itr,part 'while it was "blizzarding"'

(29') maquktillugu maquk -tillugu rain 4sg4tr,part 'while it was raining'

(30) piqsiqtillugu tildlauqtuq piqsiq -tillugu tiki- -lauq- -tuq blizzard 4sg,itr,part arrive past 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he arrived while it was "blizzarding"

(31) maquktillugu aullalauqtuq maquk -tillugu aulla(q)- -lauq- -tuq rain 4sg,itr,part leave past 3sg,itr,nom part 'while it was raining s/he left'

Sentences (30) and (31) each consist of two verbal complexes, one of which - piqsiqtillugu or maquktillugu - is shown to be subordinated to the other by the use of the participial mood. Consequently, neither of these verbal complexes could appear alone as an independent sentence. They are probably appropriate as minimal dependent clauses, however, taking into account that matrix verbs may be just implied. The other two verbal complexes, which are in the nominal participle mood, are true minimal sentences:

(32) tikilauqtuq tiki- -lauq- -tuq arrive past 3sg,itr,nom part ^ e arrived'


(33) aullalauqtuq aulla(q)- -lauq- -tuq leave past 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he left'

Similarly, the nominal participle forms

(34) piqsiqtuq piqsiq -tuq blizzard 3sg,itr,ind 'it "blizzards", a blizzard is occurring'

(35) maquktuq maquk -tuq rain 3sg,itr 'it rains'

would be possible minimal sentences.

The question of word boundaries leads directly to the syntactic processes of Inuktitut. This is clear insofar as syntactic forms, functions, and relations are marked on the word, particularly the verbal complex, and insofar as complex words, which regularly contain syntactic formatives, exhibit clauselike behavior.

A minimal sentence can consist of a single fully formed verbal complex, without overt nominal constituents. Personal pronouns appear only in exclamations and answers, or for reason of emphasis.

(36) tikittuq tikit- -tuq arrive 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he arrives'

(37) uqaalavigilaaqtagit uqaalavigi- -laaq- -tagit call fut lsg/2sg,tr,nom part 'I'll call you up'

(38) kina? uvanga! •Who? Me!'

As exclamations or fragmentary answers - as is common in English and German - nominal expressions can appear alone:


(39) kina tikilauqpa? Saraup ataatanga kina tiki- -lauq- -pa Sara -up ataata -nga who arrive past 3sg,interr Sara erg father 3sg,poss 'who has just arrived? Sara's father.'

However, such so-called incomplete sentences are associated with very limited colloquial speech contexts, just as in Indo-European languages. A normal, complete sentence is made up either of a verbal complex in one of the matrix moods indicative, interrogative, or imperative or of several constituents arranged in a hierarchical structure. It must be observed in this connection that the sentence constitutes a second layer of relations above that of the complex words. Still, Inuktitut sentences are almost always shorter than their translations, since many adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, even modals and aspects are integrated into synthetic words.

To summarize, the minimal sentence in Inuktitut is composed of a finite verb in an independent mood. Inflectional endings reveal both the mood and person(s) of the verb. Next to filling out a sentence with nominal constituents, one can also introduce verbal constituents that may appear only if dependent on a matrix verb. These verbal complexes feature subordinate moods and are distinguished from matrix verbs by their inflection. Yet their relation to the matrix verb is just as clear. Of course, these verbal complexes can likewise bear the addition of nominal constituents. In translation, subordinated verbal complexes take the form of dependent clauses. In the following, I will begin by discussing the matrix verbs and the noun phrases occurring with them.

3.2.4. The matrix clause

In order to prevent misunderstandings, I would like to remind the reader that the sketch below is meant only as a first introduction to the problem and will provide the basis for the critical discussion to follow.

To better reveal the individuality of Inuktitut sentence structure, I would like to begin with a brief outline of a widely accepted understanding of the notion "basic sentence structure".

An English or German sentence exhibits the basic structure

S[NP - VP] It consists of at least one nominal constituent NP and one verbal constituent VP, which in traditional linguistics are called "subject" and "predicate".

If one wants to avoid these traditional terms, one can describe the structure shown above formally, thus:


An English or German sentence consists of at least a noun phrase and a verb phrase that agree with each other and occur at the same hierarchical level. This noun phrase differs from other possible nominal constituents in being hierarchically the highest; it is dominated directly by S.

Important for the coming discussion are the following aspects: 1. the fundamental presupposition of the duality of the sentence, which consequently is composed of at least a nominal and a verbal component 2. the interpretation of the sentence as hierarchically structured. According to this idea, there is a highest noun phrase and a highest verb phrase.33 All other elements in the sentence are in hierarchy lower than these highest constituents or are dependent on them. Thus, direct and indirect objects are complements or adjuncts of the verb; in graphic representation they are dominated by the VP. The verb - the head of the verb phrase - is marked transitive

VP[V - NP]

or intransitive

VP[V]

in the lexicon.

(40) sleep: V [ J John sleeps

(41) write: V[_NP{_NP}] John writes letters John writes many people letters

Now, from a formal syntactic point of view the noun phrase immediately dominated by S is distinguished from those dominated by VP in that it agrees with the head of VP, whereas the noun phrases subordinated to VP do not.

In contrast to the English situation, there is in Inuktitut a finite vert) form which agrees with two noun phrases. This form is referred to in the literature as transitive, opposed to the so-called intransitive verb form, which agrees with only one noun phrase. Henceforth, when transitive or intransitive verb forms for Inuktitut are mentioned, the following is meant: There exist two fully discrete conjugational patterns in Inuktitut. Intransitive verbs agree with one noun phrase; transitive verbs agree with two noun phrases. In both instances case is assigned structurally but is dependent on transitive or intransitive inflection. These two paradigms are, it must be emphasized, strictly differentiated and noninterchangeable, and bring with them crucial consequences for the entire further construction of the sentence. If the matrix verb is intransitive, it is then predetermined which case will be assigned and in what form subordinate constituents must appear; the same is true of the transitive paradigm.


An intransitive verb agrees with one noun phrase. The inflectional ending contains information as to person and number:

(42) -punga -putit -puq

lsg itr ind 2sg itr ind 3sg itr ind ...

(43) ataata tikippuq ataata -φ tiki(t)-father abs arrive 'the father arrives'

-puq 3sg,itr,ind

The intransitive verb assigns case to the hierarchically equal noun phrase, namely, absolutive case (-0).

A transitive verb agrees with two noun phrases; in other words, its inflectional ending specifies two participants, their relation to each other, and their number:

(44) takuvara taku-see 1 see it'

-vara lsg/3sg,tr,ind

takuvait taku-see 'you see it'

takuvanga taku-see ^ e sees it'

-vait 2sg/3sg,tr,ind

-vanga 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

qimmiq takuvara qimmiq -φ taku-dog abs see Ί see the dog'

-vara lsg/3sg,tr,ind

inuit inu(k) person Ί see people'

takuvakka -it taku-pi,abs see

-vakka lsg/3pl,tr,ind

32. A traditional description cf Inuktitut 45

The finite transitive matrix verb assigns both noun phrases case: the absolutive case and the ergative (= relative) case maiked by -up:

(45) angutiup nanuq takuvanga angut(i) -up nanuq -φ taku- -vanga man, erg bear2 abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

he,-him2

'the m a n ^ sees the bear^'

In the English or German translation, the "other" person whose relation is marked on the verb in Inuktitut invariably appears as an object, usually in the accusative. It is for this reason that verb forms with double agreement arc called transitive. This term implies that the "other person" is an object in Inuktitut, as well.

The noun phrase of an intransitive sentence receives the unmarked case from the finite verb; the two noun phrases of a transitive sentence obtain ergative case (-up) and absolutive case, respectively.

As noted already in section 3.2.2, Inuktitut has all in all eight cases at its disposal. Whereas the absolutive and ergative both agree with the verb, the other cases do not Ergative case can be assigned only by a transitive verb. The remaining cases mark complements or adjuncts of the verb and can be employed in either transitive or intransitive sentences.

This syntactic level of description must be provided with a semantic interpretation. Which semantic roles are assumed by the cases that the finite verb assigns?

absolutive -0 THEME ergative -up AGENT objective -mik THEME/INSTRUMENT tenninalis -mut LOCATIVE/GOAL/AGENT 'to' ablative -mit SOURCE/(AGENT) 'from' locative -mi LOCATIVE 'in' vialis -kkut - LOCATIVE/fig.MOTION 'through' similiaris -titut - SIMILARITY 'like'

Whereas the semantic role of the ergative case can be definitively identified as AGENT, the semantic roles of the absolutive and objective are determined primarily by the fact that they are decidedly nonagentive. True, the objective also serves as instrumental, but its primary function is to mark the subordinate nominal constituent in the intransitive sentence:

(46) Jaani sikitumik niuviqpuq34

Jaani -φ sikitu -mik niuviq- -puq John abs snowmobile obj buy 3sg,/7r,ind 'John buys a snowmobile*


The unmarked case, which occurs equally in transitive and intransitive sentences and always agrees with the verb, is distinguished by its semantic vacuity. This emptiness lends itself to the appellation "theme", by which the noun in this case is known. Its position when opposite the case in -up is clear the noun in the unmarked case could not possibly be the agent of the sentence. This role is reserved for the ergative case.

The unusual nature of Inuktitut argument structure is most starkly revealed when contrasted with the argument structure of a nominative-accusative language like English or German.

German, as a nominative-accusative language, exhibits a correlation between syntactic function and case - a case hierarchy - of the following sort:

subject NP [SNP]: nominative direct object [VPNP]: accusative indirect object [VPNP]: dative

This hierarchy must be taken as a probable ranking, a default rule, not an exceptionless pattern; not every subject in German takes nominative case.35

The case hierarchy is related to a second hierarchy linking semantic role assignment with case. Here, too, there is no absolute correlation between cases and semantic roles, only frequency of co-occurrence. This is in itself no surprise since cases in German are not primarily semantically determined. However, the resultant associations reflect high probabilities. Hierarchically the highest ranked in German is the semantic role AGENT, followed by THEME, GOAL, and LOCATIVE. This gives the following pattern:

AGENT THEME GOAL LOC Subject DO 10 OblO

One should bear in mind that the highest case in the hierarchy, the subject case, is the unmarked (-0) case; in German, too, all other cases are considered marked, even when these markings must be reconstructed. This is relatively easy in German with its declined articles.

These correlations among syntactic function, semantic roles, and case do not have the force of laws; still, they are so probable that they are used in formulating a default rule for German. Of fundamental importance in this connection is the correlation

NPS - 0(=nom) - AGENT NPVP - acc/dat - THEME/GOAL

NP ACC

NP DAT

NP Prep (Wunderlich 1985: 192)

Languages following this scheme are called nominative-accusative languages.


If one looks for similar correlations among syntactic function, semantic interpretation, and case marking for Inuktitut, an entirely different picture emerges.

For clarification, let us discuss the standard example that is always brought up in the literature:

(47) arnaq takuvuq arnaq -φ taku- -vuq woman abs see 3sg,itr,ind 'the woman sees'

This simple intransitive sentence exhibits all desired features, namely, - a noun phrase without case marking - a verbal phrase that agrees with this noun phrase, in the manner of subject

and predicate The transitive sentence should then contain a second noun phrase in a marked case, in other words, a direct object:

(48) angutiup arnaq takuvanga angut(i) -up arnaq -φ taku- -vanga man erg woman abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

The reader is reminded that the transitive verb agrees with both noun phrases. One might now conclude that, since in the transitive sentence arnaq appears in exactly the same form as in the intransitive sentence, angutiup must be the complement of the verb. The interpretation of (48) should then be:

(49) *'the woman sees the man'

(47) arnaq takuvuq woman (she) sees

(48) angutiup arnaq takuvanga man woman see-

(49) *the woman sees the man *(arnaq) takuvanga *(angutiup)

However, this interpretation is entirely wrong; it is actually the man who sees the woman:

(50) angutiup arnaq takuvanga angut(i) -up arnaq -φ taku- -vanga man erg woman abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind AGENT he-her man woman he sees her 'the man sees the woman'


The semantic role AGENT is assigned by the finite transitive verb to the noun phrase bearing ergative case (realized in the ending -up).

The noun phrase in the absolutive case is never structurally assigned the semantic role AGENT.36 Thus, returning to the intransitive sentence, it is possible to infer that the intransitive subject structurally does not bear the semantic role AGENT.

Sitr [NP -0 -AGENT

Str [NP -up +AGENT

V] itr

NP - V] -0 tr -AGENT

Consequently, an intransitive sentence is fundamentally a sentence without an agentive argument. In this regard it is necessary to consider two aspects. Traditional understanding of "transitive" or "intransitive" continually refers to the extension of the intransitive sentence with an object. This assumption presupposes the well-known pattern

S [NP - VP[V - NP]] Subject - Predicate - Object

and triggers a whole array of consequences. From it is derived the assumption that the simplest sentence in Inuktitut must be a sentence without an agent; therefore, Inuktitut must be an "actorless" or "nonactive" language. If we accept this conclusion, it seems to be a necessary consequence that the agent-phrase then must be the direct object.

Next, the question arises as to which of the two noun phrases, the one with or the one without case marking, should be considered the subject, and which the object. This in turn brings up other questions: Is the intransitive sentence subjectless, because it is nonagentive? Must the subject bear the actor role? Can the unmarked noun phrase be the subject in an intransitive sentence yet the object in a transitive sentence?

To better evaluate the contemporary discussion regarding the degree of ergativity in various Inuit languages, it is illuminating to become aware of certain problems in the history of grammar writing. This prepares the ground for a better understanding of the linguistic data whose interpretation will be undertaken anew. Eventually, two questions will prove to be of central importance: (1) What does "transitivity" mean for Inuktitut? (2) What role does the subject play; what indicates that it is the subject?

32. A traditional description of InuJaitut 49

The matrix clause in Inuktitut can be either transitive or intransitive. The intransitive finite verb agrees with one noun phrase and assigns it absolutive case. This case bears the semantic role THEME. The transitive finite verb agrees with two noun phrases and assigns one of them ergative (relative) case. This case always bears the semantic role AGENT; the other noun phrase is assigned absolutive case.

Chapter 4 Historiography

4.1. A look at the history of the discipline

"grammatica una et eadem est secundum substanciam in omnibus linguis licet accidentaliter varietur..." [grammatica is one and the same in all languages although there are accidental variations.]37

That grammar is one and the same thing in all languages can be interpreted in two ways: It can mean that all languages basically have the same structure, notwithstanding the variations mentioned in the quotation. But it can also mean that grammar as a scientific theory and as an instrument for the description of languages is the same for all languages, and that it indeed must be so. Only then is it possible to compare languages as an aspect of research; only with shared terminology is scientific discourse possible regarding a language, and regarding Language as a general human attribute.

The grammatica has two sources, a philosophical one and a language-describing one. The demand for a unified language of sciences arises explicitly and urgently in the early nineteenth century, as the comparison of languages gained a different status within linguistics. But it must be noted that historical-comparative linguistics did not draw upon the already existing rationalist understanding of universal grammar, but rather must be viewed upon the background of other traditions.38 The question of the shared nature of language and whether there should be different grammars for different languages, thus how much attention to pay to the "variations", had already been raised long before. Yet amazingly enough, this question had never gained real theoretical importance but was primarily viewed as a more or less practical problem, namely the descriptive problem connected with the attempts at a grammatical representation of European vernaculars.39

Grammars of individual European languages other than Latin date back to the thirteenth century. It should be observed that Roger Bacon himself, who with the above citation is often held up as a typical defender of universal grammar, displays a much differentiated attitude with respect to method. Bacon apparently had much more interest in developing a general linguistic methodology than in proving foundation on a universal grammar: Hovdhaugen (1990) shows that Bacon understands under grammatica the means of scientifically investigating various languages, not universal grammar. However, Bacon does take an unusual stance which in his day was not appreciated. Even much later in the tradition of rationalist grammar, reflection on the diversity of languages was not of importance, especially not

52 4. Historiography

as far as methodological considerations are concerned. Although linguistic descriptions were directed chiefly at practical needs, scientific discussion turned on the philosophical motivation for grammar and a mutual dependence or influence was not a matter to be considered. The "parts of speech" and the descriptive categories were viewed as naturally motivated:

Aprfes avoir confu les choses par nos idles, nous comparons ces idles ensemble, et, trouvant que les unes conviennent entre elles, et que les autres ne conviennent pas, nous les lions ou delions, ce qui s'appelle affirmer ou nier, et general ement jug er. Ce jugement s'appelle aussi proposition, et il est aise de voir qu'elle doit avoir deux termes: l'un de qui l'on affirme, ou de qui l'on nie, lequel on appelle sujet, et l'autre que l'on affirme, ou que l'on nie, lequel s'appelle attribut ou prxdicatum. [After we have imagined the things through our ideas, we compare these ideas with one another, and since we find that some accord with each other and others do not, we link or separate them, which means saying yes or no and generally judging. This judgment is also called 'sentence', and it is easy to recognize that it must have two parts: the one in relation to which yes or no is said and which is termed the 'subject'; and the other of which yes or no is said and which is termed the 'attribute' or 'predicate'.] (Amauld [1685] 1865: 121).

The motivation for the assumption that languages are essentially alike is of a philosophical nature. It is derived from the assumption that language reflects things and their properties and consequently cannot be totally arbitrary; the combination of individual expressions follows the laws of logic.40 Thus, language and its sentences can not at all be subject to the arbitrariness of individual variations such as single languages (isolated mechanisms); nor can each language be the expression of a different imagination or even perception, or tied to other rules such as general rules of logic. Variations among languages could not be denied, as a result of their diverse phonetic manifestations, but they were essentially viewed as limited to sound systems and to different "name giving", in other words, vocabulary. That these more or less accidental variations were not considered particularly interesting is hardly surprising. When differences in word order and later inflection were taken notice of, they were described in terms of aberration and defectiveness: Typological reasoning was hampered by nationalistic evaluations and racism, which were to a great extent irrational, superficial esthetic arguments that merely voiced contemporary prejudices like the "ordre naturel".41 For this reason, descriptions of individual languages were long regarded as having no scientific or theoretical significance whatsoever, and grammars written in a rationalist framework hardly ever made reference to the diversity of languages or attempted a comparison. Rationalist grammar did not reflect upon diversity as a necessary part of the unity of all languages.

In contrast, the discussion of universal grammar was given full play from the modistae to the rationalists, and also directly affected the description of

4.1. A look at the history of the discipline 53

individual languages.42 The structure of the language and the organization of grammar into the parts of speech and were viewed as almost entirely invariant, as part of universal grammar. The categories of grammar were the categories of language, or perhaps the other way around: the categories of language and of thought were represented in grammar. Since these categories were thought to be established on objective grounds, any more than superficial variation among languages was not to be talked of. It followed directly that all languages had to fill the categories of grammar. As a further result, these categories were themselves never brought into question in discussions of method. Instead, debate centered on how the categories could be filled. The resultant listings of "variations" were compiled primarily for didactic purposes and were often oriented towards the teaching of Latin.

Jellinek's history of New High German grammar writing (1968 [1913]) shows how this universal grammar, which in its concrete application was focused on Latin grammar, was set loose on German:

Was den Schematismus betrifft, handelte es sich um eine einfache Vertauschung von Lemma und Glosse. Hatte man in den lateinischen Büchern α domo durch von dem hause übersetzt, so glossierte man jetzt von dem hause durch α domo. Auf diese Weise sind also die Ablative, Optative, die Verbindungen der Nominalfonmen des Verbs mit Hilfsverben, die Verbindung des Nomens mit dem Artikel, des Veibums mit dem Pronomen in die Paradigmen der deutschen Grammatik gekommen. [As far as schematism goes, it consisted of nothing more than a simple exchange of lemma and gloss. If in the Latin section one had translated α domo as 'from the house', one now glossed from the house as 'a domo'. It was in this manner that the ablative, the optative, the linkage of nominal forms of the verb with auxiliaries, that of the noun with the article, and that of the verb with the pronoun came into the paradigms of German grammar.] (Jellinek 1968: 37-38).

These early grammars of German stemmed from the teaching grammars that were supposed to facilitate pupils' learning of Latin: originally one had sought a German paraphrase for the Latin expression and thus arrived at German translations of Latin grammar, a Latin grammar in German. Almost automatically the recognition dawned that German, too, which had up to now been considered a vulgar, primitive idiom, exhibited regularities that were compatible with the categories of universal grammar and allowed the paradigms of grammar to be filled without major difficulties. All early German grammars were composed in Latin; only much later did the first German grammars appear in German.

The idea of direct transferability of lemma and gloss determined the practice of many centuries. Besides vernacular grammars another tradition must be mentioned that relied heavily on this idea: compilations of words or short texts often represented a first approach to hitherto unknown languages. From the sixteenth century onwards, these compilations were systematically


structured into collections of samples of languages and carried out for as many languages as possible to make a direct comparison possible. Adelung (1806) took up this method and honored his predecessor Gesner (1555) by reviving the name of Mithridates again.

Similarly, the earliest documentations of an Inuit language date back to the sixteenth century and are concerned with Greenlandic and the language spoken by the people then living on what is now called Baffin Island and which had been named "Meta Incognita" by Martin Frobisher.43 A few years later John Davis followed Frobisher and in the journal of the second voyage (1586) which led Davis from Southern Greenland to Meta Incognita and south to Estotiland (Labrador), a list of forty words and expressions is given.44 Olearius (1656: 163-179) gives a list of one hundred words and in the seventh volume of the Atlas Danicus by Peder Hansen Resen (1677) an extensive word list is contained.45 Dorais (1980) discusses two anonymous word lists dating 1717 and 1730 that contain words of the language spoken by Inuit taken prisoner at the southern coast of Labrador. Considerably more extensive and not restricted to vocabulary are the records of the Greenland missionaries, who settled there at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The Norwegian pastor Hans Egede founded his first settlement near modern Nuuk in 1721; a good ten years later the Moravian missionaries Christian David and Matthäus and Christian Stach settled not far away.46

Investigation of the Greenlandic language preoccupied the missionaries of necessity. Hans Egede's Dictionarium of 1725 bears witness to the enormous difficulties with which Egede and his aide Albert Top had to struggle. But it also clearly illuminates the procedure used in organizing its contents, since, despite its name, the Dictionarium included grammatical forms.

The 'Formula Conjugandi', primarily a paradigm of the verb 'negli(g)punga' (I love) (...) clearly is modelled on the traditional Latin Grammar famo' etc.) .... The primary classification in terms of moods, rather than tenses, is in agreement with elementary Latin grammars of the time .... To the traditional Latin moods, however, is correctly added the Modus Interrogativus, unknown from the classical languages, but also a Modus Dubitativus and a Modus Optativus, which later turned out to be derivatives.... the mood as such was not yet recognized,47 being not so easy to elicit in terms of Latin or Danish grammar. The method of elicitation is evident also from the treatment of the tenses, which include various derivatives as variants of simpler forms (Bergsland-Rischel 1986: 18).

Albert Top spent four years in Greenland, from 1723 to 1727. During this time he traveled regularly to smaller camps in the neighborhood of the missionary station at Häbets 0 near what is today Nuuk. He is responsible for a quite comprehensive study,48 which along with a word list by Hans Egede from the year 1722 and his Dictionarium of 1725 was published by Knut Bergsland and J0rgen Rischel in 1986 with an extensive preface. The editors not only compare the three earliest documents on the Greenlandic

4.1. A look at the history of the discipline SS

language with one another, but also point out later works. It thereby becomes more than clear to what terminological chaos the use of traditional terms can lead, an unfortunate tradition that still survives today.49 Later grammars also suffer from this problem, including Paul Egede's grammar of 1760, which Kleinschmidt called "trailblazing" and valued highly. Time and again it is the classic European "parts of speech" that are applied, in spite of all the difficulties entailed by doing so.

The Moravian missionaries also penned several grammars of Greenlandic; these grammars are particularly interesting because they are the first of a large number of grammars that the Moravian missionaries produced on languages from all over the world. In addition, these first grammars became the basis for the description of other Inuit languages, especially in Labrador and Alaska. Christian David's manuscripts are scarcely more than notes, unsystematic and probably in part copied from the material that Egede had made available to the Moravians. Johann Beck's grammaticalische Einleitung zur Erlernung der grönländischen Sprache (1755), in contrast, fully earns the name "grammar", although it, too, does contain a large dictionarylike section. Paul Egede, the son of Hans Egede, published a grammar in Copenhagen in 1760, the first published grammar of Greenlandic. This grammar for the most part built on the manuscripts of his father and Albert Top; Paul Egede himself had worked for his father as a translator since childhood. To complete the list of grammars, let us include the following: Königseer (1777), Fabricius (1791), and lastly Kleinschmidt (1851). Kleinschmidt's grammar, a truly exceptional work, will be discussed separately in the next section.

All the early grammars have in common that they adhere to the pattern of the Latin-based grammatica, seeking in Greenlandic its parts of speech and also those aspects of grammar associated with them, such as case, tense, mood, and voice. Since these categories are at least not applicable in the usual way, extremely strange representations of the language constantly appear in the grammars. As a result of his nearly perfect knowledge of the language, Paul Egede is able to give the most differentiated descriptions, as when he remarks that pronouns are only sometimes free forms, being mostly affixes - "pronomina sunt vel separata vel affixa" (1760: 60) - or that gender is not a factor in Greenlandic. But his grammar too is organized strictly along the lines of the grammatica.

How compelling the descriptive framework provided by the grammatica was can be seen especially clearly in the treatment of verbs. Even Egede believed he had to establish a tense system (1760: 71), and other authors as well arranged the verbal paradigm of their grammars around tense. Since Greenlandic, like Inuktitut, expresses temporal aspect via derivational affixes and not in the inflectional ending, the result is that under the various subconjugational headings the same forms appear each time.


The problem of bringing the actual forms of the language into harmony with the grammatical schema was always solved in the same way: the schema invariably determined the manner of description, and the language was fitted into it. Beck, for example, adopts the Latin case system lock, stock, and barrel. Königseer, although he observes that in Greenlandic the passive is marked by an independent affix rather than being contained in the inflectional ending as in Latin, nonetheless gives two columns, entitled "active" and "passive", which do not include the forms derived by affixation; instead, both columns contain the exact same inflected forms.

All the authors were struck by the language's idiosyncratic habit of employing a wide variety of affixes. Yet none of them reserved more space for this phenomenon than an occasional mention.

Conspicuous is not only the rigor with which the model of grammar is applied; conspicuous are also those desperate formulations that on the one hand attempt to do justice to this schema but on the other dramatically illuminate its inappropriateness. Thus, Beck writes: "Nomen Adjectivum werden gemeiniglich durch Präteritum ausgesprochen, welches participialiter i.e. mit -tok und -pok gebraucht wird." [The nomen adjectivum is commonly expressed by the praeteritum, which is used participially, i.e., with -tok and -pok] (1755).so Behind this tangled declaration stands the problem of the so-called nominal participle (to be discussed in detail later)51 and the question of whether it should be interpreted as nominal or verbal. Königseer is likewise aiming in this direction when he writes that "auxiliaries" are never used with verbs but rather with nouns as verbalizers. The inappropriateness and insufficiency of the categories and parameters stands out alarmingly at this point. These early grammatical descriptions, which blindly follow the schematism of traditional Latin grammar, make it clear just where the limits of its effectiveness, that is, its descriptive and explanatory adequacy, lie. Not a few of these misleading interpretations have been retained in later grammars or have even been supplemented by comparable new ones.

The old grammars written before 1850 also follow the grammatica in making no statements on syntax. Consequently, the information relevant to current questions on verbal inflection (transitivity) or the case system (ergativity) can be utilized in only two ways: 1. with respect to possible diachronic change, one can check whether certain grammatical forms were already present 2. from the standpoint of the history of science, one can ask what sort of "career" the phenomena discussed today have had and how they were interpreted within an implicit syntactic system.

Although the basic syntactic categories prevalent today, such as subject and direct object, are lacking in these grammars, one can be certain that the sentence structure determined by them is (and was) so fundamental that it

4.1. A look at the history of the discipline 57

held full sway. The direct adoption of case names and their application demonstrates this fact.

In the previous chapter I gave a first sketch of Inuktitut. With it, I wanted above all to give the reader a first impression of the peculiarity of the language. For this reason, I consciously employed the traditional categories of grammar, although their suitability for this purpose is limited.

In this chapter, I hope to show how these categories are historically conditioned and how they arose out of a fully isolable intellectual and cultural climate. This should demonstrate that they need not be treated as permanent and inalterable. In the next section I will present Kleinschmidt's grammar and thereby give an example of what a change in the basic grammatical categories can look like.

Building upon this, I will then subject to critical analysis the provisional representation of Inuktitut that relied so heavily on the classic grammatical categories. Today, much as in Arnauld's day, there is a strong tendency in linguistics to presume that grammatical categories and syntactic structures are universal rather than to view them as descriptive tools, as axioms or working hypotheses, after the manner of Bacon. This is particularly true of the basic categories: word, sentence, noun, verb, subject, predicate, object. Case and verb inflection, as indicators of intrasentential relationships, might also be added to the list, albeit with restrictions. We take it for granted that every language can be captured with these basic categories of linguistic description and that any exceptional properties they might have are "only" variations on the norm. This assumption is consciously formulated in any theory that earnestly follows the hypothesis of universal grammar; from it is derived the distinction between the core grammar (UG) and the periphery. Such an attitude is on the one hand methodologically necessary; it is prerequisite to being able to describe languages at all. But on the other hand it is methodologically dangerous, since the possibility arises that it may cross the line to prejudice and thereby block problems from being solved, or even create problems. The probability of such a dilemma arising grows with application of the theory to languages that are strange to us. Even if we are conscious today of the variability of language, we are still inclined to employ categories without perceiving that they represent a viewpoint which has grown by historical accretion. Understanding of this fact relativizes the first of the two aspects: On the one hand, the apparent dilemma between necessity and prejudice is explained as a natural process of recognition. On the other hand, the axiomatic character of the categories should not be taken to the extreme of claiming that they are the only reasonable or even the only possible ones.

In this connection, research into the history of linguistics takes on special importance as a source of elucidation. It can document how concepts that


were developed to describe a particular language infiltrated the description of other, possibly entirely different languages and determined its course. Thus, it is possible to trace the development, reinterpretation, and generalization that these notions underwent; their dynamics become easier to understand.

4.2. Samuel Kleinschmidt's grammar

The turning point in the writing of Greenlandic grammars came with the publication of Samuel Kleinschmidt's grammar in 1851. Not only did Kleinschmidt observe all the essential properties of Greenlandic with great clarity; he also managed to free his grammar of the schematism of Latin grammar on important points. Kleinschmidt was well aware of this and dwelled it in the introduction of his grammar. Toward the grammars available in his day he assumed a very distant attitude. With the exception of Paul Egede, he charged most of his forerunners with insufficient knowledge of the language. Furthermore, Kleinschmidt thought the concepts and categories used by them unsuitable:

Mehr jedoch kann in dieser hinsieht jetzt erwartet werden, wo man beides das eigentümliche und das verwandte verschiedener sprachen zu unterscheiden besser gelernt hat, und sollte daher der wesentlichste unterschied zwischen jenen früheren grammatiken und der gegenwärtigen darin bestehen, dass der ausgangspunkt, statt bei jenen europäisch, bei dieser grönländisch ist. [However, more [than from pre-1845 grammars - Ε. N.] can now be expected in this regard, where one has better learned to distinguish idiosyncrasy from relatedness in various languages, and therefore the essential difference between those earlier grammars and the present should be that the point of departure, instead of being European (as is the case with them), here is Greenlandic.] (1851: V).

This "Greenlandic standpoint" essentially amounts to the following aspects: - Kleinschmidt does not just recognize the polysynthetic character of

Greenlandic and leave it at that; he adds to his grammar a section concerned with mechanisms of word formation and calls it "Synthesis".

- In accommodating his grammar to polysynthesis, he relativizes the notion of what a word is - not a fixed, complete unit, but rather a form to be created according to the need of the moment. He takes up the distinction between nouns and verbs from a morphological point of view, separating "stems" from "stems with dependent concept", which "require another stem as a support or extension" (1851: 10); stems are also divided into those that "can be immediately applied" and those that need a "formative" (ausbildungszusatz) that "transforms them into verbs" (1851: ll).52

- Kleinschmidt unshackles himself completely from the traditional notion of verbal inflection, since he recognizes the optionality of tense marking. It is no longer the system of tenses that is used as a descriptive parameter, but

42. Samuel Kleinschmidt's grammar 59

rather the relation of different persons to each other, in the form of transitive and intransitive marking. Kleinschmidt characterizes these two paradigms morphologically as "with or without suffix", respectively. Similarly, he divides the various moods, which crosscut the transitive/intransitive distinction, into "independent" and "dependent".

A good third of Kleinschmidt's grammar is dedicated to syntax. It is the first detailed analysis of the sentence structure of an Inuit language and in many respects quite remarkable. Just the fact that Kleinschmidt paid so much attention to syntax is unusual for his time; the manner in which he treats it is even more so.

Kleinschmidt stubbornly avoids the traditional terms "subject", "object", and "predicate". Instead, he introduces the neutral term "project". In an explanatory remark he writes:

Da man unter der benennung "subject" gewöhnlich im allgemeinen denjenigen gegenständ versteht, von welchem - auf die Frage: wer? - im satz die rede ist, gleichviel ob derselbe ein object hat oder nicht, so ist hier ein- für allemal zu bemerken, dass im grönl. ein subject ohne object undenkbar ist. Darum, und weil die benennung "subject" hier ausserdem auch für den besitzer in ansprach genommen ist, so ist im folgenden überall, wo der (auf die frage: wer? stehende) gegenständ der rede im allgemeinen und ohne rücksicht auf ein etwaniges object gemeint ist, dafür die benennung "project" angewendet. Daraus, dass subjective form und suffix unzertrennlich zusammengehören, folgt unter andern, dass das project solcher redewörter, die kein suffix haben, objective form hat [Since under the name 'subject' one usually means the element that the sentence is about - in answer to the question 'who?' - whether or not it has an object, it must be remarked here for once and for all that in Greenlandic a subject without an object is unthinkable. For this reason, and additionally because here the name 'subject' is taken up by the possessor, henceforth wherever the individual that is the topic of conversation (the answer to the question 'who?') is intended in general and without regard for the possibility of an object, the name 'project' will be used. From the fact that subjective form and suffix belong inseparably together, it follows, among other things, that the project of such verbs as have no suffix has objective form] (1851: 15).

While "with suffix" and "without suffix" refer to transitive and intransitive inflection, "subjective" and "objective" to him refer to cases; thus, a project can have either "subjective" or "objective" form (case):

S i t I : Projectobjecüvc -

S* : Projectsubjectiw - Project«*^ - Vtt

The relationships of the individual constituents to one another Kleinschmidt attempts to express in hierarchies; in so doing he makes use of the traditional terms "casus rectus", "casus versus", and "casus obliquus".53

The "dependent supplements" to the predicate can be either of a verbal sort - the "dependent" moods that create verb forms comparable to our dependent


clauses - or of a nominal sort; at the moment, we are interested in the latter. These supplements to the verb take obliques cases, which Kleinschmidt calls modalis,54 terminalis, localis, ablative, and vialis (1851: 15). Of interest is the representation of the transitive sentence with its double project relationship:

Project 1 - Project 2 - Predicate casus rectus casus versus

Kleinschmidt explicitly assumed that one of the projects is subordinated to the other: one appears in the casus rectus, the other in the casus versus (1851: 65). Beyond that, it is clearly of particular interest which marking is borne by the project in the casus rectus and which by that in the casus versus.

In intransitive sentences, where no casus versus appears, the following distribution obtains:

Project - V "objective" itr. -Φ

Kleinschmidt emphasizes that the relation of casus rectus here exists between the sole project and the predicate.

In contrast to intransitive sentences, transitive sentences show this structure:

Project - Project - V "subjective" "objective" tr. -up -Φ

Here, the project in the subjective case stands in the casus rectus relation to the verb, while the project in the objective case is left with the relation of casus versus (1851: 66f.).

Thus, for Kleinschmidt the subjective project and the objective project stand in a relationship comparable to that of the nominative and genitive in German. This is an interesting interpretation, which draws on the possessor (-up) - possessum (-0) relationship also indicated by these cases. It must be noted that Kleinschmidt views the possessor marked -up as participating in a casus rectus relation, while the unmarked possessum appears as dependent noun phrase. This interpretation is highly problematic but marks an interesting attempt at dealing with ergativity.

It is important for the coming discussion that Kleinschmidt assumes that neither the project in subjective case nor the project in objective case is considered to be a casus obliquus and consequently cannot be considered subordinate to the predicate. However, it is likewise crucial that, as he clearly stresses, the project in an intransitive sentence bears objective case, as cited


above: "in Greenlandic a subject [in other words, the Project in subjective case of a transitive sentence - Ε. N.] without an object is unthinkable."

This means nothing less than that the project marked objective can very well occur alone as a single argument, namely, in intransitive sentences. Moreover, the subjective project can occur only in transitive sentences; viewed as an extension of the corresponding intransitive sentence, the transitive sentence must of course contain its project, namely, the project marked objective. This objective project as well as the other one marked subjective may take the explicit form of a noun with the case marking -φ or -up; or both projects may be expressed only implicitly in the verbal inflection, which incorporates relations to two persons: the noun phrase marked objective (as in the intransitive sentence) and the noun phrase marked subjective.

I would like to illustrate the nature of transitive and intransitive sentences with some concrete examples. A simple intransitive sentence exhibits the structure below:

(1) Projobj - Vitr

angut nirivuq angut -φ niri- -vuq man abs eat 3sg,itr,ind 'the man eats...'

A Projsub can occur only in transitive sentences:

(2) Projsub- Projobj - VP„ angutiup tuktu malikpanga angut(i) -up tuktu -φ man erg caribou abs 'the man follows the caribou'

A sentence like

(3) *angutiup nirivuq angut(i) -up niri man erg eat Subj 'the man eats'

is entirely ungrammatical; by contrast, a sentence in the corresponding transitive form

(4) angutiup nirivanga angut(i) -up niri- -vanga man erg eat 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the man eats it'

malik- -panga follow 3sg/3sg,tr4nd

-vuq 3sg,itr,ind


with an implicit objective project is perfectly all right. Its syntactic relations are just as unambiguous as in a sentence with an implicit subjective project, such as

niqi nirivanga niqi -φ niri- -vanga meat abs eat 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'he eats meat'

The transitive personal ending discloses the relation and number of the persons involved; even a sentence whose subjective and objective projects are both implicit.

nirivanga niri- -vanga eat 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 's/he eats it1

can never be ambiguous. This ambiguity is taken up and expressed by the two different case markings if the arguments are fully expressed

angutiup niqi nirivanga angut(i) -up niqi -φ niri- -vanga man erg meat abs eat 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the man eats the meat'

With exactitude and a good understanding of the language, Kleinschmidt distinguishes various levels of interpretation in the sentence structure: - a syntactic structure, which also includes the hierarchical relationships and

which is described using the terms "project" and "predicate" - the principal component of the latter being a verb (1851: 65) - "casus rectus", "casus versus", and "casus obliquus", as discussed above.

- a morphological structure pertaining to case and case marking: subjective, objective, and the other cases previously mentioned in the relation of "casus obliquus".55

- a semantic interpretation, wherein the subjective case designates the "action" and the "possessor", the objective case, the "goal of action" and the "possession" (1851: 69).

Kleinschmidt distinguishes syntactic relations and their hierarchical ordering along the lines of casus rectus, casus versus, and casus obliquus. They are to be separated from case marking as a morphological phenomenon. Finally, the syntactic as well as morphological components show semantic interpretations. The traditional, multifactorial concepts "subject" and "object" are split up into internal components, which are organized according to the differentiation of


syntax, morphology, and semantics. As far as the grammar of Greenlandic is concerned, its "parts of speech" can now be rearranged.

Almost unnoticed, Kleinschmidt declares the existence of a type of sentence structure that is very foreign to Indo-European comprehension: namely, a transitive sentence whose verb exhibits agreement with two noun phrases, which are hierarchically ordered - having casus versus - yet are not analyzed as complements of the verb. One of these two noun phrases (the one case-marked with -up) was characterized by Kleinschmidt as an "actor" or "possessor". Since this noun phrase cannot appear in intransitive sentences, these latter remain "actorless".

We can now see that Kleinschmidt must avoid the traditional terms "subject" and "object". In them are united those aspects that he so painstakingly distinguished, in such a way that it was impossible for him to apply them to Greenlandic. By the fact that Kleinschmidt does not view the syntactic structure as a single complex formation, but rather breaks it down into subparts, it becomes possible to show the differentness of Greenlandic. In this way, Kleinschmidt also indirectly demonstrates that "subject" and "object" stand for complex notions, in no sense primitives which can not be further analyzed. What thereby becomes equally clear is that these notions in their complexity exactly mirror the relations in sentences of Indo-European languages. The direct consequence for Kleinschmidt, therefore, is that he must steer clear of these concepts. However, he is forced to provide the European reader with a sufficient number of familiar concepts to allow him or her to interpret his analysis with ease, yet without losing track of the differentness of the language. Kleinschmidt attempts this with the case names "subjective" and "objective". But his terminology still remains so close to the traditional that the temptation to interpret the noun in the subjective case as the subject and that in the objective case as the object is very strong. As a result, the distinction introduced by Kleinschmidt was soon forgotten and replaced with the old system.

Kleinschmidt's course of giving up the traditional complex terms "subject" and "object" and instead breaking them down into subconcepts and then by the use of the neutral term "project" opening the way for entirely new outlooks on Greenlandic grammar could have had far-reaching consequences for linguistic theory. Implicitly he had not only shown the relativity of these elementary concepts, but simultaneously offered a new tool that could fill the conceptual gap and by virtue of its neutrality was considerably more effective than the old notions.

Although Kleinschmidt's accomplishment was lauded in his time, nevertheless the theoretical and conceptual innovations contained in his grammar, as well as the importance of the "Greenlandic standpoint" for linguistic method and theory in general, were not recognized as fundamental


developments and had essentially no effect on the later grammars and studies of Inuit languages, let alone on the development of "ergativity" as a typological concept.

4.3. Nominality

Kleinschmidt's endeavor to recast the structure of Greenlandic was not appreciated in its theoretical implications for the general descriptive repertoire of linguistics. The unconventionality of his grammar, which can scarcely have escaped his contemporaries, was most likely attributed to the idiosyncrasies of the Greenlandic language; and its theoretical and methodological implications were not perceived. The subsequent grammars and discussions represent a step backward from Kleinschmidt's grammar in that they revert to classical terminology. With the terminology, the classical expectations as to the structure of the language were revived - and so were the associated problems in dealing with the individuality of the language.

Still, later grammarians were more daring than those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The conviction that Eskimo languages were different led to rather adventurous use of the terminology. They nonetheless relied upon it unquestioningly. In their certainty that categories like "noun", "verb", "subject", and "object" were perfectly neutral and therefore applicable to any language, one finds a direct parallel to the security with which the early grammarians applied their temporal systems, for example. If the latter made the language appear extremely uniform with the same forms repeated over and over, the former made it look downright bizarre - but at least brought out its foreignness.

The treatment of this foreignness went through essentially two stages, which bear direct relationship to the general slant of linguistics at the respective time. These stages can be characterized by the titles "Nominality" and "Ergativity".

Under taxonomic-structuralist method, the peculiarity of Inuktitut or Kalaallisut could not have been described in any other way than with the "Nominalist Hypothesis". A syntactic viewpoint, in contrast, altered the perspective and led to an interpretation that put the spotlight on "ergativity". Yet both refer to the same phenomenon,56 which will be characterized at this point simply as the structural agentlessness of intransitive sentences.

Before the actual discussion of ergativity started up, the peculiar nature of Inuit languages gave issue to the "Nominalist Hypothesis":

§ 10. In our discussion here of stems and stem words we have not drawn any distinction between word classes as in other languages, not even between nouns and verbs. It is true that there occur noun-like and verb-like forms among constructed stem-words, just as the

43. Nominality 65

affixes may have the sense of nouns and verbs respectively, and impart that meaning to the stems when added to them. But the difference between the forms is quite small, and the words are formed with the same endings. Ulis would seem to show cleaily that the Greenlandic mind draws no decisive distinction between the two word dasses, but expresses itself by means of a single class, corresponding approximately to what we call nouns. The word uvdloq, day, and nerivoq, eating, i.e. he eats; uvdlut, days, and neriput, eating (in the plural), i.e. they eat; nuna, his country, and neriä, his eaten, i.e. he ate it, are so uniformly constructed that they must be regarded as belonging to one word class. The verb-like words have not then as in other languages the flowing, streaming, active sense required to connect two nouns or noun-like words, but they are limited, static, passive like nouns (Schultz-Lorentzen 1945: 17).

Schultz-Lorentzen's statements are characteristic of a whole series of reports on Inuit languages that for the most part appeared during the first half of this century.57 The best-known defenders of the Nominalist Hypothesis are Hammerich and Thalbitzer. The central idea of the Nominalist Hypothesis is, as the name says, that in Inuit languages there are no "genuine" verbs. The two most important arguments for this position are - the semantic characterization of verbs as "static" as opposed to "active" - the morphological similarity or identity of certain forms, for instance,

transitive inflection and possessive suffixes. This similarity of forms must have particularly caught the eye of linguists whose main interest was in the morphological structure of the language, as was typical of structuralists like Hammerich and Thalbitzer. In fact, not only in Greenlandic but also in Inuktitut the transitive verb paradigm and the possessive paradigm of nouns overlap to some extent.58 Seen from a purely taxonomic-morphological standpoint, there are but few points on which the two can be distinguished.

Take for example Hammerich 1951, where the problem is especially prominent. Here, the assumption that no clear differentiation between noun and verb is possible leads to massive confusion. Proceeding from the idea that only nouns exist, he distinguishes between "verbal nouns" and "nominal nouns". Logically enough, he assumes there is no verb inflection, instead interpreting certain forms of the transitive verb paradigm as case. As a basis for this analysis he cites the above-mentioned morphological similarity between possessive forms and transitive inflectional forms:

possessive transitive -ga -va-ra -it -va-it -nga -va-nga

Hammerich takes a transitive sentence to be a coordination ("junction") of nouns and interprets the case in -up, called ergative today, as a subordinate


case - which he announces to be a purely possessive form analogous to the genitive - and the inflected transitive verb as a verbal noun in the absolutive case.

The translations of this phrase offered by Hammerich vacillate considerably:

'the hunter the sight exists' 'The sight of the hunter exists' 's.th. is seen by the hunter' 'the hunter sees s.th.' (see Hammerich 1951: 21)

If Hammerich treats the form -vd59 as a case and not as a verbal inflection expressing relation to participants, he has no choice but to do the same with intransitive verb forms:

tikipoq - arrival is (Hammerich 1951: 20)

Since Hammerich does not see the individual forms in a syntactic connection, he fails to observe the difference between the transitive form with its relation to a noun phrase bearing the semantic role AGENT on the one hand and the intransitive form without this relation on the other. He interprets both forms as equally "inactive". The analysis of the entire verbal paradigm as nominal or as case can doubtless be traced to the perception of intransitive verb forms as inactive, as Schultz-Lorentzen describes it: intransitive verb forms and intransitive sentences are "actorless" and this interpretation is expressed in the translation by the nominal construction. If one then takes transitive verb forms and transitive sentences to represent elaborations of an intransitive structure, they will always be elaborations on nominal constituents. The rather vague insight that simple intransitive sentences lack an AGENT is developed into an overall interpretation that the language has no verbs and is "nominal". This interpretation, however, leaves some serious objections unanswered.

First of all, Hammerich invariably focuses exclusively on the forms of the third person, thereby neglecting the other personal endings. It is an open question whether his view of his supposed case system was so distorted that he was unable to recognize the paradigm here, or whether it was not clear to him what function these forms had. The fact that the lack of personal pronouns, which he remarks upon incessantly, represented a severe problem to him speaks for the latter. Since he mistakes transitive markings for case, it is natural that he misses a link to the person involved. Also for this reason,

piniartup nominal noun in the subordinative

takuvä verbal noun in the superordinative

43. Nominality 67

he cannot see the similarity of Inuktitut or Kalaallisut to other languages that use personal pronouns in the same way - actually a common phenomenon.

It is especially problematic that Hammerich in his glosses identifies the relations of the participating "persons" at random, as though the (supposed) absence of personal pronouns were responsible for this vagueness and inexplicitness. Obviously, the extreme explicitness that is guaranteed by the verbal inflection and precludes nearly all the translations with which Hammerich furnishes his example sentences, completely eluded him:

piniartup takuvä the hunter the sight exists, of (or for or with) the sight of the hunter exists, something is seen by the hunter, the hunter sees something;...

piniartup nanoq takuvä the hunter sees the bear, literally of (or for or with) the hunter the bear is the sight (1951: 21)

Two causes for Hammerich's interpretation, aside from his methodological orientation around surface phenomena, can be discerned: (1) the inactive climate in the intransitive sentence, where no AGENT role appears, and (2) the difficulty in assigning individual words to specific word classes.60

The deciding factor in determining whether a specific word should be interpreted as a noun or a verb is, in the final analysis, its use in a sentence. In opposition to the general expectation that word classes can be isolated a priori, it is typical of Inuit languages that words cannot be assigned to word classes until they appear in concrete form in a sentence. Certainly nuclei can be divided into free morphemes and roots that become free forms only after a (verbal) ending is attached. However, this distribution should be viewed as mere input for the word formation process that follows. For in the course of this process, category changing occurs frequently, and one is almost tempted to think it an accident when a synthetic word ends up in the same category as it started out with.

The word that finds actual use is always a derived word, the product of a creative process. It is embedded in a larger creative process, the sentence. Just as the sentence receives its originality from the momentary need of the speaker, in Inuktitut the word is constructed on a similar spontaneous basis. This creative word formation takes place within a well-defined framework of set structures and rules. But Hammerich is by no means concerned with complex word forms, but with simple constituents of sentences bearing only inflection. Morphological features are not interpreted with respect to their syntactic functions. On the contrary, syntactic structures are seen as a kind of addition, summing up, of morphologically marked forms, not as a


configuration. From this perspective it must have been no problem for Hammerich that according to his analysis the sentence piniartup nanoq takuvä is a sequence: subordinative, absolutive, absolutive. Basically, he employs the principle "one form - one meaning/function", a principle contrary to the very notion of morpheme. But this morphological similarity fostered profound insecurity as to what word types are found at all in a Greenlandic or Inuktitut sentence. Since the intransitive sentence has no AGENT in its argument structure, it was easy to conclude that intransitive verbs are not verbs at all; to translate them properly one chose nominalized verb forms, for example, nirijuq 'one who eats'. Correspondingly, Schultz-Lorentzen stresses the "static", quasi-passive nature of verbs. Intransitive sentences or their verbs, by dint of having no active, agentive qualities, motivate the inference that these sentences actually lack verbs or that the verbs are not genuine verbs.

Whereas Kleinschmidt can easily characterize the intransitive sentence as a "statement" and thus does not miss the absent actor, Schultz-Lorentzen, torn between the claim that the "Greenlandic mind" expresses itself in quasi nouns and the recognition that there are solid formal grounds for differentiating nouns and verbs, must twist and turn without being able to solve the dilemma. "Nevertheless, on one point a clear distinction is made, the verb forms being able to add two personal endings, as you-me, we-him, while the noun-forms can always only be modified by one personal ending. It will therefore be most natural to treat each of these forms separately" (Schultz-Lorentzen 1945: 17).

Schultz-Lorentzen's recognition that the intransitive verb is "undynamic" and "inactive" is perfectly correct. Unfortunately, he infers from this that it cannot be a real verb - a conclusion that clearly originates with expectations built on Indo-European structures. From this viewpoint, veibs stand as "action words" in opposition to "object words"; a static verb as contradictio in adjecto cannot but bring the word classes into disarray.

Schultz-Lorentzen views the "object", the noun phrase in the absolutive as the "shief61 element, whereas the subject is the subordinate element, since it is the element that is modified. This shows clearly that the verb forms have a purely passive sense ..." (p.18, §13). Although he does not provide passive glosses for his Greenlandic data, this seems to be primarily for didactic reasons and readability. Nevertheless, he emphasizes the similarity between nouns and verbs again and again, and sometimes he gives the "literal" interpretation of sentences:

"qingmip kiva, the dog bit him (lit. the dog's is bitten)"

(Schultz-Lorentzen 1945: 97, §52)

43. Nominality 69

Hammerich's and Schultz-Lorentzen's approaches are caught between the "actorless" climate of the sentences, the corresponding "undynamic" nature of verbs, the formal similarity that does not allow an easy differentiation between nouns and veibs, the formal similarity between inflectional suffixes and the fact that it is the ergative which is the marked case; for a morphological-taxonomic evaluation, the phenomenon could be tiled away in the form of a statement that sentences may be described and translated as nominal coordinations. This representation is, especially with regard to translation, not implausible: using nominalizations reflects the fact that intransitive sentences in Greenlandic and Inuktitut have no agent and that the verb phrase is correspondingly "undynamic".

The problem of distinguishing nouns and verbs is still in existence and can not be viewed as merely due to taxonomic perception. In anticipation of the coming detailed discussion of intransitive verb forms in Inuktitut, I would here like to briefly illustrate the problem with respect to intransitive verbal inflection. Intransitive inflection comprises two paradigms, often identified by the forms of the third person singular as the -vuql-puq paradigm, which is called the indicative, and the -juqt-tuq paradigm, which is referred to as the "nominal participle":

(5) ikajuqtuq: 'one who helps' : 'helper'

parallel to

(6) ikajuqti: 'helper': 'the one who helps'

Nominal participles can in fact be used as nouns:

(7) aupaqtuq: 'it is red': 'the red one'

(8) aupaqtumik tigusivuq aupaqtu(q) -mik tigusi- -vuq

Ί take the red one'

Since aupaqtuq bears case, a nominal marking, one must assume that it represents a nominal. There is more than one way of interpreting this, however. One might hypothesize that -juq-t-tuq- is not an inflectional ending here, but rather a derivational affix which formally resembles the third person singular (-juq/-tuq).

obj 's/he takes the red one'

3sg,itr,ind

(9) aupaqtumik tigusivunga aupaqtu(q) -mik tigusi-

obj -vunga lsg,itr,ind


In that case, -juq-/-tuq- appears not as part of the conjugation but as an affix comparable to -//'- 'one who does x'.

(10) aanniasiuqti aannia(q)-v -siuq-v

-t'x (11) ikajuqti

ikajuq-y -tL

nurse •be ill' 'look in on x, take care of 'one who does x'

Tielper' •help* 'someone who does x'

as opposed to

(12) aanniaqtuq : s.o. is ill

(13) ikajuqtuq : s.o. helps

Behavior similar to that of -ti- 'one who does x' also characterizes -lik- 'one who has x' and -jaq-l-taq- 'the one that χ happens to'.

But -juq-l-tuq- contrasts with these as part of the intransitive verbal paradigm, which includes a different inflection for each person, as well as subordinate verb forms that can occur only with an intransitive matrix verb.62

There exist intransitive forms for all moods: the three moods indicative, interrogative, and imperative/optative of matrix clauses; and the subordinate moods causative, conditional, and participial. Although it is easy to translate third person forms using a nominalization supported by an auxiliary, this cannot be done with the other persons. And it is just as impossible to employ first or second person intransitive forms with case maiking:

(14) *aupaqtunga-mik takuvuq *'s/he sees me, the red one'

In Inuktitut, intransitive verbal complexes appear less to depict the course of an action than to clarify the relations between participant and the (nominal) explication of an event, state, etc., if necessary. Since the participant relations are very exactly expressed - the best example being the so-called fourth person - ambiguities are scarcely possible. Cases like

(15) 'he smiles because he is happy"

are always unambiguous in Inuktitut:

(16) qungappuq quviasungmat 'he; smiles because hej is happy'

(17) qungappuq quviasugami 'hej smiles because he, is happy'

43. Nominality 71

Since I will present a detailed discussion of the intransitive verb forms in chapter 6, I do not wish to go into greater depth at this point. I will only point out that having the same form does not in and of itself demonstrate identity of function. The focus exclusively on the superficial appearance of words, which in Hammerich is especially egregious, under closer scrutiny falls back behind a structuralist notion of classification and categorization, here the category moipheme. Structuralist thought in fact to a considerable extent ignores outward appearance, classifying elements essentially according to function.

An even more serious problem concerning the state of knowledge about Greenlandic at the time is that Kleinschmidt had already explained the process of word formation and with his analysis had plainly supplied the means of distinguishing nouns and verbs - by their morphological marking, which he relates to syntactic function. With respect to the interpretation of intransitive versus transitive verbs, Kleinschmidt's statement that no Greenlandic sentence lacks an object whereas it may well lack a subject thereby takes on new meaning.

To the problem that in Greenlandic the word encompasses a larger body may be added the problem that the sentence offers a different climate, i.e., a "non-active" one. If one understands the sentence primarily as a string of words, one will be inclined to ascribe this difference to the words themselves rather than to some aspect of the syntactic level. Schultz-Lorentzen's interpretation shows this clearly and resoundingly. In intransitive sentences he misses the agent, which would have provided "active dynamics"; he perceives this impulse only in transitive sentences. Consequently, he reasons that verbs are "nominal". Thus, Schultz-Lorentzen infers the whole nature of the Greenlandic verb in general from the lack of an agent in intransitive sentences. In doing so, he classifies verbs semantically as "action words", attributing activity to them regardless of the type of sentence in which they are found, and regardless of well-known differences in what is called Aktionsart.

A purely taxonomic-descriptive analysis fails because, being dependent on external form, it cannot interpret morphological similarity functionally and perceive the morpheme as an essentially abstract unit It relies upon "word" being a fixed category which may be characterized by the following statements: "The word is found in the lexicon"; "it belongs to a specific (word) class"; "because of its membership in this class, it has semantics specific to and shared by all members of this class." This category "word" proves to be just as inappropriate: because of the polysynthetic character of the language words on the one hand are never finished products and do not a priori belong to any class - they can be described only as a morphological process - and on the other hand are essentially determined by the syntax.


Finally, a conception of the language in which syntax encompasses little more than a list of case markings and inflectional paradigms prevents the lack of an "actor" in intransitive sentences from being properly understood; instead, a word class, the verb, is blamed as deficient

Chapter 5 Ergativity

5.1. Preliminaries

The shift of interest to syntax eventually led researchers to examine syntactic structures that resemble Indo-European structures only in part or not at all. Under the label "ergative" are found Inuktitut and Kalaallisutr in company with many other languages such as Caucasian, Australian, and South Pacific languages, as well as Basque.63

By ergativity a syntactic structure is understood which, in a manner to be detailed below, stands opposed to that of Indo-European and other "agentive" languages. The recognition that the syntactic oddities encountered, for instance, in Inuktitut are to be found in quite a number of languages prompted linguists to assign all such languages to a single language type.

The so-called ergative languages do not constitute a homogeneous group. They are often widely separated geographically and belong to different language families. Moreover, as the discussion below will show, there are also serious reasons to doubt their structural syntactic homogenity. After all, it looks as if the most prominent shared property is that the semantic feature of agentivity patterns significantly differently from Indo-European languages. This may be viewed as a fundamental difference in either verb structure or argument structure.

Setting aside the terminological misunderstanding that led to the term "ergative" being falsely applied to certain verb classes in Indo-European languages, it is worthwhile to note that the reference to agentivity and argument structure is not sufficient to cover the whole range of the problem. But it is suitable to illustrate the fact that the correlation of semantic characterization, morphological markedness, and syntactic relation is far from being clear-cut. Even in languages regarded as purely agentive (nominative-accusative languages), there is a considerable amount of deviation as far as possible argument structures are concerned.

The typological "deviation" labeled as ergativity involves major changes not just on semantic grounds, but essential changes in elementary syntactic structure, as well.

An extremely simple and plastic representation of what essentially is meant by "ergativity" is given by Lyons ([1968] 19846). This book is generally considered to have been extremely influential; it saw a succession of reprints and is still used as an introductory text book. The discussion of ergativity ([1968] 19846: 350-371) represents an attempt to illustrate the problem in an easy to grasp way. In this discussion Lyons laid the

74 J. Ergativity

groundwork for the later on so greatly elaborated and discussed distinction between "ergative verbs" and "ordinary verbs" in languages like English or German.64 While Lyons somewhat metaphorically but on the whole correctly refers to the subject of a transitive sentence as "ergative" ([1968] 19846: 352) and contrasts it with the subject of nonagentive intransitive sentences,65 a serious misunderstanding is based on this interpretation: the term "ergative" came to be used as a descriptive label for the agentless counterparts, and not for the actor anymore. More precisely, the term was used to label a certain class of verbs allowing agentless intransitive sentences. Thus the basic meaning of "ergative", namely, 'act, work', was obscured, and the term was rather arbitrarily given a new definition. My arguments will exclusively deal with typological ergativity.

In 5.3 I will consider the term "ergativity". However, first (in 5.2) I will illustrate the difficulties that arise when one tries to describe the sentence structure of Inuktitut with the traditional terms "subject" and "object". These terms have a broad spectrum of possible interpretations. They are also employed colloquially, so that they are additionally loaded with pretheoretical associations. Part of the conceptual problem stems from the fact that "subject" and "object" are treated as archetypes and no explanation as to what is meant concretely in a given case is thought necessary. Only in the course of discussion does it become clear whether the terms are being used in a primarily morphological, syntactic-relational, or semantic sense. The fact that all these aspects are operative and significant not only hinders their being distinguished from one another, but also contributes to latent obscurity as to how the constellation of the three aspects is to be interpreted.

A comprehensive representation of the problem, however, can be furnished only in the course of the next chapter, which takes up the term "transitivity" and the role of the verb with respect to subject and object.

5.2. The dilemma of subject and object

In many grammars of Inuktitut, description of the sentence structure wavers between discussion of which nominal constituent is the subject and which the object, in such a way that the reader ends up quite unable to identify either the subject or the object in a given sentence. The same problem affects Inuit who receive lessons in the grammar of their language.66 This vacillation between subject and object is also found in numerous contemporary grammars, such as Dorais (1988) and Mallon (1986a, 1987, 1991a,b). To illustrate, I would like to present in some detail the dilemma that one

gets into by consistently applying the concepts of subject and object to

52. The dilemma of subject and object 75

Inuktitut. Inuktitut, like Greenlandic, exhibits two clearly differentiated sentence patterns, which are generally called transitive and intransitive. They are clearly differentiated because the verb is conjugated differently and has different abilities to cross reference noun phrases:

Sto [NP, - VPJ vs. S„ [NP2 - NP, - VPJ

The possibility of additions to the sentence or further structural complexity will not be discussed here.

Whereas the inflectional ending of an intransitive verb always expresses relation to only one participant (first, second, or third person in the singular, dual, or plural), the inflectional ending of a transitive verb expresses the relation between two persons. All combinations except explicit reflexives are available:

takuvagit taku- -vagit see lsg/2sg,tr,ind Ί see you'

-vagit lsg/2sg I - . . . - you -vara lsg/3sg I - . . . - him/her/it -vattik lsg/2dual I - . . . - you two -vaakka lsg/3dual I - . . . - those two -vatsi lsg/2pl I - . . . - you all -vakka lsg/3pl I - . . . - them

-vattinga 2dual/lsg you two/me -vaanga 3sg/lsg he/me -vattigut 2pl/lpl you all/us etc. (cf. Dorais 1988: 76-77)

The reader is reminded that lexical personal pronouns are used only in special cases, such as in answers to questions; a finite verb alone therefore constitutes a minimal sentence.

(3) tikipputik 2dual 'y°u t w 0 arrive'

(4) takuvaatit 3sg/2sg 'he sees you'

In an intransitive sentence, the verb cross references with one noun phrase, bearing no morphological relationship to other noun phrases that may be present. These other noun phrases are to be analyzed as complements and adjuncts.

(5) Miki tikippug 3sg 3sg

'Mike arrives'

76 5. Ergativity

(6) Inuit tikipput 'People arrive' 3pl 3pl

(7) Mifd Iqalungni tikippuq 'Miki arrives in Iqaluit'

(8) Inuit Iqalungni tikipput *People arrive in Iqaluit'

In an intransitive sentence, the agreeing noun phrase appears in the unmarked absolutive case. In a transitive sentence, which is characterized by the double person ending on the verb, two noun phrases agree: one in the absolutive (unmarked) case and one in the ergative (marked) case.67

Thus far, there seems to be nothing unusual about this structure. The sequence unmarked NP - marked NP - V matches the typical sentence pattern of Indo-European languages, namely, subject - object - predicate, whereby the subject is unmarked and the object is marked.

That Inuktitut does not actually hold to this pattern is seen in a direct comparison between transitive and intransitive sentences. If a transitive sentence in Inuktitut represents an extension (by a direct object) of the intransitive version, the rest of the clause should remain unchanged, as in German and English:

(9) a. Hans sieht b. John sees

(10) a. Hans sieht das Haus b. John sees the house

However, this is not the case.

(11) Jaani takuvuq

(12) Jaani takuvanga

The intransitive example (11) can be translated roughly as 'John sees'.68 Now if (12) represents a transitive form analogous to the German or English one, it should mean 'John sees him/her/it/something'. An overt specification of what was seen could be then introduced into the transitive sentence with an explicit case marking:

(13) *Jaani illuup takuvanga

But this sentence is ungrammatical and, moreover, does not translate as 'John sees a/the house'.

The problem is that illu 'house' appears in the ergative case. Let us review the transitive sentence pattern for German and English sentences:

(14) a. Hans sieht das Haus b. John sees the house c. *Jaani takuvanga illuup

The verb takuvanga 'see- 3sg/3sg' indicates relation to and agreement with two participants. One of these, namely, the AGENT, is marked with the ergative case -up, the other, with the zero morpheme representing absolutive. In contrast to the German and English sentence, illuup, by virtue of bearing the ergative case marking -up, assumes the role of the first of the persons indicated in -vanga and therefore has the quality of an AGENT. Since houses are hardly ever AGENTs, (13), (14c) is unacceptable, or acceptable only in fictional texts:69

(15) * illuup Jaani takuvanga 'the house sees Jaani'

Renewed comparison of sentences (11) and (12) above

(11) Jaani takuvuq Jaani -φ taku- -vuq John abs see 3sg,itr,ind 'John sees'


(12) Jaani takuvanga Jaani -0 taku- -vanga John abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 's.o. sees John'

reveals that (12) can be interpreted only as *he/she/it sees John'. Jaani has changed places, so to speak, in (12): if in (11) this noun phrase occupied the "subject position", it is now, at least in translation, in "object position", without having undergone any morphological change. In

(12) - Jaani takuvanga Jaani -Φ taku- -vanga

he him abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

one of the two arguments, namely, the one with ergative case, is not realized. Contrary to expectation, therefore, the argument in the ergative case does not just add to an existing sentence, leaving the remainder of the sentence unchanged; rather, a transitive sentence with an argument in the ergative case exhibits totally different relations from an intransitive sentence with an argument in the absolutive case. One is tempted to say that the transitive sentence shows reversed syntactic relations as compared to its simple,

78 5. Ergativity

intransitive counterpart. It is this same phenomenon which has time and again led to confusion in descriptions of Inuit languages. If one employs the traditional terms "subject" and "object", one is driven of necessity to say either that the subject of the intransitive sentence becomes an object in the transitive sentence or that the subject of the intransitive sentence is actually an object.

Neither claim is very convincing. The first offers no explanation as to how and why this transformation from subject to object should take place. Unlike the passive in German, where one can identify an argument shift (the direct object of the active sentence becomes the subject of the passive sentence) that correlates with a change in case marking (from accusative to nominative), in the Inuktitut transitive sentence the case of the noun phrase in question remains unchanged. Only the marking on the verb is altered.

If one applies the common sentence pattern subject - predicate, or subject -direct object - predicate, then every sentence has a subject, including an intransitive sentence. That this "subject" is not maintained in the corresponding transitive sentence is attributed by the first claim to semantic factors: in the transitive sentence an AGENT, the classic candidate for an Indo-European subject, makes its appearance. The "old" subject of the intransitive sentence, not being an AGENT, must give way; it no longer has the quality of a subject. But did it have expressed this subject quality in the intransitive sentence in the first place?

This problem is taken up by the second possible claim, that the subject of the intransitive sentence is not a subject but an object. This interpretation implies that the intransitive sentence is incomplete for the very reason of not having a subject. Still, this claim has a positive side, in that no unexplained transformation is imputed to the noun phrase. Furthermore, it embodies the insight, albeit tacitly, that the noun phrase of an intransitive sentence fundamentally lacks a property which is preferred in subjects: this noun phrase is not agentive in any way.

It is worth noting the confusion inherent in the traditional terms, or rather, the difficulty of demonstrating anything with them. What does it mean to say, "A subject turns into an object", or, "The subject is actually an object"? What do these terms imply? Just as noteworthy is the assumption that what is not a subject must be an object. This assumption stands behind both of the possible claims: If one applies it to morphosyntactic aspects, the first of the alternative inferences results; the noun phrase in the unmarked case starts out as a subject, then in the transitive sentence is a object. If one focuses on the semantic structure of the sentence, one ends up with the second inference; the subject of the intransitive sentence is basically an object. This strange and downright contradictory formulation (subject = direct object) indicates the deficiency of the intransitive sentence. Because the noun phrase in question


never can bear the ergative case and thus the semantic role AGENT, it is not considered as a candidate for "genuine" subjecthood, although it fulfills all formal criteria.

At this point I would like to pose two questions. They are questions that, as far as I know, have never been asked in the entire discussion of ergativity.70

1. Can this noun phrase, which is supposed to be sometimes a subject and sometimes an object, fulfill the criteria for direct objects if it is not a true subject? 2. Why must it be assumed that every noun phrase which is not a subject is an object?

These questions can be properly understood only if it is taken into consideration that "subject" and "direct object" are terms that unite aspects of syntax (sentence hierarchy), morphology (case), and semantics (semantic roles). The last mentioned, the distribution of semantic roles between subjects and objects, is of special importance.

The intransitive sentence in Inuktitut is a sentence without an actor, without an AGENT. The semantic role AGENT is reserved for the ergative case (marked by -up), which can appear only in transitive sentences.

(16) qimmiup arnaq kiivanga qimmi(q) -up arnaq -φ kii- -vanga dog erg woman abs bite 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the dog the woman he bites her'

If one wanted to capture the semantic quality of the actorless sentence

(17) Jaani takuvuq Jaani -φ taku- -vuq John abs see 3sg,itr,ind

(18) Jaani sanavuq Jaani -φ sana- -vuq John abs work 3sg,itr,ind

one would have to avoid using an active declarative sentence and in lieu of

'John sees (something)' 'John woiks'

say, 'John is a "seer", John is a worker.'

The Nominalist Hypothesis is tangibly near. If, as shown in section 4.3, its adherents caused themselves massive descriptive problems by their naive use of the complex concepts "word" and "word class", in the current instance it is the equally complex concepts "subject" and "object" that must be

80 5. Ergativity

scrutinized. Thus, an obvious approach would be to view subject and object as feature bundles. Such a feature bundle of course need not be composed in the same manner as in most Indo-European languages. Lowe (1985: 36-37) defines "subject" as a "topic", observing that topics are not tied to the semantic role AGENT.71 However, Lowe's point that subjects are not necessarily agentive - a fact that holds of German and English sentences, as well - does not contribute to a solution to the overall problem. Following Lowe, the topic of the sentence will always be in the unmarked (absolutive) case, whereas the ergative case {-up, or in Sight Inuvialuktun, the variant described by him, -um) designates the possessor or actor. What is then the relationship of the syntactic interpretation of the sentence to the morphological or semantic interpretation?

5.3. Ergativity

In order to resolve the dilemma concerning subjects and objects sketched above, a concept was introduced to analyze syntactic structures like those of Inuktitut. The name for this concept, ergativity, has become a typological buzzword. The most striking thing about the term itself is that it relates to an actor (ergat es).

The fact that none of the noun phrases in an intransitive sentence bears the semantic role AGENT had led to difficulties in interpreting the formal structure of the sentence: If one takes the intransitive sentence as a starting point and treats the transitive sentence as an extension of the intransitive structure, the case marking on the noun phrases collides with the anticipated distribution of semantic roles. This then creates the impression that, since subjects are associated with the AGENT role, the intransitive sentence lacks a subject. Actually, though, all that is missing is a noun phrase with the semantic role AGENT. This role is filled only in the transitive sentence, by the noun phrase with the case marking -up. The designation of this case as "ergative" points to a divergence from the "agentive" case nominative, although both cases correspond to the same semantic role, namely, AGENT. Utilizing case assignment patterns, a sentence structure complementary to the familiar sentence structure is brought into the picture:

S-agentive: NP-Nom0 - NP-Acc - VP

S-ergative: NP-Erg - NP-Abs0 - VP

This simple representation effectively contrasts an agentive (nominative-accusative) sentence with an ergative one. Nonetheless, it is of use only if one recognizes that it neither takes into account the hierarchical relations of

5.3. Ergativity 81

the complementary sentence types nor makes it clear that the ergative case is in no way to be interpreted as parallel to the nominative.72

The advantage of characterizing languages according to their different case systems is obvious: it avoids the old terms "subject" and "object", and at the same time the problem is reduced to a primarily formal, moiphosyntactic level. Both the question of sentence hierarchy, which invariably accompanies the focus on subject/object (the object has a different hierarchical status from the subject), and the question of the semantic roles associated with the different cases recede somewhat into the background.

Generally, that is, for both Indo-European languages and Inuktitut, a sentence pattern is postulated in which the minimal, intransitive sentence consists of [NP - VP] and the transitive sentence extends this by one nominal constituent. This sentence pattern of course includes the usual hierarchical structure, so that the nominal "extension" in the transitive sentence appears in the position

VP[NP - V].

Thus, a single elementary sentence structure is assumed for both language types.

The distinction between the two appears only when it comes to explaining case assignment or semantic roles. The ergative language distributes cases and semantic roles across the syntactic structure differently; it looks like a mirror image of the agentive language.

NP-Nom - VP - NP-Acc -0 +acc

NP-Erg - NP-Abs - VP +erg -0

To create this image, one of the semantic roles is of central importance, namely, that of the AGENT. It serves as a descriptive parameter for the two language types: the AGENT is contrasted with the ERGATES to indicate a fundamental difference that cannot be explained by the fact that it is actually the very same semantic role that is under consideration. The different label "ergates" indicates that "agent" may have a different status with respect to its assignment to arguments, its position in the semantic role hierarchy, and, finally, morphological markedness. Nevertheless the preoccupation with "agents" pervades the hypotheses about ergative languages. In accordance with the conviction that ergative languages can be analyzed as complementary to agentive (nominative-accusative) languages, the reverse of the properties revealed in sentences of agentive languages are ascribed to ergative languages. Lyons ([1968] 19846)73 expresses this in the form of an "ideal" system, characterizing ergative and agentive languages in such a way

82 5. Ergativity

that each raises a preferred combination of case, semantic role, and semantic features to the status of a template. This combination is then applied to sentence structures in which it is by no means guaranteed. Thus, agentive languages exhibit a preferred correlation of nominative - AGENT -[+animate]. This bundle of morphosyntactic and semantic features is perceived by speakers as the normal case and consequently applied by them to sentences in which one of the criteria is not fulfilled As a result, sentences like

(19) The stone moved Bill died John received a visit Les aubergines cuisent

are experienced as active and agentive. Lyons discusses this idea thoroughly for English. For reasons already elaborated, his representation is of particular interest.

He starts with the valence of the verb, that is, its ability to link up with two constituents: "A transitive verb (e.g. kill) is a two-place verb, one of the places being filled up by the subject and the other by the object" ([1968] 19846: 350). Lyons thus brings into play the quality of being transitive or intransitive, so that the categories subject and object are determined by the parameter V„/VitT. The ideal type can be represented as follows:

NP-Su - Vfr - NP-dO

NP-Su - Vitr

This representation of the ideal type fails to account for certain crucial facts: 1. The transitivity of verbs, that is, the ability to bind nominal constituents, is not an unambiguous matter and is hard to pin down lexically. There are many degrees of variation; the Inuktitut system allows for increases and reductions of transitivity. 2. The linear representation may cause one to forget that the subject (NP-Su) and direct object (NP-dO) actually occur on different hierarchical levels. In reality, the term "transitivity" implies the ability of a verb to take a direct object, in other words, to govern a noun phrase. "Transitivity", therefore, is a term that inherently refers to hierarchy.

It is just this hierarchical ordering that is illustrated by Lyon's examples ([1968] 19846: 350); but his main interest is focused on a semantic characterization of transitivity: in the transitive sentence the action expressed by the verb passes from the agent (or "actor") to the patient (or goal).74 Of significance here is the correlation between actor and goal, to which the feature of animacy may be added. The resulting ideal type for the subject is nominative - AGENT - [+animate], whereby the nominative is the unmarked

5.3. Ergativity 83

(absolutive) case. In the transitive sentence, the object, which bears the marked case accusative and is nonagentive, is brought into the picture as well. The criterion of animacy is of no relevance for the object. Logically, an ergative system based on an the ideal type must assume a subject that is likewise unmarked, appears in the absolutive case, but is nonagentive and inanimate; the object, in contrast, appears in the marked case, is agentive, and preferably is animate:

Erg Abs Nom Acc +AGENT -AGENT vs +AGENT -AGENT +animate -animate +animate ±animate +mark -mark -mark +mark

Of course, the symmetry of this pattern, wherein the features [+AGENT] and [+animate] are correlated, is conspicuously alluring. Although this schema was originally conceived as an ideal type, it eventually became a guiding principle for judging the extent of ergativity in a language: only those languages whose object is [+AGENT] and [+animate] count as truly ergative in its strongest interpretation in a syntactic sense.

Lyons himself returns in his definition to the description that employs the change between subject and direct object already mentioned: "...the subject of an intransitive verb "becomes" the object of a corresponding transitive verb, and a new, ergative subject is introduced as "agent" (or "cause") of the action referred to" ([1968] 19846: 352). This explanation points out the peculiarity of a certain class of verbs, namely those behaving like move in

(20) a. the stone moved b. John moved the stone

as opposed to

(21) a. John sang b. John sang a song

The change under consideration is the one the stone undergoes, from subject in (20a) to direct object in (20b), while preserving its semantic role. Whereas Lyons's explanation may be plausible for the English example sentences - it describes the reformulation of an intransitive sentence as a transitive one - it is highly problematic for Inuktitut, implying as it does an unmotivated reinterpretation of the noun phrase in the absolutive case.

Lyons's characterization of ergative sentence structure is on the one hand highly versatile and well suited to the book's purpose of giving a first impression of the phenomenon. On the other hand, his overall description and

84 5. Ergativity

his treatment of the empirical data display enormous shortcomings; moreover, he entirely omits information as to his sources. Also of note is his curious orthography, which diverges widely from that of other researchers.75

The claim made by Lyons that the sentence

(22) arnaq takuvanga

is ambiguous ([1968] 19846: 371) is downright wrong. Certainly, it is true that expression of the "agentive" is optional, as is expression of the "goal" -but this fact does not entail ambiguity. As I have already explained, the inflectional ending -vanga (=-vaa) contains explicit information to two "persons", here the third person singular and the third person singular, excluding the possibility of reflexive interpretation. If these "persons" are overtly named in the sentence, the case marking excludes any and all ambiguity, independently of whether both or only one of the noun phrases is explicit. The ergative case with its marking -up identifies the AGENT without a shadow of a doubt:

(23) qimmip takuvanga qimmi(q) -p taku- -vanga dog erg see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind +AGENT the dog (he) sees him/her/it 'the dog sees him/her/it'

Conversely, the absolutive case with its 0-marking is the nonagentive case. As a result,

(22) arnaq takuvanga arnaq -φ taku- -vanga woman abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind -AGENT 's.o. sees the woman'

can be interpreted only as 'someone/he/she sees the woman'. Lyons's suggestion that it can also mean 'the woman sees someone' is unacceptable; it would be correct only for the sentence

(24) arnap takuvanga arna(q) -p taku- -vanga woman erg see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind +AGENT 'the woman she sees him/her/it'

At this point Lyons appears to have fallen victim to the problem of the unchanging absolutive case: The intransitive sentence

5.3. Ergativity 85

(25) arnaq takuvuq

is presented with an active gloss, 'the woman sees'; and the transitive sentence (22) is interpreted as a simple extension of (25). Similarly infelicitous is the interpretation of (26) as passive suggested by Lyons.

(26) qimmip arnaq takuvanga qimmi(q) -p arnaq -φ taku- -vanga dog erg woman abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind +AGENT -AGENT 'the woman was seen by the dog'

Here as well, the above arguments with respect to the explicitness of case assignment cannot be disregarded. This last example is all the more noteworthy because it is an unambiguously transitive sentence with an explicit AGENT, qimmip, 'the dog'. If in this case, as above, it is one's goal to preserve the semantics of the absolutive case, the intransitive sentence arnaq takuvuq would also have to be interpreted as a passive sentence, a practice, which actually has a certain tradition in the literature.76 Indeed, the intransitive sentence of Inuktitut lacks a noun phrase with the semantic role AGENT and must therefore be analyzed as a kind of statement or description along the lines of 'the woman is in the condition of seeing' or 'the woman is a seeing one' and not as an expression that allows any reference to an action taking place. Nonetheless, a major objection to a fully passive interpretation is the existence of a genuine passive construction, which is marked by the affix -jau-l-tau- and receives intransitive inflection. This passive form can be used only with basically transitive verbs:

(27) arnaq takujaujuq arnaq -φ taku- -jau-woman abs see pass 'the woman was seen'

Combining the passive affix with ungrammatical:

(27') * qimmip arnaq takujauvanga

In contrast, the intransitive variant

(28) arnaq qimmimit takujaujuq arnaq -φ qimmi(q) -mit taku- -jau- -juq woman abs dog abl see pass 3sg,itr,nom part 'the woman was seen by the dog'

is perfectly correct.

-juq 3sg,itr,nom part

a transitive inflectional ending is

86 J. Ergativity

Lyons's errors originate partly from his insufficient data, which he drew from unknown sources, and partly from his attempting to interpret a language about which he knew very little. As will be seen in the following, both mistakes have a long tradition in the treatment of Inuit languages.

Plank (1979), in his introduction to the volume Ergativity, sketches the problem areas in the discussion of ergativity. Like Lyons, Plank calls those verbs of English and German "ergative" which have nonagentive inanimate subjects or have a patient in subject position. Plank also characterizes the ergative sentence pattern as the reverse of the agentive: the subjects of ergative sentences should not only preferably be patients but also should come from the other end of the animacy scale, in other words, should be inanimate (1979: 11).

This desire that ergative languages behave "backwards" - which means nothing less than that their essential features should be the exact opposite of Indo-European ones - seems upon closer examination to result from the fact that the familiar pattern of morphosyntactic features linked to specific semantic roles cannot be applied to these languages. And it appears to be less a matter of the individual components of this complex pattern than their interconnection. As a consequence, the necessity to analyze these ties and to look at each aspect separately becomes obvious. However, then the elementary syntactic structure displaying a subject and a succession of objects remains untouched in its usual constellation. In keeping with this tendency, Plank dismisses the possibility of two subjects in transitive sentences as "counterintuitive" - without further explanation. The representation of ergative sentence structures remains obligated to the assumed, basic sentence pattern of subject - direct object - oblique object(s). Inasmuch as this, only case marking, semantic roles, and semantic features are varied; the language pattern referred to as ergative is seen and described entirely from the viewpoint of the Indo-European language system, with the result that differentness is perceived as complementarity: subject and object are switched; the agent is contrasted with the patient, and animacy with inanimacy. Then concepts are formed which are deeply indebted to this artificial mirror image: antipassive and unaccusative. Both concepts I will return to later.

Considerably more differentiated is the picture drawn by Dixon,77 a fact attributable to the greater thoroughness of his description. The most important aspect of Dixon's work is that he strictly distinguishes between the semantic structure of a sentence and its syntactic organization: To him, the true "core universals" can only be semantic universale, which on the way from deep structure to an intermediate level ("shallow structure") to surface structure receive syntactic and eventually morphological formulation. At deep structure, the variations found at shallow structure must be established as options, so

5.3. Ergativity 87

that a decision is made here as to the syntactic structure of the language at hand. Morphological markings do not enter the picture until very late, at surface structure.

Dixon postulates a fundamental distinction, treated at first as a mere formal one, among the following:

NP, obligatorily in S^, called S NP, obligatorily in S,,, called A NP, obligatorily in S^, called Ο

In this way, Dixon formally characterizes the differences in syntactic behavior among the three types of noun phrase.

The term "subject" he reserves for an basic universal category that comprehends both S and A. The overarching term "subject" links the function of noun phrases in transitive and intransitive sentences. Dixon views the subject as determined purely by semantics and thus as existing prior to the syntactic level, where the various constituents, S, A, and Ο are defined. The essential point is that "subject" includes both S and A, {S/A}, but this is not to say that the two forms must be identical or simultaneously realized, for instance, in a transitive sentence. Rather, Dixon is interested in a notation that differentiates among the noun phrases in transitive and intransitive sentences, namely, the sole noun phrase of an intransitive sentence, and the two obligatory noun phrases of a transitive sentence. This differentiation - and different labeling, as shown below - is essential for capturing the variation not only between the ergative and nominative-accusative sentence patterns, but also within these two major types.

S is defined as the only obligatory noun phrase in an intransitive sentence. A is the noun phrase that can be an agent in a transitive sentence. Ο is the other obligatory noun phrase in a transitive sentence.

According to these definitions, a nominative-accusative language like English would have the structures

[S - V]itr [A - V - 0]tr

but an ergative language like Inuktitut would have the same structures. Consequently, the mere labeling of the three noun phrases is not sufficient. It is their interrelation and interaction that is at stake. Crucial for the representation of the basic difference between the English and Inuktitut sentence patterns are the "pivots" on which S, A, and Ο turn. To determine these, more and finer details such as those provided by case marking or by syntactic operations such as coordination and subordination are necessary.

88 5. Ergativity

English exhibits the pivot S/A, whereas Inuktitut has the pivot S/O. This means that in nominative-accusative languages S and A have the same morphological and syntactic features, but in Inuktitut this is true of S and O. If "subject" is a deep-structure category for Dixon, then it is a question of the arrangement of S, A and Ο to produce agentive, i.e., nominative-accusative, and ergative patterns as types. Dixon expressly remarks on the confusion that governs the description of ergative languages and correctly points to the "European" character of linguistics as a science and of its descriptive practices:

... we can first of all note the confusion concerning the identity of the "subject" in ergative languages. The confusion results simply from the fact that linguistic theory evolved in the context of the better known languages of Europe, which have a predominantly accusative character at eveiy level. For languages of this type, certain semantic and grammatical properties coincide to give a two-sided definition of subject. The "subject" of a sentence is that NP whose referent could be the "agent" that initiates and controls an activity; the subject NP is normally obligatory in a sentence, receives the unmarked case, may be cross-referenced in the verb, and is the pivot for operations of coordination and subordination (Dixon 1979: 101).7'

In nominative-accusative languages, the semantic and syntactic features coincide; the subject - in traditional terminology - is that noun phrase whose referent can be an agent, someone who initiates or controls actions. This subject noun phrase is usually obligatory, appears in the unmarked case, agrees with the verb, and is the point of reference, the pivot of any coordination or subordination in the sentence.79 In ergative languages, this overlap of semantic and syntactic features is absent, hence the difficulty in finding application for the category subject: it can cover either the semantic aspect (actor noun phrase) or the syntactic (obligatory noun phrase, unmarked case), but not both. Dixon accommodates himself to this problem by the introduction of the pivots described above. However, even he sticks to basic assumptions - without offering any reason - which then influence his refined analysis. 1. Dixon's postulate that true universale must be determined by the semantics leads him not only to the fundamental assumption that the distinction between nouns and verbs has a semantic basis, but also to the conclusion that all languages must have a class of transitive verbs that exhibit semantic properties of control of actions and events (e.g., give, cut).90 Clearly, a basic semantic definition of nouns as opposed to verbs is problematic for reasons often discussed; the intuitions involved are largely determined by the character of the linguist's own language and therefore call for verification. Nevertheless, the premise that there are verbs referring to controlled or controllable actions in all languages seems plausible. To what extent it is possible to compile a list of universal "control verbs", however, will not be

5.4. Descriptive levels of sentence structure 89

considered here. Dixon gives a classical definition of transitivity (1979: 102),81 which refers to the number (one or two) of obligatory participants. 2. Dixon's discussion of transitivity rests on the assumption of an intrinsically binary sentence structure, a sentence with one and a sentence with two obligatory noun phrases. Here and in the differentiation of noun phrases into S, A, and O, it becomes clear that the only unambiguously interpreted noun phrase is A (whereby A stands for AGENT), just as the control verbs represent the standard for a transitive verb. Both S and Ο remain semantically uninterpreted. Still, Dixon sets up S, A, and Ο next to one another, as if of equal rank. By doing so, he entirely loses track of the fact that Ο has a different status from S and A throughout, not just at surface structure. O, the direct object, is a complement of the verb, as recognized in the classic sentence structure

S[NP - VP[V - NPjq]]

That Dixon himself implicitly assumes this hierarchy can be seen in his uniting of S and A as possible members of the semantic category subject in opposition to Ο as representative of the category object. A structure

*A - S - VP[V - O]

is not acceptable to him. He much prefers a structure that leaves open nothing but the semantic choice between A and S:

SUBJ{A/S} VP[V -O]

Nominative-accusative languages exhibit a neat symmetry with their A/S pivot, whereas ergative languages feature a "transverse pivot" from S to O. The pressing question of how a noun phrase should move from the subject (S/A) position to the object (O) position or vice versa, and how an S/O correspondence is to be explained, remains unanswered.

5.4. Descriptive levels of sentence structure

Nevertheless of great importance is Dixon's demonstration that the traditional category subject, in both its historical underpinnings and its complexity, is not suited to the description of ergative languages, but indeed is destined to promote confusion.82 Consequently, every analysis is promising which pries apart the different levels that are mingled in the traditional conception of a subject and treats them as largely independent of one another. Doing so

90 5. Ergativity

makes it possible to discern relations among the syntactic level, morphological marking, and semantic interpretation other than those usually anticipated when Indo-European languages are taken as a starting point. It is therefore only logical that all proposals concerning ergativity relevant today include such a differentiation. Generative grammar offers a basis for this in all its various developments and modifications. Especially important is the separation of the grammar into several components considered to be autonomous and interactive.

Whereas the beginning of generative grammar in the 1960s was marked by dissociation from the structuralist inductive method and subsequent criticism of the overloaded traditional concepts, the consolidation of generative grammar - now freed of the initial pressure to justify itself - into an overall design brought with it an enduring discussion of the arrangement and interplay of the individual components of the grammar. The modular organization of the grammar demanded that the complex traditional concepts be given up in favor of neutral, simpler categories. In keeping with the focus of generative grammar on the syntax, this component served as the point of departure, with the other components ranged around it: semantic interpretation; the lexicon; and phonology. The quarrel about the place of morphology and word formation is not settled yet, with some identifying it in the lexicon, others arguing for morphology as an independent module. Yet another position is taken by Baker (1988), who with his "mirror principle" introduces an extremely far-reaching interpretation of incorporation, which itself is viewed as a quasi-syntactic process.83 The central role of the syntactic component unavoidably influences the entire apparatus, a fact which one should keep in mind at all times. Nevertheless it appears to be a great advantage when, within a descriptive framework of generative bent, only the formal structure of sentences is initially represented, independently of their semantic interpretation.

Within the syntactic component, where linguistic description begins, the traditional terms "subject" and "object" are at first avoided and replaced by semantically neutral characterizations of the constituents that refer to word classes: noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, and so forth. A certain circularity reveals itself, however, when the lexical entries are defined according to their possible projections in the sentence. This circularity is not automatically a problem, since "word" and "sentence" are just as inseparable as the two sides of Saussure's piece of paper: each has meaning only with respect to the other. Comprehension of the one necessitates grasp of the other, so that expansion of either concept tows alteration of the other in its wake.

In a language like Inuktitut, in which word formation rises to the status of word syntax - a sort of "internal syntax" within the word boundaries - this


circularity, or better, interweaving, is much more visible than in a language where words can be definitively identified as lexemes. Simultaneously, this broadening of the concept "word" leads to uncertainty over the limits of what a word may include: if a word is created by this internal syntax, it undergoes a formation process. This then implies that the notion of the word as a lexeme directly available for use in a sentence must give way to the acceptance of morphological elements and word-building processes. The words thus created are formed in a rule-governed but utterly unpredictable fashion comparable to the formation of sentences in the syntax. The idea that in the syntax infinite use is made of finite means is familiar enough to us by now; that this could also happen in the production of words requires getting used to.

Independently of how the words reach the form in which they appear in the sentence, it is possible to use formal criteria to determine the functions they may take on in the macrosyntax of the sentence. The distinction between nouns and verbs rests upon such criteria: nouns are constituents that can head noun phrases, and verbs are constituents that can head verb phrases. Beyond all semantic arguments in support of the distinction between nouns and verbs, word classes can be defined according to the function they discharge in the sentence.

Advantages similar to this strictly formal separation of word classes are offered by the strictly formal characterization of the sentence, giving a basic structure as is common in generative grammar. Such a characterization expresses the fact that a sentence does not consist merely of a string of individual constituents but possesses a hierarchical structure. This hierarchy was and still is present in the notions "subject" and "object": "jedes Objekt ist ein in den Schatten gerücktes Subjekt" [Every object is a subject that has retreated into the shadows] (Schuchardt 1920: 462).M

In the representation of a sentence as a phrase marker, the hierarchically disparate positions of subject and object become obvious. Whereas subjects are depicted at the same hierarchical level as the predicate (verb phrase), appearing in the constellation NP - VP as one of the two most basic constituents of the sentence, objects are dominated by the predicate; they are extensions of or expansions on the predicate. With respect to the movement of a subject into object position or vice versa, certain questions present themselves: - How might this transformation look, and how would it be different from

passive? - Which of the two sentence structures can be considered the underlying

form, for what reason, and with what consequences? In the debate over the ergativity of Inuktitut, the structural hierarchy of sentences has up to now been disregarded. It is, however, central to the

92 5. Ergativity

understanding of subject and object, proving especially significant for the further discussion of ergativity and the description of of sentence structures.

From the point of view of hierarchical relations in the sentence, the sentence structures proposed above of the form

NP - NP - VP

is highly problematic. It could be interpreted, on the one hand, simply as the linear sequence of the constituents involved and as such is of limited use: this kind of representation masks the fact that an object can never rank hierarchically alongside the subject and the predicate, being instead subordinated to the predicate. On the other hand, such a representation could be seen as expressing the notion, widely termed counterintuitive, that the finite verb in Inuktitut has two external arguments and assigns case to two hierarchically equal noun phrases. That the verb agrees with two noun phrases is indisputable, but it is the status of these noun phrases which is at issue.

Keenan and Comrie (1977) discuss just these hierarchical relations between the noun phrases in the sentence and end up proposing a "Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy".85 Among generative syntactic theories, the "Ergative Parameter" of Marantz (1984) is particularly interesting. Like Keenan and Comrie, who make use of a traditional conception of subjects, Marantz also returns to traditional notions. The Ergative Parameter is built on the contrast with nominative-accusative languages. It makes a promising distinction among various levels of description that are intended to facilitate explanation of linguistic idiosyncrasies. It is Marantz's objective, as it was Keenan and Comrie's, to develop general parameters that help in the organization of linguistic typologies. Marantz bases his theory upon the assumption that nominative-accusative languages on the one hand and ergative languages on the other represent two different, essentially contrasting language types. The distribution of relevant properties among various descriptive levels entails that some languages exhibit features belonging to both parameters; in this way, it becomes possible to interpret languages as partly ergative and partly nominative-accusative. The distinction between morphological and syntactic ergativity as drawn by Dixon (1979), is captured by this analysis and elaborated.

Marantz distinguishes among the logical-semantic level of structure, the syntactic level of structure, and the surface structure. On the logical-semantic level, the sentence appears as a predicate-argument structure. The basic categories include S (proposition) and NP (noun phrase); as the predicate, VP (verb phrase) is regarded as the head of S. Whereas PRED (predicate) assigns the semantic role to the external argument, the subject, V assigns semantic


roles within its subcategorization frame. V is furthermore characterized according to whether it has a logical subject [+/- log Sub]. Marantz presupposes the classical distinction among subject, direct object, indirect object, oblique object, and comparative object. Moreover, he differentiates between logical subjects and logical direct objects: verbs whose logical subject is not an AGENT have the value [- log Sub].86

This feature is essential for the characterization of nominative-accusative languages versus ergative languages. In nominative-accusative languages the semantic role AGENT is assigned by PRED, thereby assuring that the subject bears the AGENT role, whereas the verb assigns the semantic role THEME/PATIENT to the direct object In ergative languages, this pattern is turned around: the verb assigns the semantic role AGENT to the direct object, whereas PRED assigns THEME/PATIENT to the subject (Marantz 1984: 196). With respect to case assignment, Marantz paints the following picture: Nominative is the subject case of intransitive verbs; accusative is basically nonnominative and thus the case of the direct object. This description is applied to the ergative (Erg) too, whereas the absolutive as the unmarked case is equated with nominative. Marantz is now able to break down the subject/object distinction into a syntactic aspect, a logical aspect, and case. On the basis of these criteria he sets up his "Ergative Parameter" (1984: 198).

The Ergative Parameter includes first a schema for semantic roles and grammatical relations:

Roles agent patient/theme

Nominative-Accusative languages SUB of [-»-transitive], [+log sub] verb OBJ of [+transitive], [+log sub] verb

Roles Ergative languages agent OBJ of [+transitive], [+log sub] verb patient/theme SUB of [+transitive], [+log sub] verb (Marantz 1984: 198)

Simultaneously, grammatical relations are involved in a second distributional pattern, with case marking:

SUB of [-transitive] verb SUB of [-»-transitive] verb OBJ of [-»-transitive] verb (Marantz 1984: 198)

Nominative-Accusative Languages A Β NOM NOM (ABS) NOM ACC (ERG) ACC NOM (ABS)

Ergative Languages

A Β NOM (ABS) NOM NOM (ABS) ACC ACC (ERG) NOM

94 5. Ergativity

The Ergative Parameter has the advantage of permitting not only pure nominative-accusative or ergative languages to be described, but also languages which exhibit a mixture of the two systems. Utilizing this possibility, Marantz makes a distinction between syntactic and moiphological ergativity. Morphological ergativity, to him, characterizes all languages that have full or partial ergative case marking superimposed on a nominative-accusative structure. In contrast, syntactically ergative languages, the only true ergative languages, have the following properties: "the sole syntactic dependent of an intransitive verb and the theme/patient of a transitive verb are syntactic subjects" (1984: 197).

This definition is reminiscent of Dixon.87 The main problem is obviously not so much the nonagentive subject as the implicit requirement that the direct object take on the semantic role AGENT. Marantz discusses his Ergative Parameter with respect to Inuktitut and Kalaallisut, among others, and attempts to show that only the first of these is syntactically ergative, the second being but morphologically ergative. I will return to his discussion in detail in chapter 7.

The term "ergativity" is supposed to describe a sentence structure that clearly diverges in essential ways from the sentence pattern of Indo-European languages. The concepts of subject and object can be shown to be unsuitable for describing this structure. They fail primarily because they constitute complex notions which incorporate syntactic, morphological, and semantic elements in a manner typical for nominative-accusative languages. Although the morphological level (as embodied in case) and the semantic level (semantic roles) are viewed as open to deviations from the respective standard patterns, it is the syntactic structure in its hierarchical organization that is considered fundamental: ergativity is treated as a variation on the universal syntactic pattern.

Before I drag the descriptive problems of Inuktitut into the discussion of ergativity, our representation of the language must be fleshed out with a thorough examination of the verb phrase, its properties, and its possibilities.

Chapter 6 Transitivity

6.1. Transitivity

6.1.1. Circumscribing the dimension of the term

My discussion of the notion ergativity, whose chief features I have sketched in the foregoing, is guided principally by the concepts "subject" and "object", as well as the assignment of case and semantic roles to such elements. This focus neglects the idiosyncratic relationships that obtain between the verb and the nominal constituents of the sentence. The fact cannot be ignored that the differing characteristics ascribed to the subject and the object depend primarily on their disparate relationships to the predicate, that is, to the finite verb of the matrix clause. It is fundamental that the finite verb assigns case to an external argument and determines its semantic role; furthermore, verbs are classified according to the type of nominal complement they call for. The concept of transitivity refers to the ability of a verb, as head of the verb phrase, to appear with a complement (if transitive) or without one (if intransitive). Seen from this angle, transitivity is a syntactic notion. However, in German the property of being transitive or intransitive is bound to individual lexical entries; it is thus an idiosyncratic trait which varies from verb to verb. Therefore, transitivity is simultaneously a concept belonging to that part of the grammar which usually is termed the "lexicon" and which also includes aspects of morphology. These two sides of transitivity remain to be examined for their appropriateness and usefulness with respect to Inuktitut. It must be emphasized again that the investigation of transitivity is a prerequisite for a thorough discussion of ergativity; the whole concept of ergativity as outlined so far depends heavily on the contrast of transitive and intransitive sentence structure.

From a syntactic perspective, transitivity represents a statement as to whether the verb as head of the verb phrase needs a nominal complement or not. Since this point will be of central importance in the context of the present work, it should be emphasized that only obligatory objects are considered complements. The noun phrase designated the subject bears equal weight with the verb phrase and functions as the latter's external argument The combination of subject and predicate form the minimal structure of a sentence. The classic notion of transitivity, on the other hand, invariably focuses upon the object.88 The concept of object is itself a further example of

96 6. Transitivity

the accumulation of possible interpretations and uses which are in general implicitly - entirely or only partly - alluded to. The spectrum of linguists' perceptions of what constitutes an object clearly encompasses at least the traditional series of direct object, indirect object, prepositional object, and genitive object. Transitivity, however, refers only to direct object complements. In addition to being a complement of the verb, the direct object is identified by the case it bears, namely, accusative, as well as by its typically being assigned the semantic role PATENT (THEME).

... the defining characteristic of transitivity in the traditional grammars of these two essentially different languages, English and Latin, is the so-called direct object represented by the accusative case. An oddity results such that verbs taking a prepositional complement in English and veibs taking a genitive, dative or ablative complement in Latin tend to be classified as intransitive along with verbs that do not, generally, take any complement at all. The ability to stand alone as the predicate (traditionally the defining characteristic of the intransitive verbs) is completely obscured by this analysis. The justification for the accusative case alone to represent transition is absent from these traditional accounts and is, in fact, taken for granted (Luhtala 1990: 23-24).

Also of significance is the ability of direct objects to undergo passivization; the direct object is turned into the subject of a passive sentence. Beside this traditional view of objects, or in any event of direct objects, one commonly finds interpretations in the literature which concentrate solely on the fact that direct objects are complements or that define objects merely as the "NP dominated by VP".

The term "transitivity" also has semantic qualities, whereby it implies that an action is conceived as intentional, being exercised upon an object - more precisely, a patient. In this regard, the notion conjures up a kind of natural logic, by which actions may be divided into those involving an agent alone and those additionally involving a patient. In some instances, a third type of relationship (or role) enters the sentence, in the form of a goal or instrument. This interpretation of transitivity incorporates a semantic classification of verbs into action verbs and control verbs89 versus stative verbs. Here I would like to abstract away from the semantic side and outline the purely syntactic aspects of transitivity.

The terms "subject" and "object" are the most elementary notions of sentence structure. Their essential properties are the following: 1. Subject and predicate form the basic structure of every sentence. The subject is an obligatory nominal constituent which stands in an agreement relation with the predicate, whose head is always a finite verb. 2. An object is defined as a nominal extension of the predicate whose presence may be required by the verb. 3. The object has a different status from that of the subject. It does not rank equally with the predicate; rather, it is contained within this constituent. It

6.1. Transitivity 97

bears structural case marking, (i.e., accusative) or lexical case marking, idiosyncratically dependent on the verb. 4. As the highest nominal constituent in the hierarchy, the subject bears the unmarked case (absolutive, nominative). This constitutes a structural case and is assigned by the finite verb. To qualify as the highest nominal constituent in the hierarchy, a noun phrase must be - the NP dominated by S - the NP in the relation of casus rectus - the NP in the unmarked case - the external argument of the VP All these properties equally single out the subject. 5. The other nominal constituents of a sentence contrast with the subject in each of these details. They are - not directly dominated by S - not in the relation of casus rectus - not found in the unmarked case - not external arguments. These five points combine characterizations that were generally accepted in traditional grammar with ones that have been formulated within the scope of modern syntactic theories and language typologies. It is particularly interesting to note that in early versions of generative grammar the traditional terms "subject", "predicate", and "object" were expressly avoided, yet the structuring of phrase markers mirrored exactly the hierarchy implicit in the traditional terms. Besides the fundamental relationship between subject and predicate, the understanding of which does not seem to have changed much ever since Arnauld's work,90 traditional grammar postulates the distinction between two basic categories of word, noun and verb.

The verb phrase - the predicate - is the part of the basic sentence that may be enriched by the inclusion of nominal constituents:

VP - V [ ... ]

The possibilities for such expansions are numerous; often they are required by the subcategorization frame of the verb. The general formula above provides the universal format for the structure of VP and expresses the fact that, in all natural languages, verb phrases consist of an obligatory verb and an indefinite number of possible nominal (or other) constituents.91

These additions to the verb phrase may belong to various phrasal categories and can be divided into those obligatory and those optional to the verb phrase. Generally speaking, obligatory phrases are known as complements, and optional phrases, as adjuncts. As head of the veib phrase, the verb determines the nature of the complements by dint of its subcategorization

98 6. Transitivity

frame. Thus, we can represent transitivity as a syntactic phenomenon in the following way:

S - NP - VP [V ...] X = Vitr [ 0 ] Y = Vtr [NPJ

This definition corresponds to transitivity in the strict sense, whereby a direct object is mandatory. Nevertheless, it is not always obvious whether a specific verb is transitive or not The criterion of a "required supplement" to the verb turns out to be quite restrictive; in comparison, the definition offered for German by the authoritative Duden is less so: "Verben mit AkkO, das bei der Umwandlung ins Passiv zum Subjekt wird (...) nennt man transitiv (zielend), alle anderen intransitiv (nicht zielend)" [Verbs taking an accusative object which becomes the subject under passivization are called transitive (goal oriented); all others are called intransitive (not goal oriented).]92

It is easy to show that this definition only partially coincides with the criterion of obligatoriness, which plays the decisive role in the subcategorization frame. Whereas according to the Duden definition such verbs as beißen TMte', lesen 'read', essen 'eat' are to be considered transitive, this is not the case according to the criterion of obligatoriness. After all, dieser Hund beißt 'this dog bites' is a perfectly fine sentence, as is Fritz liest, roughly Fritz is reading.' It is hard to tell how "obligatory" the direct object is in der Hund beißt den Einbrecher 'the dog bites the burglar' or Fritz liest ein Buch "Fritz is reading a book', although it is perfectly clear that there is a considerable semantic change between the two different ways of using the verbs lesen and beißen. The reading is not comparable to the reading of Fritz tanzt Fritz is dancing, Fritz dances'; here the interpretation can range from a statement about Fritz's present activity to a statement about his general ability to dance. This range of interpretation is narrowed to a considerable extent in the intransitive use of beißen: der Hund beißt almost automatically must be interpreted as a general statement about the behavior, the aggressiveness of the animal. Even more complicated is lesen, which can be interpreted similarly to tanzen, either as designating current activity or as a general statement - however, not on the actor's ability, like tanzen, but on the frequency of the activity.

Of course, this dilemma can be resolved by postulating two lexical entries for such verbs, one for the transitive use and the other for the intransitive. Whether this solution is convincing or counterintuitive will not be discussed here. It is important to note, however, that the idea of separate entries treats the ability of a verb to take complements as a matter of lexical idiosyncrasy rather than as a syntactic characteristic like mood. Since this topic will be


discussed in detail with respect to Inuktitut, it is worthwhile to point out the distinction in advance.

To sum up, there exist three essential criteria for transitivity: 1. Transitive verbs possess an obligatory complement, which is unmistakably identified by case marking, preferably structural case marking in the form of accusative, word order or equivalent strategies. 2. Transitive verbs can be passivized: the nominal complement becomes the subject in a passive sentence; the subject of the active sentence can be "demoted", appearing in an oblique case. 3. Prototypical transitive verbs are action or control verbs. The action they denote affects or is performed upon a patient. It should now be clear that the term "transitivity" - like "word", "subject", and "object" - represents a concept involving many levels simultaneously; it embodies syntactic, lexical, and semantic characteristics at once.

6.1.2. Specifying the term for inuktitut

After having pointed out the complexity of the notions subject and direct object and their indebtedness to traditional grammar, I went on to show that the notion transitivity shares a very similar fate. This is no wonder, since the definitions of all these notions are circular to a considerable extent.

Furthermore it must be remembered that even the identification of words in the traditional sense and the identification of word classes can be highly problematic as soon as we leave the familiar terrain of Indo-European languages. As detailed in chapter 3.2.1 and stressed repeatedly by other authors,93 it is possible to isolate word classes in Inuktitut only as a starting point and, initially at least, only by the use of purely formal criteria: Particles and adverbs can be inserted as free morphemes directly into a sentence and remain (basically) unchanged. Nouns can likewise be inserted directly as free-standing forms but are subject to overt case marking and a number of other synthetic processes, such as possessive marking and incoiporation. Verbs cannot be called free morphemes, since they require the addition of an inflectional suffix to build a complete word. This very straightforward classification must be understood as only a first categorization taking into account the basic attributes of a lexeme/stem - even setting aside the affixes for a moment. It cannot be emphasized enough that simple forms of nouns and verbs are hardly ever employed. Rather, they serve primarily as basic elements to which affixes of all sorts may be added in order to build up highly complex forms, whereby not only semantic modification but also multiple recategorization are the rule. A nominal nucleus can be transformed into a verbal element with ease, just as a verbal nucleus can be smoothly

100 6. Transitivity

turned into a noun. This illuminates the fact that word classes can only be established on an abstract level, on formal grounds, since the actual words employed by the speaker are constructed according to the need of the moment. Much more important than the distinctions between word classes is the distinction between free-standing or potentially free-standing forms on the one hand and bound morphemes (affixes), which must be linked to a nucleus, on the other.94 This purely morphological characterization poses problems for the application of the terms "transitive" and "intransitive".

Transitivity refers on the one hand to the syntactic ability of a verb to have (a) complements); on the other hand it refers to an inherent property of the verb, which the verb possesses independently regardless of how it is used in a sentence. With respect to this point, the lexicon of a language plays a role complementary to that of the syntax. Entries in the lexicon are marked according to which syntactic functions they can perform. This view presupposes that lexical entries represent essentially complete units, which occur in a sentence modified only by inflectional affixes. An alternation of fundamental significance, however, can be identified in the field of derivational morphology and compounding. Setting aside the question of where word formation processes should be located within the model of grammar, it is unquestionable that these processes are productive and creative.

This is even more plainly the case in polysynthetic languages like Inuktitut. As was already pointed out, the conception of the word as a clearly defined unit cannot be maintained for Inuktitut. If verbs and nouns are to be distinguished only on morphological grounds, the question arises whether and, if so, to what extent, verbs in Inuktitut are specified as transitive or intransitive, and what this characterization implies. Can the lexical entry for a verb stem in Inuktitut contain definitive information about transitivity? Is transitivity in Inuktitut a lexical idiosyncrasy or is it primarily a syntactic property, which is assigned to a verb only with reference to its specific use in a sentence, in much the same way as mood? And finally, is transitivity a semantic universal (a primitive), which pertains universally to semantically definable groups of verbs, is just as universally absent from others, and perhaps leaves a remainder of indeterminate verbs that vary according to the specific usage? If this is so, what are the semantic roles connected with transitivity?

Rischel has suggested that it is possible to distinguish between nouns and verbs on the basis of semantic criteria: "no matter how noun-like it may seem in its surface appearance a word-form like tikippuq - '(he) comes1 denotes an action and is intuitively a verb just like the English word that translates it. nanuq 'bear' denotes a tangible object and is intuitively a noun just like the English word that translates it." (Rischel 1971: 225-226) Such an approach,


which utilizes exclusively semantic characteristics to determine the membership of word classes, is intrinsically problematic. Particularly the distinction between "action words" and "object words", as Rischel appears to see them, cannot stand up to scrutiny - at least not without very generous interpretations of what constitutes an activity or an object

Rischel argues against the nominalist interpretation of Greenlandic.95

Behind his argument stands the attempt to establish word classes - in spite of the striking similarities in noun inflection and verb inflection. Thus, on top of the fact that it is basically only possible to differentiate between free morphemes and bound morphemes, the latter being further specified into base/stem morphemes and affixal morphemes, inflection does not provide much evidence for categorial status. Semantics offers itself as last resort. Likewise, Kleinschmidt assumed a semantically motivated distinction between "naming roots" and "describing roots"; however, he did simultaneously point out the structural difference between the two types of roots.96

It must be remembered that the nominal interpretation of Inuktitut is closely connected to a taxonomic approach to the language. Moreover it dates to before the "syntactic turn" and thus can be viewed as an attempt to deal with the nonagentive climate of the Inuktitut sentence, which is most obvious in the nonagentivity of intransitive verbal complexes. Since there have not yet been any thorough semantic studies of Inuktitut which could support or disprove the claim that the lexicon is in fact structured along semantic lines (not just morphological ones), a semantic motivation for differentiating nouns and verbs must remain a matter for speculation. The available dictionaries, being restricted to simple vocabulary, are so limited that it would be inexcusably hasty to try to draw any conclusions from them. Furthermore, it must be mentioned here that the lexical properties of verbal nuclei are far from being understood. On the one hand, it is quite natural to assume that verbal nuclei assign semantic roles to their arguments. But on the other, the roles can be blocked and/or modified in so many ways by affixation that the possibility of role assignment purely by affixes must at least be considered. Last but not least, the status of inflection has yet to be clarified with respect to its possible head properties and consequently the interface between morphology (i.e., synthesis) and syntax. For the time being, the present hint at these problems must suffice.

In the following I will take it for granted that it is possible and justified to differentiate Ν and V as categories on morphological grounds. In doing so, I hope to further acquaint the reader with the verbal inflection of Inuktitut and its traditional treatment in descriptions of the language.

Inuktitut verbs can be formally described as nuclei that attain the status of a free-standing form by the addition of an inflectional ending containing information as to person, valence, number, and mood. These inflectional

102 6. Transitivity

endings may not be attached to a noun base; in order to do so, the noun or possibly advert) (i.e., the free morpheme) would have to be verbalized by a verbalizing affix, as illustrated in (I):97

(1) taku- -gakku Tiecause I see it' see- lsg/3sg,tr,caus

(2) qimmiq -qaq- -tuq 'he has dogs' or dog have 3sg,itr,nom part 'there are dogs'

(3) tu/dsi- -paanga 'if s/he understood me' understand 3sg/lsg,tr,cond

(4) tikip- -pit? 'did you arrive?' arrive 2sg,itr,interr

(5) pisuk- -lunga Ί, going/walking ...' go lsg,itr,part

(6) titiravigi- -jara Ί write to him/her' write to lsg/3sg,tr,nom part

It is crucial to note the strict distinction between transitive and intransitive inflection. Concretely, the inflection makes it plain that a verb is either transitive or intransitive; no ambiguity exists as to the transitivity of a given form. Example (6) is a clearly transitive form, whereas example (2) is just as clearly intransitive. Furthermore, because in Inuktitut the inflectional suffix contains unequivocal person marking, it is not necessary that the corresponding noun phrases be overt. For instance, both (6) and (2) commonly occur as answers to questions and may also appear when it is clear from the context who or what is meant. Thus, (2), (4), and (6) are acceptable as complete sentences. Examples (1), (3), and (5), however, are not, in principle. The so-called moods, inflectional paradigms specified as causative, conditional and participial, are considered to represent a relation of subordination to a matrix verb, whether the latter be transitive or intransitive. Actually, in texts and spoken language these moods, especially the participial mood, are used frequently, most often without overt connection to a matrix verb. As far as I know, no closer investigation of these moods with respect to their syntactic status has been carried out yet. Although it is well known that they cover the function of clauses, with very few exceptions no attention has been paid to the question whether it is justified to equate these synthetic mood forms with full clauses.98

Transitive and intransitive inflectional forms differ in the number of relations to participants. A transitively inflected verb contains reference to two grammatical persons and simultaneously delineates their relationship to each other. The forms in (1) and (6) express the relation first-third person


singular (I - him/her/it), whereas that in (3) expresses third-first person singular (he/she/it - me). In contrast, intransitively inflected verbs refer to only one person:

(7) tikippunga Ί arrive" tiki(t)- -punga arrive lsgjtr,ind

(8) titiraqtutit 'you write' titiraq- -tutit write 2sg,itr,nom part

(9) sinippuq 'he sleeps' sinik- -puq sleep 3sg,itr,ind

Since it is centrally important for our discussion, I repeat here the following definition: Transitivity in Inuktitut is defined as inflectional reference to two grammatical persons and possible agreement with two overt noun phrases. Intransitivity is defined as inflectional reference to one grammatical person and possible agreement with one overt noun phrase. The question now arises as to what the status of these different inflectional paradigms is. First of all it might be suggested that the paradigms represent a set of conjugations comparable to those of Latin, for example. This possibility can be disposed of quickly. The inflectional affixes in Inuktitut always remain the same; no morphological variation in the form of coexisting paradigms can be found. There are morphophonological variations that depend upon the final consonant or vowel of the nucleus, but these are, of course, predictable.

The polysynthetic nature of Inuktitut also leads us to ask whether there exist affixes that affect transitivity or - to avoid biasing our opinion of what influences what - whether there exist affixes that are restricted to transitive or to intransitive verbs. An answer to this question will be provided later.

For the moment, it remains to be clarified whether in Inuktitut transitivity as defined above, that is, indicating single or double agreement, - represents a lexical idiosyncrasy, so that every lexical entry of the category

V receives a feature [+/- transitive] - or represents a semantically motivated category, such that it is possible to

identify semantic classes of verbs which are either transitive, intransitive, or both

- is a category comparable to mood in being applicable to any nucleus basically without restriction.

The last of these questions is the easiest to answer, since it is the easiest to check. If transitivity were a freely applicable category similar to mood, all verb roots should lend themselves equally to transitive and to intransitive

104 6. Transitivity

inflection. This is, however, not the case. All consultants agreed in rejecting the following starred forms:

(10) sinippuq 's/he sleeps' vs. tr: *sinippanga (11) quviasuktuq 's/he is happy' *quviasuktanga (12) aanniaqtuq 's/he is sick' *aanniaqtanga (13) ijWQ 's/he laughs' *ijujanga (14) kaaktuq 's/he is hungry' *kaaktanga (15) anijuq 's/he goes out' *anijanga (16) isirpuq 's/he comes in' *isirpanga (17) ingippuq 's/he sits down' *ingippanga

Conversely, it is not difficult to find verbal nuclei which, if directly combined with intransitive inflection, result either in an ungrammatical form or in a different semantic interpretation, namely, a reflexive one:

(18) kii- * vuqlpuq kii -vuq bite 3sg,itr,ind bite 3sg,itr,ind

refl 's/he bites' 's/he bites her/himself

(19) anau- 'to hit softly, anauvuq 's/he hits her/himself slap'

(20) aktur- 'to touch' akturpuq 's/he touches her/himself (21) kapi- 'to stab' kapivuq 's/he stabs her/himself (22) tigu- 'to take' Ttiguvuq 's/he takes her/himself (23) tuni- 'to give' Itunivuq 's/he gives her/himself" (24) qukiq- 'to shoot' Iqukirpuq 's/he shoots her/himself

Finally, there does exist a fairly large group of verbs that can be inflected either transitively or intransitively. These include:

a. sana- -vuq 's/he works' work 3sg,itr,ind

b. sana- -vanga 's/he works at s.th.' work 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

a. taku- -vuq 's/he sees' see 3sg,itr,ind

b. taku- -vanga 's/he sees s.th.' see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

Whether these three groups represent semantically motivated classes, in the sense that the second group might express actions which intrinsically require the presence of several persons or things, is not easy to decide. The principal


reason is the lack of research on this topic. To claim on the basis of verbs like tuni- 'to give' and tigu- 'to take', both of which are transitive, that the distribution of transitivity in general can be derived from semantic features seems to me precipitate. Kleinschmidt makes brief mention of such a natural difference but does not provide evidence in support of it. Fortescue, Dorais, Mallon, and Lowe simply assume the difference as a given, and even Johns (1987a) does not investigate the question of whether there are clearly defined classes of verbal nuclei in this sense. Johns remarks (1987b: 7) that all verbs of motion can be used transitively and offers the following examples:

(27) Jaaniup Iqaluit tikitaa aqagunggurmat 'John arrived at Frobisher Bay the next day'

(28) Jaaniup Miuri uUagaa 'John ran after Mary'

I cannot confirm this claim. Transitive forms like

(29) *aullaqpaa 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

(30) *pisuppaa 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

were spontanuously interpreted as questions by my consultants

(29') aultaqpa? 'is s/he gone?' 3sg,itr,interrog

(30') pisuppa? 'does s/he walk?' 3sg,itr,interrog

while all other interpretations explicitly referring to the unambiguous variants

(29") aullaqpanga (30") pisuppanga

were rejected.100 Nevertheless, one of them suggested after a while that

(31) pisuktanga pisuk- -tanga go, walk 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part

may be possible, giving the following context and gloss:

(31') Jaaniup pisuktanga ungasiktualuk Jaani -up pisuk- -tanga ungasik- -tuq John erg walk 3sg/3sg,tr be distant 3sg,itr

nom part nom part 'what John walked is very far"01

-(a)aluk big,great 0, abs

106 6. Transitivity

Yet another speaker accepted

(32) Jaaniup siku pisuktanga Jaani -up siku -0 pisuk- -tanga John erg ice abs walk 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'John walks on the ice'

but added immediately "we would not say it that way..." but

(33) Jaani pisuktuq sikumi/nunakkut/aturiami Jaani -φ pisuk- -tuq siku -mi Inuna -kkut laturia(q)-mi John abs walk 3sg,itr, ice loc land vial street loc

nom part 'John walks on the ice/over the land/in the street'

The possibility expressed in (33) was suggested by all consultants. Furthermore I hesitate to attribute the slightly different attitudes to dialect variation. The person who suggested (31) came from North Baffin (Mittimatalik), while the one accepting (32) came from South Baffin (Cape Dorset). On the other hand, the speakers who rejected the sentences throughout came firom a different community in the North (Iglulik) and Central Baffin (Panniqtuuq). It is important to note that nobody accepted the transitive usage of pisuk- spontaneously, all indeed showing a definite dislike, which is contrary to Johns's statement. It is also contrary to the establishment of a definable semantic class "verbs of motion" as being idiosyncratically connected with transitivity. One of the consultants suggested that transitivity is a feature assigned arbitrarily to verb roots. Rather than accept this statement at face value, however, I would prefer to view it as only a clue to be followed up on, since in my experience spontaneous intuitions of such a general sort cannot necessarily be trusted. As evidence from many other languages suggests, it rather would be a surprise if semantic, syntactic and morphological features converged to give well-defined verb classes in Inuktitut, without idiosyncrasies or irregularities.

Dorais (1983) differentiates among his lexical entries on the basis of whether the verb roots are inflected transitively or intransitively. Throughout, he gives -vuql-puq as the intransitive form. Mallon repeatedly contrasts transitive and intransitive on semantic grounds, transitive being "more specific", while intransitive forms are "more general".

Both aspects will be of interest with respect to the discussion in section 6.2.1. To be sure, the possibility cannot be excluded that categories of verb nuclei may be identified which resemble Dixon's semantic core universale.

62. Transitivity in verbal complexes 107

Still, in considering the differences in inflection relating to transitivity, one must ask what semantic interpretation should be applied to these inflections other than their syntactically relevant features. In Inuktitut, transitivity signifies the ability of the finite verb to indicate reference to one (intransitive) or two (transitive) grammatical persons and to agree with one noun phrase (intransitive) or two noun phrases (transitive), if there are overtly expressed noun phrases. The two paradigms are strictly disjoint; both occur in all moods. In the following, I will first investigate what attributes intransitive and transitive inflection possess. Next, I will demonstrate that it is possible, and in fact common, to produce transitivity or intransitivity in the process of complex verbal word formation. For certain affixes, several of which I will discuss, are themselves intrinsically transitive or intransitive and thus determine the transitivity of a newly formed verb.

6.2. Transitivity in verbal complexes

6.2.1. Intransitive verbal complexes

6.2.1.1. Selection of nominal participle and indicative

Intransitive verb forms were defined above as those that express a relation to a single person, in other words, and (possible) agreement with only one noun phrase.

(34) angut sanavuq angut -0 sana- -vuq man abs work 3sg,itr,ind 'a man is working'

The intransitive verb paradigm comprehends two variants, which nevertheless cannot be viewed as different conjugational series, but rather coexist as alternatives. As the citation form the third person singular is always given:

-vuql-puq 3sg -juql-tuq 3sg

(35) sana- 'work' sana- -vunga sana- -junga lsg,itr Ί work'

-vutit -jutit 2sg,itr 'you work' -vuq -juq 3sg,itr 's/he works'

108 6. Transitivity

sana- -vuguk sana- -juguk ldual,itr 'we two work' -vutik -jutik 2dual,itr 'you two work' -vuuk -juuk 3dual,itr 'they two work'

-vugut sana- -jugut lpl,itr 'we work' -vusi -jusi 2pl,itr 'you work' -vut -jut 3pl,itr 'they work'

The above forms are those occurring with stems ending in a vowel. If the final phone of the root is a consonant, there are regular allomorphs -punga, -putit, -puq (etc.) and -tunga, -tutit, -tuq (etc.), respectively. These allomorphs may trigger assimilation or truncation of the preceeding consonant.

(36) tikit- 'arrive' tikit- -punga

but:

aullaq- 'leave' aullaq- -punga

-tunga

tikippunga tikipputit tikippuq

tikit-tunga tikit-tutit tikit-tuqxai

aullapunga aullatunga

Ί arrive' 'you arrive' 's/he arrives'

Ί leave'

The status of these two intransitive forms is unclear. Since especially the form -juql-tuq is the subject of numerous interpretations with far-reaching consequences, in this section I will discuss these two forms of intransitive verbal morphology in some detail. The two paradigms are usually referred to as the indicative (-vuql-puq) and nominal participle {-juql-tuq). Behind this classification stand several assumptions that should be made explicit: 1. The difference between the two paradigms is not accidental but reconstructable in a motivated way. 2. The division into indicative and nominal participle refers to two different moods; moods can be employed freely. 3. If the different paradigms represent different moods, their use cannot be regulated by idiosyncratic selectional features of individual verb roots or affixes. 4. Moods differ according to semantic criteria; indicative is the classic verbal mood, whereas a nominal participle represents a deverbalized, more or less nominal form. 5. The difference between "verbal" and "nominal" may be stated in formal terms. The semantic difference must be statable in other ways, for instance, definiteness.


These aspects are closely related. I would like to begin with the last mentioned, the semantic aspect.

The difference between the two paradigms has often been stated on semantic grounds. As might be expected, all consultants found it very difficult to state the difference between the paradigms clearly, though most of them agreed that there actually is a difference.103 As several consultants phrased it, the -jl-t form is "touching"; it is the form that refers to a closer tie between the predicate and the affected person. On the other hand, -v/-p was frequently described as the form chosen when referring to an instantaneous happening, a specific situation occurring before one's eyes. Just to give a few examples:

(37) a. Mild takuvuq ...

b. Mild takujuq ...

While (37b) is understood as 'Miki is just looking around', (37a) would be a kind of exclamation in a context where you wait for him to finally see it: 'There he did it! He finally saw it.'

(38) a. surusiit siningniaqtut surusi(q) -it sinilc- -niaq-child pi sleep fut

b. surusiit siningniaqput surusi(q) -it sinik- -niaq-child pi sleep fut

'the children will sleep'

While (38a) is perceived as more general, (38b) is experienced as a kind of promise, or in other contexts as a command: 1. Ί tell the babysitter: You make the children sleep' or 2. Ί assure the departing parent, I will see to it that the children sleep.'

Since the paradigmatic difference between -νί-ρ and -jl-t forms can be found with transitive inflections too, the -v/-p being again the truly verbal, indicative forms, example (6) may be illuminating:

(39) anaanaga aanniarasugivara anaana- -ga aanniaq- -rasugi- -vara mother lsg,poss,abs ill think that lsg/3sg,tr,ind

was interpreted as being "very specific about your (the speaker's) feelings: of all things that apply to your (the speaker's) mother, you think right now that she is ill.'004 These statements may provide a general background for the various interpretations given by linguists.

-tut

3pl,itr,nom part

-put 3pl,itr,ind

110 6. Transitivity

Mallon has repeatedly claimed that -jl-t forms are used to express habitual behavior and generalities. This does accord somehow with the descriptions given above. But neither "habitual" nor "general" should be understood in a narrow sense: For instance,

(40) siniktuq sinik- -tuq sleep 3sg,itr,nom part

cannot be interpreted as 'one who often sleeps, a sleepyhead', just as

(41) ikajuqtuq ikajuq- -tuq help 3sg,itr,nom part

cannot be interpreted as 'one who always helps, a helpful person'. Such a meaning can be obtained by nominalization:

(42) a. sanaji sana- -ji work one who ... 'construction worker'

b. titiraqti titiraq- -ti write one who ... 'clerk, writer'

c. ikajuqti ikajuq- -ti help one who ... •helper' (cf. Mallon 1991a: 110-113)

The affix -qattaq-, added to a verbal form, indicates frequency as well:

(43) a. tikiqattaqtut tiki- -qattaq- -tut come do s.th. habitually 3pl,itr,nom part 'they often come' (cf. Harper 1979: 58)

b. takuqattaqpara taku- -qattaq- -para see do s.th. habitually lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί often see him/her'


A difference between a specific event and a general situation is suggested in (44)—(47):

(44) pinasupputit pinasu(k)- -putit strive to... 2sg,itr,ind 'you work'

(45) pinasuttutit pinasu(k)- -tutit strive to... 2sg,itr,nom part 'you have a job'

(46) iqqanaijaqpunga iqqanaijaq- -punga work lsg4tr,ind Ί am working at s.th.'

(47) iqqanaijaqtunga iqqanaijaq- -tunga work lsg,itr,nom part Ί have a job"05 (AQ)

Again, (46) was interpreted by my consultants as emphasizing the specific occasion, comparable to a spotlight: 'It's me! Can't you see I'm working?' Thus a frequent setting for the usage of -v/-p was in an answer to a question - a highly specific context. Thus, "specific" and "general" should not be taken as referring to the proposition expressed, but instead as referring to the speech situation; example (39) given above illustrates this nicely. That it is not the semantic structure of the proposition expressed, but a difference in speech situation, that influences the selection of -jl-t versus -vl-p as supported by other evidence, as well.

A frequently expressed opinion claims that -j/-t is preferred when referring to potentialities, impossible occurrences, or hearsay. As Bittner (1987) has pointed out for Greenlandic, this interpretation is highly problematic. The most convincing reason is that it is no problem at all to use the -jl-t forms in connection with the first and second persons or with the third person when referring to an individual by name.

These above-mentioned "irrealities" can be indicated by a variation of affixes. Thus, in the set of so-called tense affixes106 that refer to past events there is a clear distinction between the affixes indicating what might be called conscious participation and those indicating hearsay or just nonvoluntarity. Harper gives the following example for nonvoluntarity (intentionality vs. nonintentionality):

(AQ)

(AQ)

(AQ)

112 6. Transitivity

(48) pulaaniaqqaugaluarakkit sininnirama sini(k)- -ni(q)- -rama (because) I fell asleep (unintentionally)

'Although I was intending to visit you, I fell asleep.'107

Thus affixes like -niq-, indicating unperceived, unintentional events in a more or less distant past would be good candidates for selecting the "indefinite" -juql-tuq paradigm. This would also be true of epistemic affixes like -niraq-'say that' or -rasugi-l-gasugi- 'think that'. In contrast, affixes like -lauq-, -qqau- indicating conscious, intentional participation (in the past) should trigger the usage of -puql-vuq. A list of the tested derivations is given under table (49).

(49) List of affixes tested for -i

1. -miniq(SB)/-viniq(NB) -niaq--laanga--laaq-

2. -juma-l-ruma--najaq-

3. -galuak-l-kaluaq-l-raluaq--niraq--ngnguaq--rasugi-l-gasugi-(suri-l-sugi- in South Baf

/-puq or -juql-tuq selection

'former', indefinite near future immediate future (not so remote) future

'want', 'intend' 'wish'

'although' 'say that' 'pretend to do s.th.' 'think that'

and Central Baffin resp.)

The affix -miniql-viniq is somewhat different from the others. Basically it is a nominal affix, giving the meaning of 'a former x':

(50) illuminiq illu -miniq house 'a former house, a ruin'

But it may also be employed as a nominalizer; as such it is affixed to the third person nominal participle, -juql-tuq, demonstrating the nominal qualities of this form:

(51) aullaqtuviniq aullaq- -tu(q) -viniq go away 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he went away (and I did not notice)'


The resulting complex is clearly nominal. On the other hand, usage is not restricted to third person reference:

(52) aullaqtuviniuvutit aullaq -tu(q) -viniq -u- -vutit go away 3sgjtr,nom part verb. 2sgjtr,ind 'you went away (and I did not notice it)'

(53) siniktuviniuvunga sinik -tu(q) -viniq -u- -vunga sleep 3sg,itr,nom part verb. lsg,itr,ind Ί fell asleep (unvoluntarily)' (Harper 1979: 920

Again, the nominal qualities are clearly testified to by the obligatory employment of the pure verbalizer -u- in order to make the final addition of a first or second person ending possible. Since -u- can be regarded as a purely category-changing affix, imposing no restrictions on transitivity or the like, the selection of -jl-t or -v/-p can be attributed to -viniq-.

As can be easily seen from the examples given above, -viniq- does not necessarily require the first and second person of the nominal participle. But it is also clear that attaching it to an indicative form as in (54)

(54) *aullaqvuviniuvutit aullaq- -vu(q) -vini(q) -u- -vutit

3sg,itr,ind

is absolutely unacceptable. Thus it can be concluded that 1. -viniq needs a -jl-t form as an attachment point and thus emphasizes the nominal capacities of this paradigm, as does the necessary verbalization for first and second person forms 2. -viniq with its semantic implication of being "unperceived", "involuntary" and so forth does not entail the employment of -jl-t if it is further inflected.

(55) a. anijuviniuvutit ani- -ju(q) -vini(q) -u- -vutit go out 3sg,itr,nom part past be 2sg,itr,ind

b. anijuviniujutit ani- -ju(q) -vini(q) -u- -jutit go out 3sg,itr,nom part past be 2sg,itr,nom part 'you went out (and I did not notice it)'

Thus (55a) and (55b) were both accepted as equally grammatical. The same is true for the other affixes tested; none exhibit anything like a selectional

114 6. Transitivity

restriction on the inflectional paradigms. Let us look at the endings in the already cited sentences (38a)-(38b) and (39), here repeated as (56)—(58):

(56) surusiit siningniaqtut surusiq -it sinik- -niaq- -tut child pi sleep fut 3pI,itr,nom part 'the children will sleep'

(57) surusiit siningniaqput surusiq -it sinik- -niaq- -put child pi sleep fut 3pl,itr,ind 'the children will sleep'

(58) anaanaga aanniarasugivara anaana- -ga aanniaq- -rasugi- -vara mother lsg,poss,abs be ill think that lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί think that my mother is ill'

as well as the following examples:

(59) sikitumik niuvirniraqtuq (niuvirniraqpuq) sikitu -mik niuvi(q)- -niraq- -tuq (-puq) snowmobile obj buy say that 3sg,itr,nom part (3sg,itr,ind) 'He says/mentions that he buys/has bought a snowmobile'

(60) tukisingnguaqpunga tukisi- -ngnguaq- -punga understand pretend lsg,itr,ind Ί pretend to understand'

(61) aanniarasugingnguaqpara aannia(q)- -rasugi- -ngnguaq- -para be ill think that pretend lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί believe that he is pretending to be sick'

(62) a. titiravigiiaaqpagit titiravigi- -laaq- -pagit write to fut lsg/2sg,tr,ind Ί will write to you'

b. Mialimut titiralaaqtuq Miali -mut titira(q)- -laaq- -tuq Miali term write fut 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he will write to Mary'


c. quviasukkami inngilauqtuq quviasu(k)- -kami inngi- -lauq- -tuq be happy 3sg,causalis sing past 3sg,itr,nom part "because he; was happy he; sang'

Compare (62a) and (62b), where both paradigms are equally possible; the same result can be gleaned from (62b) and (62c). While (62b) with its future affix -laaq- shows "indefinite" -jl-t, this should not be the case with the "definite", perceived past affix -lauq-, but it is. All in all, it will be very difficult to claim any selection criterion on semantic grounds. The impression that it is neither roots nor affixes that select one or the other paradigm is further supported by the investigation of tentatively set up verbal root classes:

1. resultative: kuvi- 'spill'; qupi- 'split'; imaaq- 'to fall into the water' 2. predicative verbal roots: mihi- 'be small'; quviasuk- T>e happy' 3. activity: niri- 'eat'; tamua- 'chew'; inngiq- 'sing'; titiraq- 'write'; mumiq-

'dance' 4. grammatical affixes: -jau-l-tau- (passive), -si- (antipassive).

Taking an agentive stem as a base, one would expect a difference between synthetic forms utilizing stative affixes and those including agentive affixes. The claim could be extended to stative, resultative, and predicative roots as well. To begin with the last mentioned, it is one of the striking features of Inuktitut that there is a whole group of verbal roots that in their translation into English or German correspond to adjectives used as predicatives: *be happy', "be small', "be sick', etc. They all designate qualities. This group is further specified by the fact that its members may only be inflected intransitively, never transitively.

At first sight it seems quite natural that the -jl-t paradigm should be preferred with these roots: their semantics (stative, seminominal) strongly suggest iL This seemed to be confirmed by the data, but a more specific investigation revealed that the claim cannot be substantiated. All informants readily accepted both varieties, without paying attention to a switch in endings when confronted with tests aiming superficially at other problems, but also agreeing that they can be used as alternatives when specifically asked. Again, the distribution - or better, the choice - of either paradigm seems not to be influenced by the semantic qualities of the stem or root, but by the preference of the speaker "...but mostly I would stick to -juq". This statement, which is representative for all speakers, points to the fact that -jl-t is more frequently used, the other form being somewhat marked:

116 6. Transitivity

(63) tikisimagama quviasukpunga inngilauqpunga tiki(t)- -sima- -gama quviasuk- -punga arrive perfective/ lsg,itr,caus be happy lsg,itr,ind

complete tnngi- -lauq- -punga sing past lsgjtrjnd 'Because I was in town I was happy and started to sing'

Note: if the arriving is completed, you are in town (or in the spot you are talking about); it is equally implied that you did not sing the whole time, but that you describe your feelings in a specific situation, an individual moment It might be argued that referring to those individual moments is rarer than talking about events and situations in the form of a statement or description. This could possibly be given as an explanation on pragmatic grounds for the greater frequency of -j/-t.

To cut a long argument short, resultatives as well as the passive and antipassive affixes -jau-l-tau- and -si-, respectively, likewise show no evidence of any restriction:

(64) Jaani inngittittauvuq ... Jaani inngi(q)- -tit- -tau- -vuq John sing cause pass 3sg,itr,ind 'John was caused to sing'

(65) Piita ikajuqtaujuq Piita ikajuq- -tau- -juq Peter help pass 3sg,itr,nom part Peter is being helped'

(66) a. kaapi kuvivuq kaapi kuvi- -vuq coffee spill 3sgjtr,ind 'coffee spills'

b. qijuk qupijuq qijuk qupi- -juq wood split 3sg,itr,nom part 'the wood splits'

(67) a. arnaq kaapimik kuvisivuq arnaq -φ kaapi- -mik kuvi- -si- -vuq woman abs coffee obj spill ap 3sg,itr,ind 'a woman spilled/spills coffee'


b. arnaq qijumik qupisijuq arnaq -0 qiju(k) -mik qupi- -si- -juq woman abs wood obj split ap 3sgjtr,nom part 'a woman split(s) wood*

(67a) and (67b) are interesting; they belong to a group of verbal roots that may be transitively as well as intransitively inflected. The intransitive form exhibits a resultative reading, while the transitive

(67) c. arnaup kaapi kuvivanga arna(q) -up kaapi -φ kuvi- -vanga woman erg coffee abs spill 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the woman spills coffee'

clearly has an agentive reading. This reading can be seen in the antipassive as well.

6.2.1.2. Categorial properties of the nominal participle

So far it can be concluded that 1. The differentiation between the two paradigms is not accidental, but

speaker motivated 2. Both forms can be applied freely 3. The selection of the alternate forms is not triggered by types of roots or

affixes

It remains to scrutinize the problem of lexical category, nominal versus verbal, inherent in the two paradigms.

Let us begin by identifying the difference - thereby citing an interpretation that has long been widespread.

While the -vuql-puq series can be interpreted as an inambiguously verbal paradigm, namely indicative, this is not true of the -juql-tuq paradigm. These forms are nominal to some extent.

(68) sanavuq 'someone works' indicative

(69) sanajuq 'one who works' nominal participle

It must be emphasized, however, that the semantic difference between these two variants is not at all as obvious as it appears in this example. The descriptive differentiation between the two paradigms probably originates with Kleinschmidt (1851: 46^7 , 112-113).

Kleinschmidt further contrasts the nominal participle with the passive participle -jaql-taq, namely, "der, welchen er -; dem so gethan wird od.

118 6. Transitivity

wurde" [the one he s; the one to whom is or was done]. Kleinschmidt points out that the passive participle is possible only with transitive verbs. In this respect its behavior is identical to that of ordinary passive. In contrast with the -juql-tnq and -vuql-puq paradigms, -jaql-taq cannot be inflected verbally, that is, there are no first and second person forms. It is simply a derivational affix.

(70) takujaq taku- -jaq see one who is ... 'an object of vision; one who is seen'

(Dorais 1988: 55)

The passive participle is interpreted by some scholars, for instance, Dorais and Johns, as a constituent part of the inflectional transitive paradigm, namely, as the passive participle plus possessive ending:

(71) -jaq + -ga -jara -ga lposs lsg - 3sg 'my - ' 1 - it"08

Furthermore, under this analysis the passive affix -jau-l-tau- can be interpreted as the passive participle plus the verbalizing affix -u- *be':

(72) jaq- + -u- + inflectional ending one who is... be

It must be kept in mind that both the transitive inflectional paradigm and the passive affix are lexicalized forms; an analysis of the kind mentioned above makes sense only from a diachronic perspective. Mallon has also more than once attempted to paint a diachronic picture of the two paradigms. In his opinion, the -juql-tuq forms are older and are now being squeezed out by the younger variant -vuq/-puq.lw Johns has taken up this assumption and infers from it that Inuktitut was originally a nominal language, in which genuinely verbal elements appeared only in a later phase of development.

To return to the question of how nominal the nominal participle is, there is indeed evidence for the assumption that the -juql-tuq paradigm in some instances bears nominal features and can be treated just like a noun. One instance of this has already been discussed in the foregoing, namely, the derivations with -viniq.

As already mentioned, -juql-tuq are citation forms; as such, they are comparable to the habit of quoting the infinitive in German or English: pisuk-tuq thus is cited in the same manner as German geh-en or English walk.


The use of the third person singular as the citation form is habitual for many languages and generally justified on morphological grounds, such as the isolation of the stem. Thus -juql-tuq are not isolated forms but part of a whole inflectional paradigm that covers first and second person as well, in the singular, dual, and plural. Interestingly enough, the proponents of the "nominal" interpretation hardly ever look at first and second persons. This is justified insofar as the nominal characteristics they have in mind can best be observed with the third person ending. Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that these other forms do exist.

Johns (1987a) argues that the -juql-tuq forms are nominal in character and not verbal. Proposing a syntactic analysis intended to account for the ergative nature of the language, Johns claims that the category verb is defective in Inuktitut; that is, expressions like

(73) sanajuq 's/he is working'

(74) mikijuq 's/he is small'

do not constitute real predicates but just predicative expressions. This assumption has important syntactic consequences for the argument structure and case assignment.

Among other things, Johns (1987a) claims that the inflectional suffix -juq/-tuq can be directly attached to nominal stems and therefore is not limited to verbs, unlike the indicative suffix -vuq/ -puq:

(75) attigituq 's/he puts on an attigi' attigi: 'winter overcoat of caribou skin'

(76) piqsiqtuq 'it is blizzarding, there is a blizzard outside' piqsiq: 'snowstorm'

(77) kamittuq "he puts on the boot(s)' kamik: Txjot'

(78) nanuttuq *he kills a polar bear' nanuq: 'polar bear'

(79) tupittuq *he pegs up a tent' tupiq: 'tent'

The expressions (75)-(79) were confirmed by native speakers, but it was also pointed out that these are highly lexicalized forms: the derivation

N u c n o m + -juql-tuq

120 6. Transitivity

cannot be viewed as generally productive. Consequently, (79), which was suggested by Mallon (p.c.). was received with great hesitation or even rejected. Similarly, the form

(80) *qajattuq *tie "kayaks"' qajaq: 'small boat', kayak

was rejected. But on the other hand, the synthetic form (81) was readily accepted as correct.

(81) qajarliuqtuq 'someone builds a boat" -liuq- 'to create or make something'

(a verbalizing affix)

What we can say with certainty is that it is highly questionable whether the nominal participial affix actually can be directly attached to noun stems or noun complexes. The few acceptable cases could perfectly well be viewed as clearly defined, grammaticalized exceptions. The nominal participle endings -juql-tuq do not attach freely to nominals, but are basically restricted to verbal stems. So the question is rather whether

Nucv+ -juql-tuq

show nominal features or not. Most prominent is the fact that such complexes may receive case; in so-called relative constructions such as

(82) takuvunga nutaramik siniktumik taku- -vunga nutarafq)- -mik sinik- -tu(q)- -mik see lsg,itr,ind child obj sleep 3sg,itr,nom part obj Ί see the child who is sleeping'

the attributive (or predicative) siniktuq follows its head noun in case. This of course is a strong argument for its basically nominal character.

(82) a. nutaraq siniktuq nutaraq -0 sinik- -tuq child abs sleep 3sg,itr,nom part 'the child sleeps'

b. takuvunga nutararmik taku- -vunga nutara(q) -mik see lsg,itr,ind child obj Ί see the child'

The analysis of -juql-tuq forms as attributive and consequently as more nominal than verbal receives its strongest support from this interpretation of intransitive nominal participials as relative clauses. Kleinschmidt (1851), and more recently Creider (1978), Smith (1984), and Johns (1987b), indicate that


verbal forms in -juql-tuq function as relative clauses. Smith and Creider state quite definitely that intransitive verb inflection comprises only the -vuql-puq paradigm, while relativization is restricted to the nominal participle. Johns (1987a, b) also takes up this analysis and utilizes it as the foundation for her modified version of the Nominalist Hypothesis. As evidence in support of her interpretation, she cites the following examples, which she contrasts:

(4a) takuvara sinik - tuq

(5a) angut sinik - tuq (Johns 1987b: 6, her numbering)

In each of sentences (4a) and (4b), same relationships obtain:

(83) a. taku- -vara see lsg/3sg,tr,ind

b. taku- -vara see lsg/3sg,tr,ind

(4b) takuvara sinik - puq

(5b) angut sinik - puq

repeated as (83a) and (83b), the

sinik- -tuq sleep 3sg,itr,nom part

sinik- -puq sleep 3sg,itr,ind

Nevertheless, Johns proposes different readings for the two sentences and further claims that the reading of her (4a), here repeated as (83a), does not hold for her (4b), here (83b); the difference is thus no trivial matter

(83) a. 1 see the one who is sleeping'

b. Ί see him. He sleeps.'

In her sentences (5a) and (5b), according to Johns, this distinction does not arise; both can be translated

(5a)/(5b) The man sleeps.'

Whereas the forms in -juql-tuq are considered quasi-nominal and may be interpreted as a relative clause, as in (83a), the forms in -vuql-puq represent an indicative meaning. This distinction is possible only if a second verbal complex appears in the sentence, so that two clauses are brought together.

Now, if one interprets relative clauses as nominal supplements to the matrix verb, then of course nominal participles must be able to bear case.

(84) takuvunga angutimik aullaqtumik taku- -vunga anguti- -mik aullaq- -tu(q)- -mik see lsg,itr,ind man obj leave 3sg,itr,nom part obj Ί see the/a man who is leaving.'

122 6. Transitivity

In (84) we see that the apparently verbal form aullaqtuq lie goes away, leaves' is marked with the same case as the modified noun, angutimik 'the man'. In contrast to (83a)

(83) a. taku- -vara sinik- -tuq see lsg/3sg,ti\ind sleep 3sg,itr,nom part Ί see the one who is sleeping'

the matrix verb in (84), takuvunga, is intransitive, with the result that its object is case marked with the suffix -mik. In (83a), whose matrix verb is transitive, the head noun to siniktuq '(one) who sleeps' would appear in the absolutive:

(85) takuvara angut siniktuq taku- -vara angut -0 sinik- -tuq ·φ see lsg/3sg,tr,ind man abs sleep the one who abs Ί see the man who is sleeping'

Then the form siniktuq could be clearly interpreted as having absolutive case and thus being of a nominal character. Thus, from the standpoint of the data it must be stated that the -juql-tuq form could be interpreted as nominal, representing an "attributive predicate".

But as far as the sentence structure is concerned, it would be premature to decide whether one clause is subordinated to the other or whether two matrix clauses are coordinated. The translation of (83a) suggests a subordination, in the shape of a relative clause, whereas the clauses in (83b) are clearly interpreted as equivalent in status. But because subordinate clauses can normally be recognized by the presence of subordinate moods, the problem cannot be solved by simply mentioning relative clauses and waving our hands. Either relative clauses must be equated with causal, conditional, and participial subordinate clauses, or relative clauses in Inuktitut have a different standing; then one would have to investigate whether the so-called relatives actually are embedded sentences or not. It could turn out that interpreting them as relative clauses is helpful in rendering a suitable translation since we could not understand them otherwise, yet that the construction itself is of an altogether different nature.

Comparing again the so-called relative clauses in (82), (83a), (84), (85), with verbal complexes in one of the subordinate moods, it is very hard to view them as similar in any way. Not only do they differ remarkably as far as morphological indication is concerned; verbal complexes in subordinate moods are to some extent dependent upon a matrix verb, which they need as an antecedent; the general understanding is that they cannot themselves


function as matrix verbs.110 But as sentence (5a) quoted above shows, this latter function is perfectly normal for "relative clauses"; (5a), here repeated as (86), is a fully grammatical complete sentence:

(86) angut sinik - tuq

Kleinschmidt (1851: 104, §102) describes the relative clause construction in Greenlandic as being effected by the nominal participle, which transforms the "redewort" (i.e. vert>), into an "adjective", which then exhibits an equal relationship with the "project".11' Two things are of interest here: 1. the indication of the "adjectival", thus nominal, character of -juql-tuq 2. the observation of the "equal relationship" to the project (head noun), confirming that the supposed relative clauses are not syntactically parallel to causal clauses or conditional clauses.

Fortescue formulates this point very clearly: "the borderline between relative clauses and nominal constituents in simple apposition within a complex NP is not clear cut since there is no morphological category of adjective in West Greenlandic or any specific marker of relative clauses" (1984: 49; cf. also p. 51).

In this sense, then, it is really a matter of personal preference or of one's particular objective at the moment whether one should translate a sentence like

(87) Jaani quviasuktuq Jaani -φ quviasuk- -tuq John abs be happy 3sg,itr,nom part

as 'John, the happy one' or 'John is happy'. What we have established, however, is that, when co-occurring with a matrix verb, nominal participles in the third person can bear case and thus must be analyzed as nominal.

Harper (1974: 9) refers to the two intransitive paradigms as alternatives "with identical meaning in verbal context". But then he mentions "Other uses exist in a gerundive context"(1974: 9), unfortunately without further explanation, so that one cannot determine from his grammar whether he has in mind such sentences as those cited by Smith (1984: 295-297), here repeated as (88H91):

(88) takuvunga angutimik takujumik annamik Ί saw the man who saw the woman'

(89) takujaga angutik takujuk puijimmik Ί saw the man who saw the seal'

(90) angutik takujuk puijimmik nigijuk niqimmik The man who saw the seal ate the meat'

124 6. Transitivity

(91) angutik puijip takujanga nigijuk niqimmik 'The man that the seal saw ate the meat'

Dorais (1988: 58ff.) remarks for Inuktitut spoken in Arctic Quebec that the forms in question can be equated with relative clauses in English (1988: 116). However, since his grammar does not contain a section on syntax, it is not possible to draw any inferences on the construction of relative clauses.

Again, it must be kept in mind that the question of categorial status arises only with respect to the third person, with the result that the possibility of interpreting it as attributive can in any event involve only this form. Sentence (88) shows agreement in case with the head noun, but offers problems because of its complexity. The intransitive indicative form takuvunga Ί see' is supplemented by three constituents, which all appear in the same case, the objective. Just such double or multiple case marking met with rejection and were deemed confusing.

Further investigation revealed that relative constructions like the ones discussed here were only acceptable in very simple form, as in (83a), (84), (85). Sentences such as (88)-(91) or even more complex forms were plainly rejected: "We do not speak that way." It should be noted that the discussion of relative sentences is of special importance with respect to the problem of ergativity"2 and will be taken up again. For the time being, it is sufficient to state again that third person nominal participles in more complex sentences may be case marked. It remains to ask, however, how the first and second person forms, -tunga and -tutit (or -junga, -jutit) must be interpreted. A nominal interpretation can be defended only for the third person; this is particularly true of color terms, which occur only in the third person and can be nominally inflected.

(92) aupaqtuq 'red' qirniqtuq 'black' qaulluqtuqlqakuqtuq 'white' quqsuqtuq 'yellow' tungujuqtuq 'blue, green'

It might be suggested that the third person -juql-tuq represents a distinct nominalizing morpheme, corresponding to -jaql-taq:

takujaq 'the seen one'

takujuq 'the one who sees'

Arguments against this somewhat technical solution have already been brought forward, above all the fact that -juql-tuq is not generally productive. The indeterminateness of -juql-tuq with respect to lexical category can be viewed as part of a more general problem, namely, the difficulty of


establishing lexical classes in Inuktitut. It must be also taken into account that within the polysynthetic process lexical status can be altered freely and frequently. Thus, lexical categorial status seems to be of primary relevance only with respect to syntax. This remark brings up more questions than it answers, but so does the ongoing dispute over the nominal character of Inuit languages. Just to add to the complexity of the problem: 1. With respect to syntax the status of inflection as an agreement/cross reference marker must be considered, too. Although the noun phrase may be omitted, -juql-tuq clearly indicates the relation to a grammatical (third) person and establishes cross reference to the (overt) absolutive noun phrase. 2. The Nominalist Hypothesis was first substantiated by two considerations: formal similarity and the "nonactive, nondynamic character of simple sentences". Similarity of form should not be brushed aside, but to put much emphasis on it means disregarding the advantages of the abstract notions "morpheme", "morph", and "allomorph". 3. The various indeterminacies that keep cropping up suggest that the question of lexical category must be viewed in a wider context. With respect to Inuktitut, this means that polysynthetic processes have to be taken into account and the role of syntax has to be reconsidered. With respect to linguistic theory, this means that the elementary status of the categories noun and verb may have to be discarded.113

To summarize, it can be stated that the intransitive verbal inflectional paradigm consists of two series of inflectional endings, which are generally termed the indicative (-vuql-puq) and the nominal participle {-juql-tuq). Both series are counted as intransitive because they exhibit agreement with a single noun phrase in the absolutive case. It is possible to identify verbal nuclei that can be only intransitively inflected.

Investigation employing semantic, formal morphological, and syntactic criteria shows that it is difficult to establish definitively when one of the two competing paradigms is used. On the one hand, they seem to be largely interchangeable; on the other, it is likely that their use is linked to differences in speaker intention and speech situation.

As far as the nominal character of third person -juql-tuq is concerned, it can be stated that the instances where -juql-tuq can be directly applied to a nominal stem are limited to clothing, possibly household objects, game animals, and weather terms. The hypothsis that the third, and only the third, person can have a nominal interpretation is supported by the ability of the nominal participle to bear case in coordinated sentences or so-called relative clauses. Thus, this form behaves like the set of color terms, which also can appear only in the third person. It is possible to account for these facts if this affix -juql-tuq is analyzed as a nominalizer to be distinguished from the third person singular intransitive nominal participle, an inflected verb form.

126 6. Transitivity

6.2.2. Transitive verbal complexes

Transitive verbs are defined as those verbs that establish a relation to two grammatical persons, agree with two (overt) noun phrases, and thereby express the relationship of these grammatical persons/noun phrases to each other as well as to the predicate.

(93) arnaup kaapi kuvivanga arna(q) -up kaapi -φ kuvi- -vanga woman erg coffee abs spill 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the woman spills coffee'

As demonstrated earlier, there are verbal nuclei which can be inflected both transitively and intransitively, without the intransitive variant's being interpreted as a reflexive. Examples (94) and (95) are both fully grammatical.

(94) qimmiq takuvara qimmiq -φ taku- -vara dog abs see lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί see the dog'

(95) takuvunga qimmimik taku- -vunga qimmi(q) -mik see lsg,itr,ind dog obj Ί see a dog'

One should remember, however, that not all verb roots can be inflected both transitively and intransitively in this way.

Just as intransitive inflection comprises two paradigms, so does transitive inflection. Thus, Dorais (1988) differentiates between transitive indicative and transitive participial paradigms:

(96) taku- -vara vs. taku- -jara see lsg/3sg,tr4nd see lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί see it'

(97) tusar- -para vs. tusar- -tara hear lsg/3sg,tr,ind hear lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί hear it'

As with the intransitive paradigms discussed before, the allomorphic variation depends on the final phone of the stem: a vowel triggers -vara or -jara, while a consonant triggers -para or -tara, as can be seen in (96) and (97).

As briefly mentioned before, Mallon is of the opinion that transitive forms can be distinguished from intransitive ones by their greater specificity and


concreteness. For instance, a general statement such as Ί am married' can be formulated intransitively:

(98) uiqaqtunga ui -qaq- -tunga husband have(itr) lsg,itr,nom part Ί am married'

If, in contrast, the statement includes the person to whom one is married, Mallon believes that the transitive form would be preferred:

(99) Miuriup Jaani uigijanga Miuri -up Jaani -φ ui -gi- -janga Mary erg Jaani abs husband have 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'Mary is married to John"14

It is important to note that this proposed distinction between the transitive and intransitive paradigms on the basis of the semantic criterion of generality must be met with caution; it is by no means compulsory. Thus, intransitive forms in combination with specific names are common and entirely grammatical. It would be quite problematic to treat sentences like

(100) Mild quviasuktuq Mild -φ quviasuk- -tuq Mike abs be happy 3sg,itr,nom part 'Mike is happy'

(101) Mild ingittuq Miki -φ ingit- -tuq Mike abs sit down 3sgjtr,nom part 'Mike sits down'

as general statements about Mike. As implied by the discussion in 6.2.1.1, such a differenciation seems unlikely and implausible. It must be further noted that "nominal" behavior of third person singular in the sense discussed above does not occur with any of the transitive forms.

As mentioned above, there is a group of verbs which can equally be inflected transitively - with reference to two participants - or intransitively -with reference to only one. I I S

(102) sana- -vuq sana- -vanga work 3sg,itr,ind work 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'he works' "he works on it'

(103) taku- -vuq taku- -vanga 'he sees' Tie sees it'

128 6. Transitivity

(104) tusar- -puq 'he hears'

tusar- -panga Tie hears it'

(105) malik- -tuq 'he follows'

malik- -tanga lie follows something'

Although they may be differentiated on semantic grounds, namely as result predicates, there is a group of verbal nuclei that behaves similar to the one mentioned. While roots like those in (102M105) refer to perception or bodily action and always require an animate participant, the verbs listed in (106) when inflected intransitively do not:

(106) kuvi-qupi-imaaq-qilattaq-ipiiq-siqumit-nakat-napi-matuiq-

'to spill' 'to split' 'to fall into the water' 'to ty up* 'to loosen' 'to shatter' (ice, glass) 'to split in half (long, narrow and solid object) 'to break' (but still hanging on) 'to open'...

Accordingly, (107), (108), and (109) show a resultative reading:

(107) kaapi kuvivuq 'the coffee spilt/the coffee spills'

(108) qijuk qupijuq 'the wood split/the wood splits'

(109) savik imaaqpuq 'the knife fell into the water'116

This group of verbs exhibits a clearly agentive meaning when inflected transitively and can undergo antipassivization:

(110) a. arnaup kaapi kuvivanga arna(q) -up kaapi -φ kuvi- -vanga woman erg coffee abs spill 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the woman spills/spilt coffee'

b. arnaq kaapimik kuvisivuq arnaq -φ kaapi -mik kuvi- -si- -vuq woman abs coffee obj spill ap 3sg,itr,ind 'the woman spills/spilt coffee'

(111) a. arnaup qijuk qupijanga arna(q) -up qijuk -φ woman erg wood abs 'the woman splits/split wood'

qupi- -janga split 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part


b. arnaq qijumik qupisivuq arnaq -φ qijuk -mik woman abs wood obj 'the woman splits/split wood'

qupi- -si- -vuq split ap 3sg,itrjnd

(112) a. surusiup savik imaaqpanga surusi(q) -up savik -φ imaaq- -panga child erg knife abs throw into 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

the water 'the child threw the knife into the water1

b. surusiq savimik imaaqsijuq surusiq -φ savik -mik imaaq- -si- -juq child abs knife obj throw into ap 3sg,itr

the water 'the child (little boy) threw the knife into the water'

It remains to list some of the verbs that require a basically transitive use; when inflected intransitively, they acquire a reflexive reading, and they may undergo antipassivization.

(113) aktuq- 'to touch' attuq- 'to touch briefly' anau- 'to hit briefly and lightly, slap' kapi- 'to stab' tuni- 'to give' tigu- 'to take' kunik- 'to kiss' nalligi- 'to love' kii- 'to bite' uasaq- 'to wash'

The correct, transitive form

(114) akturpanga 's/he touches it' aktu(q)- -panga touch 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

and the corresponding morphologically intransitive form

(115) akturpuq * 's/he touches' aktu(q)- -puq touch 3sg,itr,ind

130 6. Transitivity

cannot be interpreted in the same way as the intransitive forms in (102H105). Rather, the verbs listed under (113) must all be interpreted reflexively if inflected intransitively:

could only be reflexive; moreover, they do not have a reflexive dative reading such as 'he takes for himself or 'he gives to himself. These very forms, (119) and (120), were spontaneously rejected. One consultant however suggested the interpretation "Mary gives herself to God" or "marries" for

(121) Miali tunivuq"1

The verbs listed as transitive provide good evidence for the argument of "natural logic" in explaining transitivity: they all designate directed, controlled actions that are aimed at other people or objects, i.e., control verbs in the sense of Dixon. Since reflexivity expresses actions "aimed at oneself', intransitive inflection, which refers to only one person, is natural and appropriate for the purpose: the action is restricted to one and the same person. As a consequence of this pattern, Kleinschmidt mentions that a test of transitivity for a given verb is whether with intransitive inflection it always receives a reflexive interpretation.

It bears mention that verbs of the class illustrated in (102)-(105) can also be used reflexively with intransitive inflection. Here the personal pronoun ingminik '(one)self is required. The pronoun, which is indeclinable, appears in all persons and cases.

(122) ingminik takuvunga 1 see myself

To sum up, we can tentatively divide transitive roots into three groups: 1. those which can be either transitive or intransitive and 2. those which are normally inflected transitively and in intransitive form are

interpreted reflexively; this latter group corresponds to the semantic class of control verbs and undergoes antipassivization

(116) akturpuq

(117) kapivuq

(118) nalligijuq

lie touches himself

lie stabs himself

"he loves himself (etc.)

Likewise, the forms

(119) *tunivuq

(120) *tiguvuq

•Tie gives himself

*'he takes himself


3. those which show an agentive reading when inflected transitively, but a resultative reading when inflected intransitively. They likewise permit antipassivization.

6.2.3. Synthetic verbal complexes

Since appending inflection directly to verbal nuclei is relatively uncommon in Inuktitut, the question whether a given nucleus is transitive or intransitive is primarily of interest because this fact influences the choice of polysynthetic constructions in which it may appear. In contrast to a language like German, where the value for transitivity of a root determines the subcategorization frame and argument structure of a verb and thus is syntactically relevant, this is not true for verb roots (nuclei) in Inuktitut in the same way. To be specific, a verb root represents little more than a basis for further derivation, and in this sense its argument structure or subcategorization frame is more of morphological than of syntactic relevance. A verb root is hardly ever just inflected, but close to always it is extended by a number of affixes which may add to its semantics, give it an epistemic reading, introduce a temporal or aspectual feature, or change its grammatical staus, i.e., alter the potential syntactic behavior of the derived complex.

Polysynthesis is extremely important in Inuktitut; but since it is not the topic of this investigation, its peculiarities will only be touched on en passant, to the extent necessary. It must be noted, however, that the importance of polysynthetic processes became more and more apparent in the course of investigation. In this connection, it must be emphasized that all the examples herein featuring simplex verbs do not represent normal conversation, but rather reduced, although possible, forms.

Since the topic of investigation is a syntactic one, namely, transitivity and ergativity, this simplification does not hamper the results. But again it must be pointed out that as the investigation went on, the impression became ever stronger that the processes of polysynthesis form a separate layer of productivity that interacts with syntax. But "interaction" seems to be too weak a word: the impression that Inuktitut syntax is a highly regular process without recognizable exceptions and irregularities, as well as the impression that the syntactic intricacies so common in European languages are not present in Inuktitut, takes on new meaning in light of the complexity of its polysynthetic processes. Without going into any detail or trying to empirically back up the claim here and now, I wish to express the opinion that, because polysynthesis constitutes the primary level of productivity, the intertranslatability and paraphrasability of the levels is reversed: whereas in European languages it is primarily syntax which is unrestrictedly productive,

132 6. Transitivity

in Inuktitut it is polysynthesis which is; whereas word formation is a productive but also highly restricted process in European languages, it is syntax that shows limitations in possible complexity in Inuktitut. Thus, complex word formation in a language like German can always be rephrased in syntactic form but not vice versa, in Inuktitut polysynthetic complexes often cannot be rephrased syntactically, but the relative simplicity of the syntactic patterns discussed here is essentially supplemented by intricate word formation processes.

As I have already pointed out, affixes show a wide range of features and capacities. The same justification with which we have studied the transitivity of verbs makes it evident that we must do the same for affixes. In the present context, it is indispensable to examine at least some of the most important affixes that affect transitivity. It is true of all these affixes that they alter the degree of transitivity. However, they also differ in various ways. One of the affixes has a purely grammatical function, whereas the others each have their own semantics as well. Some have category-changing properties.

6.2.3.1. -si-

The verbal affix -si- does not change the category of a stem. It has no lexical meaning but rather the morphosyntactic function of detransitivizing a transitive nucleus or verbal stem in such a way that this can be intransitively inflected without becoming reflexive. Frequently -si- is referred to as an antipassive morpheme."8

The morpheme -si- is not universally applicable, being instead restricted to certain nuclei or verb stems. Among nuclei, it is primarily the above-mentioned control verbs that come into play as hosts, as well as a set of agentive nuclei that escape a resultative meaning via application of -si-(see 6.2.2 above). Among verb stems it is derivations with -tit- 'to cause' that are the most common hosts. It is not clear whether the distribution of -si- is entirely semantically motivated or whether lexical features also constitute a factor.

While the transitive form contains two argument places, AGENT and THEME,1,9 detransitivization without -si- causes one of these to be lost, leading to reflexivity, in which AGENT and THEME are understood to be identical. The affix -si- now preserves the two-place argument structure but alters the syntactic relationship between the noun phrases involved. This process formally resembles the passive in European languages, but as far as the semantic roles of the arguments affected are concerned, it is the opposite of passive. This is the reason for its designation as "antipassive". The application of -si- results in detransitivization, as seen in (123b):


a. (123) b. aktur- -janga aktuq- -si- -juq 's/he touches

3sg/3sg,tr, ap 3sg,itr, nom part nom part 's/he - if

qukir- •janga qukiq- -si- -juq 's/he shoots . kapi- -janga kapi- -si- -juq 's/he stabs ...' tuni- -janga tuni- -si- -juq 's/he gives ... tigu- -janga tigu- -si- -juq 's/he gives ... kuni(k)- -janga kunik- -si- -juq 's/he kisses .. nalligi- -janga nalligi- -si- -juq 's/he loves ... kii- -janga kii- -si- -juq 's/he bites ...' pati(k)- -janga patik- -si- -juq 's/he hits ...'

(124) Miuri Jaanimik kuniksijuq Miuri -0 Jaani -mik Mary abs John obj 'Mary kisses John'

kunik- -si- -juq kiss ap 3sg,itr,nom part

(125) qimmimik patiksijutit qimmiq -mik patik- -si- -jutit dog obj hit ap 2sg,itr,nom part 'you hit a/the dog'

(126) nasarmik aupaqtumik tigusijunga nasaq -mik aupaqtuq -mik tigu- -si- -junga hat obj red obj take ap lsg,itr,nom part Ί take the red hat'

Sentences lacking a noun phrase in the objective case were regarded by all my consultants as incomplete, so that

(127) *Miki qukiqsijuq

could not be translated with the general statement 'Miki shoots' and be considered acceptable as a full sentence. In contrast, (128) was possible:

(128) Miki tuktumik qukiqsijuq Miki -0 tuktu -mik qukiq- -si- -juq Mike abs caribou obj shoot ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'Mike shoots a caribou"

If one compares (128) with the transitive sentence (129), the differences in morphological marking are apparent.

134 6. Transitivity

(129) Mikiup tuktu qukiqpanga Mild -up tuktu -0 qukiq- -panga Mike erg caribou abs shoot 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'Mike shoots a caribou'

Sentence (129) exhibits two noun phrases agreeing with the inflected verb, one marked absolutive, the other ergative. The verb in sentence (128), however, agrees only with the absolutive noun phrase but has a complement in the objective case. Thus -si- affects not only the inflectional behavior of the verb stem, but the argument structure of the sentence as well. This change is not reflected in the translation, (128) and (129) being translated in the same way. The status of the noun phrases involved will be examined in detail in Chapter 7. Consequently, a specific description will be delayed until then. It is apparent that the NPlbs of (129) appears as the noun phrase in the objective case in (128), which does not agree with the verb but is nevertheless obligatory. Since ergative case is not possible in intransitive sentences, the sole agreeing argument realized as overt noun phrase receives absolutive case, giving the following structure:

(128) NP [Mild] VP [tuktumik qukiqsijuq] [Mild -φ] [tuktu- -mik qukiq- -si- -juq] [Mike abs] [caribou obj shoot ap 3sg,itr,nom part]

This contrasts with the transitive version (129):

(129) NP [Mikiup] NP [tuktu] VP [qukiqpanga] [Miki -up] [tuktu -φ\ [qukiq- -panga] [Mike erg] [caribou abs] [shoot 3sg/3sg,tr,ind]

In the literature -si- has often been termed "half transitive" or "detransitive" since Kleinschmidt. These names make reference to the reduction in agreement positions, since in fact all the obligatory arguments of the transitive sentence remain available and merely occur in different places. One can also find -si- described as an "agent marker" (Johns 1987b). These terms refer to the fact that -si- assigns the semantic role AGENT - or one might also view it as preservation of the role AGENT: while in an ordinary intransitive sentence the NP>bs is basically incompatible with the semantic role AGENT, this is not the case in sentences like (128).

6.2.3.2. -jau-l-tau-

The forms -jau- and -tau- are the allomorphs of the passive affix. This affix can be applied only to transitive verb stems and, like -si-, causes reduction and change of the argument structure.


(130) Mikiup tuktu qukiqpanga Miki -up tuktu -0 qukiq- -panga Mike erg caribou abs shoot 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'Mike shoots a caribou'

(131) tuktu qukirtaujuq tuktu -0 quki(q)- -tau- -juq caribou abs shoot pass 3sgjtr,nom part 'a caribou is shot'

Contrary to -si-, -jau-/-tau- distinctly assigns or reinforces the semantic role PATIENT. It also reduces the number of noun phrases under agreement to one; the noun phrase marked ergative and thus bearing the semantic role AGENT is suppressed. What remains is an intransitive sentence with one external argument, which is not an agent - a perfectly normal sentence. Such a passive sentence does not require a complement as does -si-, but the agentive argument may optionally occur in an oblique case, primarily in the terminalis; in some dialects ablative seems to be used instead.

(132) tuktu Mikimut qukirtaujuq tuktu -0 Miki -mut caribou abs Mike term 'the caribou is shot by Miki'

quki(q)- -tau- -juq shoot pass 3sg,itr,nom part

6.2.3.3. -tit-

In contrast to -si-, the affix -tit-, which is also a verbal affix and means 'to cause', has the effect of increasing transitivity. It creates a second agreement position when it is appended to an intransitive verbal nucleus or verbal stem. However, it can also be applied to verbs which are already transitive, resulting in what are called "double transitive verbs" (Kleinschmidt).

(133) Miki anijuq Miki -0 ani- -juq Mike abs go out 3sg,itr,nom part 'Mike went out'

(134) Miki anititara Miki -0 ani- -ti(t)- -tara Mike abs go out cause lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί caused Mike to go out, I threw Mike out'

136 6. Transitivity

(135) Jaaniup Miki anititanga Jaani -up Miki -0 ani- -ti(t)- -tanga John erg Mike abs go out cause 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'John threw Mike out'

With intransitive verbs like ani- 'to go out', the use of -tit- produces the typical transitive sentence structure with two agreement positions and the usual distribution of cases, as in (134) and (135). With transitive verbs like ikajuq- 'to help', an additional argument position is brought into being.120

Since -tit- is the head of the new form and also assigns the semantic role AGENT, this new argument appears in the ergative case while the THEME remains in the absolutive case.

(136) arnaup Miki ikajurpanga arna(q) -up Mild -0 ikaju(q)- -panga woman erg Mike abs help 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the woman helps Mike'

(137) * Jaaniup Miki ikajuqtitanga ikajuq- -ti(t)- -tanga help cause 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part

'John caused to help Mike'

Although both agreement positions are correctly occupied, this sentence is incomplete, since the original AGENT is missing: whereas the "causer" is named, the person who carries out the action is absent, as comparison with the simple transitive sentence (136) without -tit- shows.

(138) Jaaniup arnamut Miki ikajuqtitanga Jaani -up arnaq -mut Miki -0 ikajuq- -ti(t)- -tanga John erg woman term Mike abs help cause 3sg/3sg,tr, AGENT AGENT THEME nom part 'John caused the woman to help Mike'

In (138), the AGENT of the embedded action of "helping" appears in the terminalis (-mut), which can also bear the semantic role AGENT.

There also exist certain derivations with -tit(si)- which have become lexicalized, whereby the causative meaning of -tit- has become greatly weakened:

ani- 'to go out' anitit(si)- 'to set something out, set something outside the door' iliniaq- 'to learn' iliniaqtit(si)- 'to teach' isiq- 'to come in' isiqtit(si)- 'to bring in, pull in'

6.2. Transitivity in verbal complexes 137

6.2.3.4. -qu-

The affix -qu- 'to order, command' behaves much like -tit-. It can also be attached to both transitive and intransitive nuclei and also leads to an increase in transitivity. The argument structures behave in the same way as with -tit-.

(139) Mild up nuliani aniquvanga Mild -up nulia(q) -ni Mike erg wife poss.abs Mike sent his wife out'

(140) Mikiup Jaani aullaqquvanga Mild -up Jaani -0 Mike erg John abs 'Mike ordered John to leave'

(142) *Jaaniup Mihi ikajuqquvanga

ani- -qu- -vanga go out tell 3sg/3sg,tr,ind'

aullaq- -qu- -vanga leave tell 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

ikajuq- -qu- -vanga help tell 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

(141) Jaaniup arnamut Miki ikajuqquvanga Jaani -up arnaq -mut Mild -0 John erg woman term Mike abs 'John ordered the woman to help Mike'

6.2.3.5. -ji-

Since both -tit- and -qu- increase transitivity and since complex, derived stems are treated the same way as nuclei, it is not surprising that forms bearing these affixes can be passivized and detransitivized. Detransitivization of verbs in -tit- is effected with -si-, whereas verbs in -qu- are detransitivized with the affix -ji-.

The lexicalized forms anitit(si)-, iliniaqtit(si)-, and isiqtit(si)- were introduced above. The lexicalized reading, however, is available only in certain contexts; in other contexts, the literal reading is accepted without hesitation. As a result, (143) has the same meaning as (144):

(143) Miki nuliaminik anititsijuq Miki -0 nulia(q)- -minik ani- -tit- -si- -juq Mike abs wife 3poss,obj go out cause ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'Mike sent his wife out'

(144) Miki nuliaminik aniqujivuq Miki -0 nulia(q)- -minik ani- -qu- -ji- -vuq Mike abs wife 3poss,obj go out tell ji 3sg,itr,ind 'Mike sent his wife out'

138 6. Transitivity

(145) Mild qajarminik anititsijuq Mihi -φ qaja(q)- -minik anitisi- -juq Mike abs kayak 3poss,obj set s.th. out 3sg4tr,nom part

In contrast, (145) shows the lexicalized reading and is more suitably translated as *Mike set his (own) kayak in front of the door'. The same is true of

(146) Jaani qajarminik isiqtitsijuq Jaani -φ qaja(q)- -minik isiqtitsi- -juq John abs kayak 3poss,obj take in 3sg,itr,nom part 'John took his (own) kayak in'

(147) Jaani up qajani isiqtitanga Jaani -up qaja(q) -ni isiqtit- -tanga John erg kayak 3poss,abs take in 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'John took his (own) kayak in'

Here both the transitive and the intransitive form were accepted. As is illustrated in (144), words in -qu- are detransitivized by the use of

-ji-. Jensen and Johns (1989: 209-229) interpret -ji- and -si- as a kind of allomoiphic variants. The supporting arguments, however, remain unclear. To begin with, there is no phonological motivation for the alternation in initial consonants that they must assume. Jensen and Johns take -ji- to be the underlying form, stating that -ji- is actually a nominalizing affix, to be found in ikajuqti 'the helper', piqati 'the friend', and other derivations (1989: 221). They consider -ji- to be equivalent to -si- but without a copular function, whereas conversely -si- acts as "simultaneously both the nominalizer -ji- and a copula" (1989: 223). One of their principal arguments in favor of this position is that -ji- is conjugated only as a nominal participle. This claim could be confirmed neither for -ji- nor for -si-, compare (144), for example. The inference that -ji- is of nominalizing character should be viewed against the backdrop of Johns's assumption that Inuktitut is an essentially nominal language.121 It is less than certain, however, that this interpretation is tenable. It seems to be preferable to distinguish the nominalizing affix -ji-l-ti- from -si- and verbal -ji-; otherwise a form like

(148) ani- -qu- -ji- -vuq go out tell -ji- 3sg,itr,ind 's/he tells ... to go out'

taken from (144), should not be possible, whereas in fact it is. To carry the argument further, even if it were only possible to attach the nominal participle ending to -ji- and -ji- were consequently taken for a nominalizer,


this would imply that the nominal participle was appropriate for attachment to nominalized forms or nouns in general. That this is not the case was shown in 6.2.1.1. On the other hand, -ji- as nominalizer may be attached to a verbal nucleus + -si-, as iliniaqtitsiji:

iliniaq- -tit- -si- -ji learn cause ap AffN 'teacher'

6.2.3.6. -gi-/-ri- and -qaq-

The last two affixes to be treated here, -gi-/-ri- and -qaq-, differ from those discussed above in that they have a category-changing effect. Both mean 'to have, to possess'. That they are heads is demonstrated from the start by their ability to change categories; they likewise determine the argument structure of the new verbal complex.

The affix -qaq- is unquestionably intransitive. In the third person singular, forms in -qaq- are often impersonal, meaning 'there is/are'. The stem composed of nuna 'land' plus -qaq- means 'to live, reside':

(149) Miki Iqalungni nunaqaqtuq Miki -0 Iqalu(k) -ni nuna -qaq- -tuq Mike abs fish loc,pl land have 3sg,itr,nom part 'Mike lives in Iqaluit"22

(150) Iqalungni qimmiqaqtuq Iqaiu(k) -ni qimmi(q) -qaq- -tuq fish loc,pl dog have 3sg,itr,nom part 'there are dogs in Iqaluit'

(151) qimmiqaqtunga qimmi(q) -qaq- -tunga dog have lsg,itr,nom part Ί have dogs/a dog'

The allomorphs -gi- and -ri- have generally the same properties as -qaq-, with the exception that they are transitive. Johns mentions that -gi-l-ri- can also have the interpretation 'to use as' and gives the following example:

(152) una Jaaniup naharijaa una -φ Jaani -up naha -ri- -jaa this one abs John erg hat use as 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'John is using it as a hat'123

140 6. Transitivity

In addition, Mallon notes that -gi-/-ri- shows a tendency to occur in subordinate clauses:

(153) piqatigigakku quviasuktunga piqati -gi- -gakku quviasuk- -tunga friend have lsg/3sg,tr,caus be happy lsgjtr,nom part "because I have him/her as a friend, I am happy'

Nonetheless, sentences like

(154) Piita piqatigijara Piita -φ piqati -gi- -jara Peter abs friend have lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Peter is my friend'

are perfectly acceptable. A further exceptional use was mentioned by a consultant; -gi-l-ri- can also be joined to certain verb forms:

(155) Jaani ijurijara Jaani -φ ijuq- -ri- -jara John abs laugh have lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί laugh at John'

(156) quviagijara quvia- -gi- -jara happy have lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί am happy about something'

Examples (155) and (156) are exceptional because -gi-l-ri- is attached to a verbal nucleus, not to a nominal one as in (152)—(154). This use of -gi-l-ri-is not in accordance with its basic function of noun incorporation. With the verbal stems in (155) and (156), -gi-l-ri- increases transitivity; in doing so, it introduces a semantic role AGENT, thus emphasizing the active character of the otherwise more stative "being happy' and 'laughing'.

It must be noted, however, that -gi-l-ri- provides another example of the fact that the lexical categories Ν and V are much less distinct than can be generally expected. Due to the so generally applied process of affixation, it is difficult to define Ν and V a priori; from the discussion above it must be concluded that the categorial status of affixes is not necessarily unambiguous, either. Many can be applied nominally as well as verbally. Affixes that are heads, like the ones discussed above, nevertheless do determine the lexical category in the sense that they assign semantic roles and determine the number of argument positions.124

63. Transitivity in sentences 141

Because it will be important for our discussion later on, I would like to finish off this section by noting that the affixes described here appear in comparable form in Greenlandic. Thus, Fortescue (1984: 265ff.) characterized -(s)i- as detransitivizing and "despecifying". He particularly mentions those nuclei which have a transitive as well as an intransitive reading (see 6.2.1.1), "which in their transitive sense can take a half-transitivizer" (1984: 267). The object, should it be expressed, appears in the case -mik, which Fortescue refers to as instrumental. Fortescue characterizes -tit- as a transitive affix meaning 'to cause, let'; it can be detransitivized again by combining it with -(s)i-. The affix -qqu- or -qqusi- is paraphrased by Fortescue as 'ask, want, tell'.

6.3. Transitivity in sentences

6.3.1. Intransitive sentences in Inuktitut

Now that I have attempted to illuminate transitivity in Inuktitut chiefly from a morphological angle and may have created the impression that it is primarily an aspect of word formation, I would like to turn to the subject of transitivity as a syntactic phenomenon. Because the sentence structure per se should be relatively familiar at this point, I will not stop to review it but rather will introduce directly the problem at hand.

Transitivity is first and foremost a syntactic phenomenon, referring to the ability of verbs to have nominal complements. In this description, the overlap between the word level and the sentence level is unmistakable; the synthetic nature of Inuktitut makes this interaction even clearer.

As mentioned in various places above, the minimal intransitive sentence consists of a noun phrase and a verb which agrees with the noun phrase.125

(157) angut sanavuq

angut -φ sana- -vuq

man abs work 3sg,itr,ind 'a man works'

(158) Jaani quviasuktuq

Jaani -φ quviasuk- -tuq

John abs be happy 3sg,iti\nom part 'John is happy'

This noun phrase obviously serves as the subject: - it is the only (overt) noun phrase in the sentence - it agrees with the verb. Unlike this noun phrase, other nominal constituents do not trigger agreement:

142 6. Transitivity

(159) tupirnik takuvunga tupi(q) -nik taku- -vunga tent obj,pl see lsg,itr4nd 1 see tents'

(160) Jaani illumi sinippuq Jaani -φ illu -mi sini(k)- -puq John abs house loc sleep 3sg,itr,ind 'John sleeps in the house'

The sentence in (160) is intransitive and contains an adjunct. This is not the case in (159). tupirnik is clearly a complement, appearing in the objective case, here in plural form, takuvunga alone fails to qualify as a minimal sentence, just as does

(161) *angut takuvuq angut -0 taku- -vuq man abs see 3sg,itr,ind 'the man sees ...'

In Inuktitut, intransitive sentences can be sentences with objects, even direct objects:

(161) a. angut tupirnik takuvuq angut -φ tupi(q)- -nik taku- -vuq man abs tent obj,pl see 3sg,itr,ind 'the man sees tents'

(162) nutaraq qimmimik patiksijuq nutaraq -0 qimmiq -mik patik- -si- -juq child abs dog obj hit ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'a child hits a dog'

(163) titirautimik tigusijunga titirauti -mik tigu- -si- -junga pencil obj take ap lsg,itr,nom part Ί take a pencil'

(164) paninganik anititsijuq pani(k) -nganik ani- -tit- -si- -juq daughter poss,4sg,obj go out cause ap 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he makes his/her daughter (s.o. else's) go outside'

(165) umiamik tusarputit umia(q) -mik tusar- -putit boat obj hear 2sg,itr,ind 'you hear a boat'


All supplementary nominal elements in the -mik case (-nnik/-nik) in (162)-{165) are obligatory; omitting them results in ungrammatical sentences:

(162) a. *nutaraq patiksijuq

(163) a. * tigusijunga

(164) a. *Miki anititsijuq

(165) a. * tusarputit

From this it is possible to infer that sentences referred to as intransitive sometimes require direct objects and thus are transitive in the classical sense. It is essential to keep in mind that the term "intransitive" as applied to Inuktitut is not associated with this meaning and a specific sentence structure, namely,

NP - VP[V]

but rather with the ability of the verb to agree with no more than one noun phrase. So it is entirely possible for intransitive sentences in Inuktitut to have the structure

NP - VP[NP - V]ltr

Of course, there also exist verbal nuclei which are intransitive in the strict sense; these include

(166) sinik- 'to sleep' mumiq- 'to dance' aullaq- 'to leave' pisuk- 'to go, run' ikinaq- 'to be cold* ingit- 'to sit down' isiq- 'to come in' ani- 'to go out' quviasuk- 'to be happy' saima- 'to be happy' taqa- 'to be tired' kaak- 'to be hungry'

It is here natural to ask whether the two inflectional paradigms that were discussed in 6.2.1.1 can be related to the valence of intransitive verb roots. This is not the case, because no distributional restrictions on the nominal participle (-juql-tuq) could be found. Thus the obligatoriness or non-obligatoriness of a direct object seems to be related to the verbal base or to the affix attached. The most prominent example for the last mentioned case is -si·, the antipassive affix.

144 6. Transitivity

The intransitive sentences with complements obviously present certain difficulties, above all the contradiction inherent in their designation as "intransitive".

What is the status of the noun phrase bearing the case marker -mikl It is striking that this case does not comprise an agreement feature, either to the matrix veib or to a subordinate verb, if available. In this way, -mik behaves analogously to the other oblique cases and differs fundamentally from the absolutive and ergative cases. But unlike the remaining oblique cases, which but for a few sharply marked exceptions are semantically determined, as their names reveal, the -mik case cannot be described semantically and must be seen as a primarily syntactic case. In the literature it has received quite an array of names: "secondary case" from Dorais, "modalis" from Lowe, "comitative" from Johns, just to mention a few. Mallon avoids giving it a designation but does offer an informative characterization: "-mik/-nnik/-nik: noun ending; marks object of intransitve verb" (Mallon 1986a: HIB: 1).

Mallon's characterization of the -mik case as a case for objects lacks only the specification that the objects must be direct objects.

By directly comparing the -mik case with the other oblique cases, the parallelism between them becomes clear:

(167) illumi sinippunga -mil-nnil-nv. locative illu -mi sini(k)- -punga house loc sleep lsg,itr,ind Ί sleep in the house'

(168) illumut pisuppunga -mutl-nnutl-nut terminalis illu -mut pisu(k)- -punga house term walk lsg,itr,ind Ί go to the house'

(169) illumit pivunga mitl-nnitl-nit ablative illu -mit pi-house abl come 1 Ί come from the house1

-vunga lsg,itr,ind

(170) umiakkut tikippugut -kkutl-kkutl-tigut. vialis umia(q)- -kkut tiki(t)- -pugut boat vial arrive lpl,itr,ind with the boat we arrive 'we arrive with the boat (by boat)'

(171) a. Jaani illumi sinippuq Jaani -φ illu -mi sini(k)- -puq John abs house loc sleep 3sg,itr,ind 'John sleeps in the house'


b. Jaani kautarnut sanajuq Jaani -φ kauta(q) -nut sana- -juq John abs hammer vial,pi work 3sg4tr,nom part 'John works with hammers'

c. Jaani illumit pivuq Jaani -φ illu -mit pi- -vuq John abs house abl come 3sg,itr,ind 'John comes from the house'

d. kigutitigut aannitunga kigut(i) -tigut aanni- -tunga tooth vial,pi be sick lsg,itr,nom part *by the teeth, I suffer' (Dorais 1988: 32)

e. angutititut uqarputit angut(i)- -titut uqar- -putit man sim speak 2sg,itr,ind 'like a man you speak' (Dorais 1988: 33)

f. Jaani umianrtik tusarpuq Jaani -φ umia(q) -nnik tusar- -puq John abs boat obj,dual hear 3sg,itr,ind 'John hears two boats"26

Although (171a-e) would also be acceptable without a noun phrase in oblique case, this is not true for (1710-

(171) f . * Jaani tusarpuq

Therefore, intransitive sentences in Inuktitut can have both the simple structure

NP - VP [V] abs itr

and one with a direct object:

NP - VP [NP - V] abs obj itr

In the literature on Inuktitut, as well as other Inuit languages, both sentence patterns are called intransitive. It is given this designation - and this point cannot be stressed enough - solely because the verb bears agreement with only one noun phrase, which is obligatorily case marked for absolutive. Obviously, this choice of name is based on the assumption that transitive verbs agree with two noun phrases, one of which must be the object; it is the

146 6. Transitivity

lack of "object agreement" in intransitive sentences that makes them intransitive. This assumption, however, is never made explicit in discussions of the differences between transitivity and intransitivity; it becomes clear only in connection with ergativity.

The distinction between transitivity and intransitivity is thereby altered, so that these terms no longer refer to the capacity of a verb to govern an object, but rather its capacity to enter into a specific agreement relation. The altered view of transitivity leads to the conclusion that an intransitive sentence may contain a direct object. The natural question is then what status can be attributed to the noun phrase(s) with which the verb agrees. At this juncture I would like to remind the reader of the control verbs and the affix -si-, as discussed in sections 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.3.1. Here the argument shift was effected in such a way that a transitive sentence was "detransitivized". Taken literally, this description implies an argument reduction, comparable to that of the passive, for instance, in German. In fact, however, it is an argument shift that occurs, since all the arguments are obligatorily retained.

(172) NP [Mikiup] NP [tuktu] VP [qufdqpanga] Miki -up tuktu -0 qukiq- -panga Mike erg caribou abs shoot 3sg/3sg,tr,ind AGENT THEME 'Mike shoots/shot a caribou'

(173) NP [Mihi] VP[NP [tuktumik] V[qukiqsijuq]] Miki -0 tuktu -mik qukiq- -si- -juq Mike abs caribou obj shoot ap 3sg,itr,nom part AGENT THEME 'Mike shoots/shot a caribou'

If at first the impression was created that transitive and intransitive verbs constitute two coexisting forms, each with its own argument structure, this picture has become increasingly distorted. Only a few verbs and minimal sentences qualify as intransitive in the classical sense, that is, without an object; all other forms referred to as intransitive are actually transitive as the term is classically understood, since they require an object, as in (173).

Whereas according to standard usage "transitive" and "intransitive" are terms that refer to an increased or reduced number of arguments in what would otherwise be an invariable sentence structure, this is not the case in Inuktitut. Here the terms are applied to variations in sentence structure involving the number of noun phrases in agreement with the verb. This severe deviation from our usual understanding of transitivity is of fundamental importance to the further discussion in this work.


6.3.2. Transitive sentences in fnuktitut

A minimal transitive sentence comprises two noun phrases, one in ergative case and one in absolutive case, as well as a finite transitive verb which agrees with both noun phrases. At first glance, this appears to represent the classic transitive sentence structure, whereby the sentence contains two obligatory argument positions which can be realized lexically, the subject and the direct object; the only unusual feature then is the double agreement of the verb. This interpretation is, however, tied to very superficial attributes; and after our examination of intransitive sentences, we can predict it not to be tenable.

The inflected transitive verb contains reference to two participants/ two arguments. Excluded are only the unambiguously reflexive constellations of first person/first person and second person/second person singular, dual, and plural. At the same time, the inflectional ending expressing a third person/third person relationship can never be interpreted reflexively. If both noun phrases are overt, their relation to each other is always made clear by case marking. It is, of course, also possible for the two noun phrases to differ in number.

(174) angutiup tupiit takuvait angut(i) -up tupi(q) -it taku- -να/7 man erg,sg tent abs,pl see 3sg/3pl,tr,ind 'the man sees the tents'

The classic definition of transitivity implies that one of the two noun phrases should be construed as the object

I would like to approach this term with some caution. "Object" means, first of all, "not subject". "Object" also means "behaving like the noun phrases in -mik, -mi, -mit, -kkut, and -titut which I discussed in the previous section, 6.3.1. Among these, the -mik case was shown to occupy an unusual position as a structural case, as the case of the complement in intransitive sentences. Yet it exhibits similarity with the other oblique cases in that it does not agree with the verb. Where the other cases can be interchanged without altering the structure and relationships within the sentence, this is not true of the objective case. In this way, the objective resembles the ergative and the absolutive, although both of these stand in an agreement relation with the finite verb. Unlike the absolutive case, however, the ergative case is semantically determined; it always bears the semantic role AGENT or marks the possessor in a possessor-possessum relationship. The absolutive case is defined primarily as nonagentive; the fact that its semantic role is commonly identified as THEME should be considered in this light. The absolutive thus

148 6. Transitivity

resembles the objective case, which likewise can never take the semantic role AGENT. This somewhat vague characterization should be understood in terms of the difficulty of judging from a standpoint outside the language precisely how the semantic role of tupiit in (174) or of angut and tupirnik in (175) should be characterized. It may be that "experiencer" and "goal" are appropriate designations. Of central importance is the fact that nonergative noun phrases are never "agents" or "active". It should be noted that the objective case has a semantic residue, namely, instrumental. Interestingly enough, however, this sense is taken over by the vialis, thus extending the basic meaning of 'through', 'across', 'during' to 'by means of ' .

(175) angut tupirnik takuvait angut -0 tupi(q) -nik taku- -vait man abs tent obj,pl see 3sg/3pl,tr,ind 'the man sees tents'

(176) nunakkut tikittut nuna -kkut tikit- -tut land vial,sg arrive 3pl,itr,nom part 'they arrive over/by land'

(177) ullakkut siniktuq ulla(q) -kkut sinik- -tuq day vial^g sleep 3sg,itr,nom part 'he sleeps through the morning/day'

(178) umiarjuakkut tikittuq umia(q) -jua(q) -kkut tikit- -tuq boat big vial,sg arrive 3sg,itr,nom part 'it arrives by ship'

It is scarcely necessary to mention that transitive sentences, too, can be filled out with additional nominal constituents.

We have now seen that the ergative and absolutive cases behave differently from the oblique cases. Since the objective case likewise differs from the latter and furthermore serves as the case of direct objects in so-called intransitive sentences, it is worth investigating whether one of the two noun phrases which bear ergative and absolutive case, respectively, perhaps plays the same role in a transitive sentence that the noun phrase in the objective case plays in an intransitive sentence. To put it more directly, are transitive and intransitive sentences in fact parallel forms? Moreover, it is necessary to determine whether the -mik case may appear in transitive sentences and which function it discharges there. It is already certain that ergative case is ungrammatical in intransitive sentences as the case of the external argument.

63. Transirivity in sentences 149

As the following examples show, transitive sentences can easily accommodate noun phrases in the -mik case:

(179) Jaani aittupara tupirmik Jaani -φ aittu- -para tupi(q) -mik John abs give lsg/3sg,tr,ind tent obj 'Jaani, I give him a tent'

(180) Jaani takutippara umiakkanik Jaani -φ taku- -ti(t)- -para umia(q) -kkanik John abs see cause lsg/3sg,tr boat poss,pl,obj 'Jaani, I make him see my boats'

(181) angutiup Jaani aittupanga illumik angut(i) -up Jaani -φ aittu- -panga illu -mik man erg John abs give 3sg/3sg,tr house obj 'the man gives Jaani a house'127

In (179M181), the noun phrase in the -mik case occupies the third argument position, without instrumental, locative, or other such predetermined semantic content. The noun phrase in -mik is here employed much as it would be in an intransitive sentence: in both instances, it constitutes the extra argument that does not enter into an agreement relation with the verb. Dorais (1988: 28ff) terms this noun phrase the "secondary object"; obviously, he assumes that one of the other noun phrases must be the "main object". If one compares the transitive sentences in (179>—(181) with an intransitive sentence containing an noun phrase in -mik, it becomes clear that in both sentence types this noun phrase has the character of an object:

(182) an gut umiannik tusarpuq angut -φ umia(q) ·nnik tusar- -puq man abs boat obj,dual hear 3sg,itrjnd 'the man hears two boats'

In intransitive as well as transitive sentences, the noun phrase functions as a complement to the verb; since the verb does not agree with this noun phrase, it must be expressed overtly. Sentences like

(183) umiannik tusarputit 'you hear two boats'

(184) tupirmik takuvunga Ί see a tent'

(185) titirautimik aittupaa 'he gives him/her a pencil' ( cf. Dorais 1988: 28)

150 6. Transitivity

are, in an appropriate context, just as acceptable as their German/English counterparts, which make use of personal pronouns to clarify the relationships in the sentence.

The question of parallelism between intransitive and transitive sentences cannot be easily answered. Decisive here is the distribution of semantic roles that one presupposes. If one assumes that the noun phrase with absolutive case marking structurally bears the semantic role THEME, then the principal difference between a transitive and an intransitive sentence is that in the intransitive sentence the semantic role AGENT is not assigned. This holds for intransitive sentences containing direct object complements, as well, since the objective case is incompatible with an AGENT role:

Sltr NP VPfNP V] -0 -mik abs obj itr THEME THEME/GOAL

In a transitive sentence, the NP with ergative case marking bears the semantic role AGENT:

S„ NP NP VP[NP V] -up -0 -mik erg abs obj tr AGENT THEME THEME/GOAL

As a reminder, in the passive the semantic role AGENT is assigned to the noun phrase in the terminalis (= allative); the same occurs with causative -tit-:

(186) "nutara-up arna-mut angut aktuq-ti-taa child-erg woman-all man-abs touch-cause-3sg/3sg 'the child made the woman touch the man' ",28

(Jensen-Johns 1989: 211)

At this point it should suffice to indicate the differences between the ergative and absolutive cases on the one hand and the objective case on the other, and to establish the assumption that the latter is a case for direct objects. This contributes to another assumption, namely, that neither of the two noun phrases under agreement can be viewed as direct object. For the present the full range of arguments in support of this position will not be given. The reader is again referred to the obvious differences between the absolutive and ergative noun phrases, the objective noun phrases, and the other, oblique noun phrases. The syntactic status of the non-oblique noun phrases will be discussed thoroughly in Chapter 7.


Analogous to the problem of discussing "direct objects in intransitive sentences", it is evident that the term "transitive" in the Inuit literature is less concerned with the ability to govern objects than with the ability to agree with two noun phrases. Thus, "intransitive" means simply, 'agreeing with one noun phrase', which is case-marked absolutive; and "transitive", 'agreeing with two noun phrases, which are case-marked ergative and absolutive'.129

However, since the assumption of two coexistent subjects is highly suspect, we are led to conclude that one of these noun phrases must be an object, if an atypical one. The whole discussion of ergativity centers on this assumption and discord over which of the noun phrases in question is the object. Only in such a situation could the concepts of subject and object, transitive and intransitive sentence shift as they do. Only with respect to the object status of one of the noun phrases is the definition of "syntactic ergativity" at all thinkable, whereby a direct object would receive the semantic role AGENT.130

Indeed, with few exceptions one of the noun phrases, usually the one in the absolutive, is referred to as an object in the literature. The reason given for this identification amounts to nothing more than the existence of the noun phrase in the ergative case. On the other hand, Johns (1987a, b), Woodbury (1977), Rischel (1971) and Bittner (1987, 1988) on Kalaallisut offer interpretations which support my view that neither the noun phrase with absolutive case nor that with ergative case can count as an object.

The expressions "subject" and "object", as well as the associated supposition that there can be only one subject and all other nominal constituents must be objects, are clearly "syntactic archetypes", which prevent us from seeing that sentence structures can sometimes diverge from the expected. This kind of thinking in templates has also resulted in the ergative languages being characterized as embodying a "mirror image". The discussion of ergativity as it has been carried out up to now will prove to be a primarily terminological problem. In the area of transitivity, it is absolutely necessary to differentiate between the classical term, concerned with the presence of a direct object, and the understanding of transitivity current in studies of Inuktitut, concerned with the number of noun phrases agreeing with the verb.

As applied to Inuktitut, the term "transitive" - analogous to the term "intransitive" - represents the claim that the verb agrees with two noun phrases. One of these noun phrases receives ergative case from the finite verb and bears the semantic role AGENT. The other is assigned absolutive case by the verb and carries the semantic role THEME (EXPERIENCE!*, etc.). Beyond these two, a transitive sentence may contain other nominal elements which do not agree with the verb. As will be demonstrated more thoroughly in chapter 7, neither of the noun phrases with which the verb agrees can be considered to have the status of an object.

152 6. Transitivity

6.4. Word classes

"Nomen adjectivum werden gemeiniglich durch Praeteritum ausgesprochen..." [Nomen adjectivum are commonly expressed by the preterite...] (Beck 1755).

The preceding discussion showed that the term "transitivity" can be applied to Inuktitut only with the utmost caution. If one views transitivity from a syntactic angle, one will hit upon the ability to agree with noun phrases. But if one looks at transitivity from a morphological angle, it is not easy to make a clear distinction between nominal and verbal forms: certain forms of the nominal participle exhibit a nominal bent; the formal identity of transitive verbal inflection with possessive marking has already been discussed.131 Some affixes are able to change transitivity values, and some change the word class of the stem. Distinguishing well-defined word classes is an extremely tricky business.

Since in Indo-European languages derivational morphology plays a comparatively unimportant role, we tend to expect sturdily built, easily isolated words that as lexical entries can be exactly specified with respect to their syntactic traits. Word classes are defined according to their possible function in the sentence. Individual words that are not fully determinate and could be interpreted as belonging to several different word classes are immediately robbed of this ambiguity: either they are accorded two lexical entries, or one class affiliation is selected as the "basic form", with the others derived by the process of conversion. Also characteristic of this conception of the "solid word", in contrast to the "productive sentence", is the fact that morphology as a productive phenomenon has come into the spotlight only recently, be it within the framework of syntactic theories or as an independent field within a modular grammar. Furthermore, this discussion of morphology has usually resulted in enlarging the scope of the lexicon, as the "place for words", to include productive processes. The actual problem of the interaction between productive morphology and syntax, which reaches extreme magnitude in a polysynthetic language, has only begun to be discussed. Again there seems to be a supposition that is defended as elementary and undispensable: in each language there are nouns and verbs; for each language it is necessary and possible to distinguish, identify nouns and verbs. But I do not want to go into synthesis in Inuktitut here, although it will receive some attention in what follows; rather, I want to return to an oft-mentioned problem that is fundamentally connected to the differentiation of word classes and thus the structuring of a lexicon: the question of whether Inuktitut is a nominal language.

Johns (1987a) defends a modified Nominalist Hypothesis, which she uses as the foundation for an unusually interesting analysis of Inuktitut syntax. In so doing, she makes three basic claims:

6.4. Word classes 153

1. Transitivity is defined as the ability of a predicate to take two arguments. 2. Transitive marking, unlike intransitive maiking, has referential properties;

hence the parallelism between transitive and possessive forms. 3. Inuktitut has no syntactic category "verb".

The first point was discussed at length in the previous section. The relationship between the other two claims is obvious: The existing parallelism between the nominal possessive forms and the verbal transitive forms, as well as the fact that the nominal participle bears nominal traits, suggests that there are no real verbs, that the category V is defective in some way. To make it quite clear: this claim is an essential part of the explanation of ergativity. If we understand ergativity as a structure exhibiting basic nonagentivity, one possible consequence might be the supposition that the language lacks true verbs, that is, predicates, as opposed to referential expressions in the form of nouns. An Inuktitut sentence then might be viewed as a succession of statements, of referential expressions, interrelated by a set of relation markers. The elementary distinction between verbs and nouns is used as an explanation for the deviant pattern of ergativity: the moiphology of Ν "spreads" to V and thus hampers the distinction of V from N. As a consequence, certain semantic properties and syntactic capacities of verbs are lost or are never developed at all. The descriptive and explanatory problem provided by the syntactic structure of Inuktitut (and other languages) leads to the assumption of deviation on an even more elementary level, namely, the level of basic lexical categories. Setting aside the somewhat repulsive idea that any language might be defective, the switch of the problem from syntax to the lexicon can be taken as an indication of the importance of the latter. Though the polysynthetic capacities of Inuktitut will not be discussed here, they are equal to the syntax in importance. Indeed, it may well be the case that the key to its peculiarity, the basic typological difference from European languages can be found here. Syntax is of course more conspicuous, it is a field most linguists are familiar with - but to conclude that it is necessarily the primary field of productivity and the most important part of grammar may be premature.

Its ergative syntax leads to the supposition that Inuktitut might be a basically nominal language; the progression of the argument is important here, as it illuminates the general perspective that focuses on syntax. The fact that the distinction between Ν and V is not clear-cut might as well be considered a problem in its own right, taking into account that within polysynthesis Ν and V gain a somewhat different status and function. Equally it must be considered that the N/V distinction seems to be a fundamental problem in other languages too, languages so distinct as Cayuga (Iroquoian) and Tongan (Polynesian). Last but not least, it must be mentioned that the

154 6. Transitivity

"nominal character" of Inuktitut seems to manifest itself primarily in sentences presented as examples and their analysis, less in spoken language or larger texts. The discrepancy between isolated instances taken as data and larger portions of the language, let alone discourse, is an acute problem which persists in affecting the debate over the general role of syntax in the language.132

Johns bases her thesis that Inuktitut is an essentially nominal language chiefly on parallelism between the possessive forms and the transitive verb inflection, and on the interpretation already discussed of the nominal participle. She assumes that the nominal forms are historically older. Moreover, she argues that in Inuktitut the lexical category "predicating" is defective - as opposed to the category "referential" - and therefore cannot project the syntactic category "verb". Since predicating expressions are merely stems and not free morphemes, they require an affix (a grammatical morpheme) to even reach the word level. Only as words, after all, do they have the status that they need to be utilized in the syntax. But since all the available grammatical morphemes are nominal - both the intransitive ones and the transitive, which in their alternative function as the possessive marking have referential properties - these nominal morphemes are applied by default to the predicative stems to give them status equivalent to that of a free morpheme. Because the grammatical morphemes project either the category Ν or at least a category which cannot be differentiated from Ν and is not V, the result is a set of converted forms. Thus, since affixes invariably have the properties of heads, a nominal affix applied to a predicative, and therefore potentially verbal, nucleus produces a recategorization, so that nouns and verbs cannot be syntactically distinguished. All differences between the categories Ν and V, Johns then reasons, can be derived from the semantic features [referential] and [predicative] (1987a: 80ff.). Johns implies in her argumentation that the semantic type of a lexical entry will normally correlate with its syntactic category, that is, with the category that a lexical entry has when it reaches the syntactic level. A first objection must of course aim at this ontological interrelation of semantic qualities and their syntactic representation. The polysynthetic character of Inuktitut provides a number of serious problems to this assumption which may well be questioned in general. The synthetic procedure in itself, the very productivity of synthesis, makes such an assumption very hard to defend - or at least leads to the consecutive assumption of deficiencies, which is in fact the case with Johns.

When Johns states that the category "predicative" is defective and fails to result in free morphemes, she neglects the fact th^t verbal roots in, for instance, German or to a less obvious degree in English likewise need inflection to become free forms: the infinitive is just another inflected form and is not to be confused with the root.


Thus in German a verbal root always needs an inflectional completion, be it a finite or nonfinite form: see the roots under (187)

(187) kauf-schreib-

•buy1

'write' etc.

as compared to the inflected forms

(188) ichkauf-e du kauf-st erlsieles kauf-t

(189) ich schreib-e du schreib-st erlsieles schreib-t

(190) kauf-en inf. schreib-en inf.

Ί buy' 'you buy' 's/he buy-s'

Ί write* 'you write' 's/he write-s'

'to buy' 'to write'

(191) a. Hans kann ein Haus kaufen. Hans can a house buy nom 3sg acc buy-inf. 'John can buy a house'

b. Um ein Buch zu schreiben, braucht man Geduld. for [a book] to write needs one patience particle acc 3sg nom acc -infinitive infinitive expletive To write a book one needs patience'

Johns's argumentation implies an underlying deficiency in the predicative qualities of quite a number of languages, of which German is but one.

Insisting on a nominal sentence structure because she assumes nominal and verbal inflection are equivalent, Johns cannot identify projections of lexical categories on the level of syntax. Yet she maintains a differentiation between the lexical categories Ν and V. In other words, she does not argue for a total lack of the category V but believes that a distinction between verbs and nouns can be made only below the word level at the moiphological level, thus before the stage where an element is actually introduced into the sentence. On the one hand, it is possible to isolate formally distinct, semantically definable morphemes; on the other, these morphemes usually do not have the status of words. In her characterization, Johns makes use of the fact that clearly discernible word classes can be defined in Inuktitut only by means of narrow, formal criteria and that these word classes merely furnish

156 6. Transitivity

the building blocks for complex morphological derivations (see also Spencer 1991: 193f)· But strictly speaking, this amounts only to saying that no direct correlation exists between semantic and syntactic categories. Not every lexical entry in Inuktitut can be assigned a syntactic category a priori, although it probably does receive a semantic type - and a lexical category.

Another problem is provided by the assumed status of inflection. In syntactic theory, inflection is accorded the status a syntactic head. Inflection is the head of IP - inflection phrase - and triggers case, among other things. But as far as morphological theory is concerned, inflectional affixes are by no means viewed as heads, for a number of reasons. One is their paradigmatic arrangement, another their obligatoriness. But if (nominal) inflection in Inuktitut can be assigned freely, it necessarily must have head qualities.133

Johns's approach, a "strong lexicalist approach" (cf. Spencer 1991: 72-73), just assumes this.

But it seems necessary to point at two possible consequences of such a strong lexicalist approach.

If this view seems tempting with respect to languages like English that offer a set lexicon and a relatively poor word formation component, it is problematic with respect to languages like Inuktitut, in which the lexicon as it is usually conceived plays only a subordinate role. If one takes the lexicon of Inuktitut to be a component that merely supplements and feeds the syntax, then the lexicon consists only of a comparatively modest inventory of free morphemes, and in addition, affixes and morphological rules. "... typically, polysynthetic languages do display a relative paucity in lexical stems, this being counterbalanced by an enormously increased derivational potential ..." (Fortescue 1992b: 246).

But on the contrary, a strong lexicalist approach carried to its logical conclusion might as well lead to a radical simplification of the phrase structure and a corresponding elaboration of the morphological, or synthetic or derivational component or whatever it might be called. It might even be called lexicon - even if it has very little in common with a classical lexicon or even a lexicon in generative grammar.

Present-day theories concerning word formation have up to now been developed primarily in the discussion of nonpolysynthetic languages. The debate over how important word formation is and where to put it must be seen against a background that basically emphasizes the importance of syntax. I do not wish to enter this debate here.'34

Johns's claim of the category "predicative" being defective since it fails to result in free forms (lexical items) implies that she in fact calls an intrinsic feature of the language defective, namely, the entire domain of synthesis.

That this is not only a theoretical problem, but also an all too practical one, can be seen by looking into the few existing dictionaries. Jacobson summed


up the consensus of all lexicologists when he described this dilemma as follows: He had no choice but to put together a dictionary composed of nuclei, affixes, and some free morphemes. The users of his dictionary were unfortunately highly dissatisfied, because in it they could not find the words of their language, but rather the elements of a mosaic.135 He was not able to produce a dictionary in the customary sense, with complete entries, for this would be a dictionary of occasional constructions and, as such, not only potentially infinite as a whole, but also for each individual entry haphazard and weighed down by the infinite listing of all possible combinations.

Dorais goes the opposite route with his analytical dictionary, wherein he analyzes common lexical constructions that could almost be called lexicalized forms, instead of paraphrasing them (Dorais 1983). He also reports of his dictionary work that his consultants not only offered endless variations on a given nucleus or affix, but also counted the inflectional endings among such variations. What at first glance may seem merely cute and naive can also be construed as an indication that a complex morphological form does not become a word until it obtains a particular inflectional ending. Only then is its formation complete, allowing it to be used in a sentence.136

As has already been stated, Johns's claim fosters the conclusion that inflectional endings have derivational properties, that they are categorially independent, and that they can function as heads. Examples would include the transitive inflectional endings and those referred to as nominal participial. The alternative interpretation, namely, that (semantically) verbal roots are nominalized by an affix and afterwards inflected, remains to be investigated.

It is noteworthy that in the literature one often finds the personal ending split into a "mood marker" (Johns), given as -v-/-p- for the indicative and -j-!-t- for the nominal participle, and the actual inflectional ending -uq (3sg,itr). This analysis probably originated with Kleinschmidt (1851).137 The separation of the initial consonant of the ending adds to the confusion concerning the distinction of the indicative from the participle, leaving -unga, -utit for first and second person singular intransitive and splitting up -juq into -j-uq, as opposed to -jaq (see 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2).

Although in the case of the transitive forms such a splitting leaves what can be viewed as parallel possessive forms, as whole morphemes, this is not equally true of the intransitive forms, which without their "mood markers" are nothing more than fragments. The existence of the mood marker as a separate entity, however, is crucial for Johns, designating the difference between -juql-tuq and -jaql-taq as nominal in principle on the one hand and -vuql-puq on the other. For example, she argues that in forms like

(192) aklappunga Ί shot a brown bear' (1987a; 84)

158 6. Transitivity

a predicating consonant -p- effects a recategorization of the stem akla "brown bear, grizzly', so that the indicative inflection -punga can be attached to i t In contrast, the nominal participial form

(193) *aklajunga

which she claims should be expected in analogy to

(194) nirijunga Ί eat*

is said to be ungrammatical. I do not wish to repeat the detailed discussion in 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 here. Nevertheless, this case strikes me as a good illustration of how a whole theory hangs on a single example. For Johns's argument is valid only if akla truly ends in a vowel; only then would the -p-not be phonologically motivated as assimilation, and it would be justifiable to assume that the inflectional ending produces a change in category. Unfortunately, she gives no more examples of vowel-final stems, such as tuktu 'caribou', which one could use as a point of comparison. Both in the South Baffin and the North Baffin dialect, however, the stem for "brown bear* is reported throughout as aklaq; in this case, aklaq-punga behaves analogously to natsiq-punga and in no way reveals Johns's extra predicating consonant. Moreover, it was just in such cases that my consultants used the nominal participle, as in nanuttuq', thus, the forms aklattuq and aklattunga are more probable. However, dialectal variation could be a factor here.

(195) natsiq- -punga seal lsg,itr,ind Ί got a seal'

(196) nanuttuq nanu(q) -tuq polar bear 3sg,itr,nom part 'he hunted a polar bear'

Johns continues by saying that both the indicative and the nominal participial intransitive forms project the category Ν (1987a: 87). Thus, whereas referential expressions can project Ν directly, predicative expressions cannot project V; they must wait for the attachment of the "mood marker", which then becomes the head of the complex. It is instructive that Johns on the one hand denies that nuclei can project V yet accepts projection of V by the "mood markers". If one follows up her argumentation regarding the ability of "mood markers" to determine the category of a complex, one must naturally expect these markers to be applicable to any nucleus, which is indeed what


Johns wants to demonstrate with the example just discussed. That this is not the case, occurring at best in highly restricted exceptions, has already been sufficiently discussed (6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2).

Johns further argues that the inflectional endings are of nominal character, so that the category is shifted once again; the verb resulting from application of the "mood marker" is turned back into a noun by attaching the person suffix. While the whole argument is somewhat awkward as far as the intransitive is concerned, it is supported by an obvious parallelism between the transitive inflection and the possessive forms; but they are identical only when one removes the "mood marker" from the transitive ending:

transitive: possessive: (abs) (erg)

lsg/3sg -(va)ra -ga/-ra -(m)ma lsg 2sg/3sg -(va)it -it -ppit/-vit 2sg 3sg/3sg -(va)nga -nga -ngata 3sg

(= vaa) lpl/3sg -(va)vut -vut -tta lpl 2pl/3sg -(va)si -si -tsi 2pl 3pl/3sg -(va)at -ngat -ngata 3pl

-ni -mi 4sg -nni -mik 4pl -nni(k) -mik 4dual

Bok-Bennema (1991) suggests analyzing the transitive endings as consisting of the "indicative mood morpheme -vaq" and the possessive marker:

-va(q)]v -ra]N lsg "my"138

Again, a whole sequence of questions can be put forward: - What is the functional status of -vaq, is it a "head"? - Does it have category-changing qualities? - Or just category preserving "reassuring" qualities that are needed if it can

only occur together with a verbal nucleus? How "defective" is this nucleus then?

- What is the status of the possessive affixes? Are they truly and exclusively nominal? Do they trigger category change or are they transparent - merely indicating "relationship"?

A closer look reveals the following: 1. An affix -va(q) is not attested, either in Kleinschmidt (1851) or in Harper (1979) or in Lowe (1985). Fortescue (1984: 289) states for West Greenlandic:

160 6. Transitivity

The corresponding transitive forms can be analyzed as consisting of an (additive) mood marker va(r) followed by the subject marker (sometimes reduced as in 1st plural -vassi followed by the object marker (e.g. -vakkit 1 - thou' from va+*m+kit), except for the third person forms, where endings corresponding to the absolutive case personal possession markers on nominale... immediately follow the mood marker.

Consequently, -va- is by no means a morpheme on its own, but part of the morpheme -vara, etc.

Taking into account what was said above on the distribution of -vuql-puq and -juql-tuq, it can be argued that Inuktitut utilizes a regular alternation -j/-t versus -v/-p to indicate an aspectual difference, which might even be called "mood". But the analysis does not justify the introduction of a mood morpheme (Johns 1987a; 107) in analogy to -jaql-taq. Consequently, the analysis of a transitive inflectional form like -vara, lsg/3sg,tr into two segments -va -ra is easily comparable to the analysis of, for example, past tense morphology in Latin:

(197) -ba-m -ba-s -ba-t

as in

(198) amabam 1 loved' amabas 'you loved' amabat 's/he loved'

But when splitting inflectional suffixes up into separate components which are then to carry specific meaning (such as first, second or third person), it must be kept in mind that this procedure is somewhat contradictory to the definition of inflection. In contrast to agglutination, inflectional morphemes exhibit feature nesting - the fusion of several grammatical features into one morpheme. It is essential to note the nonmorphemic status of -va- here. For Latin the morphemic status of -ba- might also be questioned. 2. The fact that an affix -vaq does not exist - as opposed to -jaql-taq, which is clearly nominalizing - makes the whole debate even more suspicious. First of all, it must be repeated that "possessive" in the sense under discussion refers to "possessive in absolutive case". Of course, nouns marked possessive are equally case marked. For example:

ergative: lsg -(m)ma lpl -tta 2sg -ppit/-vit 3sg -ngata

2pl -tsi 3pl -ngata


Furthermore, it is indicated in third person constructions whether somebody is talking about ulungit (4pl,abs) 'their knives' (somebody else's) or ulunni (3pl,abs) 'their own knives':

(199) a. ulungit ulu -ngit knife 4pl,abs 'their knives'

as opposed to

b. ulunni ulu -nni knife 3pl,abs 'their (own) knives'

This indication is of course possible in all cases.The examples in (200) are in the objective:

(200) a. tigusivut ulunginnik tigusi- -vut ulu -nginnik take ap 3pl,itr,ind knife 4pl,obj 'they take their knives'

b. tigusivut uluminnik tigusi- -vut ulu -minnik take ap 3pl,itr4nd knife 3pl,obj 'they take their (own) knives'

To carry the argument further, a correlation between the "person" indicated in the possessive form and the syntactic relation of the noun phrase referred to would be ideal, leaving the -va(q) to represent the invariable third person:

-va 3 -ra lsg/abs 3 -it 2sg/abs 3 -nga 3sg/abs

A brief look at a transitive sentence reveals that such a harmony does not exist

(202) illu takuvara illu -0 taku- va- -ra house abs see 3rd l.abs

it my Ί see a house'

162 6. Transitivity

No coreference between the noun phrase in absolutive and the assumed "possessive absolutive" inherent in the transitive is available. Such coreference must be marked on the noun phrase

(203) illuga takuvara illu -ga taku- -vara house lsg,abs see 3sg/lsg,tr,ind Ί see my house'

Thus, although the possessive and transitive show a number of identical features, they are still not the same and the information given is by no means redundant

Finally, it should be mentioned that the "possessive" within the transitive affix cannot be case marked, nor does it change to any other case form. From a morphological point of view, it does not exhibit nominal features by any means.

It can be concluded that one of the main sources for the identification of (nominal) possessive marking and (verbal) transitive marking is to be found in the "one form - one meaning" principle. This principle has to be viewed extremely skeptically; in all languages which feature rich morphology, homophones are frequent. In German, for instance, the form -en can be a plural marker as in

(204) Bett - Betten -en

bed(sg) beds(pl)

But it is also the infinitive marker with verbs such as

(205) geb - en nuc - infinitive 'give'

and appears together with a prefix in (past) participles

(206) ge - geb - en 'given'

Moreover ~(e)n indicates case, as

(207) gen.: des nördlichen Europa '... northern Europe's ...'

dat.: dem fremden Gast '... the strange guest...'

acc.: den geschiedenen Ehepaaren '... the divorced couples ..."


Examples like this make it easy to introduce an abstract term "morpheme" independent of the concrete realization. Consequently examples (204), (205), (206), and (207) exhibit different morphemes, namely plural, case, and infinitive. To argue for an underlying identity of these three morphemes would surely be absurd. Accordingly, the "one form - one meaning" principle is applied to Inuktitut only in convenient cases. To my knowledge, it has never been suggested that one interpret -vait (2sg/3sg 'you-it") as 'να - it', indicating that -it is the regular plural, as in inu-it 'people'.

What remains uncontroversial is that a derivational process proceeds in a series of binary combinations, whereby the head is always the rightmost constituent It should nevertheless be kept in mind that, although all affixes are defined as to category membership, not all of them are capable of determining the category membership of an item. Now, if one takes inflectional endings to be terminal affixes, it is necessary to establish whether they are category preserving or category determining. Following the discussion above, it is clear that inflectional endings are not category determining: despite the few exceptional cases, verbal inflectional suffixes cannot be applied to nominal stems. Inflectional endings have no category-changing effect, unlike affixes like -qaq- 'have'.

At the same time, this conclusion is misleading. Inflectional endings are category determining when as the final morpheme they confirm the category of a word: with them the word-building process comes to a definite end, and the finished word is ready to be used in a sentence.

(208) [«7/«]N 'house'

[J'//M]N

[illujuaq]N 'a big house'

[illujuaq]N

[illujualiuqtuq\V 's.o. builds a big house'

illujualiuq-V

[illujualiulauqtut]Y 'we built a big house'

+ [-ywaÂffN •big'

+ [-liuq-WfW 'to make'

+ [-/öM<?-]AffV 'past'

(209) arraani illujualiulauqtut 'last year we built a big house'

164 6. Transitivity

(210) [qangata-]V •to fly'

[qangata-] + [-5MM ]̂AffN 'a thing for...'

[qangatasuuq]N 'airplane'

[qangatasuuq]N + [-ng/igwa^JAffN 'model, picture of..., toy'

[qangatasuungnguaq]N 'toy airplane/model airplane'

[qangatasuungnguaq]N + [-//u^-]AffV 'to make, manufacture'

[qangatasuungngualiuqtuq]Y 's.o. makes a model airplane'

[qangatasuungngualiuq-]V + [-v/£]AffN 'place where ...'

[qangatasuungngualiurvik]N 'place where model airplanes are manufactured, i.e., model airplane workshop'

[qangatasuungngualiurvik]N + [-juaq] AffN •big'

[qangatasuungngualiuvirjuaq]N T)ig workshop for model airplanes, factory'

[qangatasuungngualiuvirjuaq]N + [-mut] loc

[qangatasuungngualiurvirjuarmut]Loc 'to a model airplane factory (directional)'

(211) Jaani qangatasuungngualiurvigjuarmut pisuktuq 'John goes to a model airplane factory'52

These examples illustrate both the complexity of word building in Inuktitut and the fact that this process can be viewed as completed in each of the above words. Moreover, every one of the complex words has an unequivocal categorial status, which it obtains from its affixal head. Affixes vary, however, in their capacity for altering the word's category. Although affixes like -liuq- 'to make', -vik 'place where', or -suuq 'a thing for' clearly have category-changing qualities, affixes like -juaq "big', -ngnguaq 'model, picture of, or -lauq- 'past' just as clearly are category-preserving affixes.53 As already mentioned, inflection is traditionally opposed to derivation insofar as no


category-changing abilities are attributed to iL Inflection is added obligatorily "in all words of a given syntactically defined class" (Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 174). Whereas the last-mentioned aspect is certainly applicable, the first illuminates the difficulties with which we are faced here: category change and productivity may be decisive criteria in other languages, but as can be inferred from the discussion above, "things are not that simple and it turns out to be extremely difficult to draw the line between inflection and derivation in such a way that it gives sensible answers for all languages" (Spencer 1991: 9). A crucial difficulty remains the differentiation of the lexical categories Ν and V. Consequently, some of the inflectional paradigms are hard to define as Ν or V; within the verbal inflectional systems the status of the paradigms with regard to valence is problematic as well. As has been shown above, a change between transitive and intransitive can occur without additional morphology. Thus it is inflection that determines the grammatical features of the completed verb; it alters the argument structure of the sentence. This is a strong indication that inflectional affixes have headlike qualities.54

It should be noted that a comparable situation can be found in Ojibwa, an Algonquian language not related to Inuktitut, as reported by Piggott (1989). Piggott concludes that "apart from being subcategorized by finals, Ojibwa verb roots have no inherent lexical features that distinguish transitive from intransitive verbs" (Piggott 1989: 190). "Finals" in Ojibwa follow a verb root and specify whether "subjects" and "objects" are "animate" or "inanimate" (cf. 187), whereby animacy is to be understood as a grammatical category, not as a semantic characterization.

Analyzing inflection as a type of derivation has, of course, far-reaching consequences for the conception of grammar as a whole, since the morphological component then takes on an importance comparable to that of the syntactic component The projection of a syntactic category is possible only when a word is fully formed. As has been shown, the completion of a word is effected by and dependent on the speaker to as great an extent as is the completion of a sentence in English or German. Semantic and pragmatic productivity is by no means limited to the sentence level, being already evident in the complex constituents that later can be combined or interconnected to form a sentence. A potential phrase structure is like a template, in which hierarchy and relation are the chief parameters.55 All other features otherwise typically expressed in inflection and found fused together in the inflectional suffix, such as modality, tense, aspect, and voice, belong to the realm of derivational morphology. Still, with respect to the features that Inuktitut does encode in inflectional suffixes, the language can be said to conform with Bybee's ranking-list of inflectional features as far as person and number are concerned; however, the marking of valence is rather uncommon

166 6. Transitivity

(Bybee 1985: 30). Inflection is traditionally viewed as the linkage of sentential constituents, thus being "syntactically relevant" (cf. Jensen 1990: 6). Thus it seems that only the features responsible for the establishment of syntactic relations are expressed inflection ally in Inuktitut: number, person (including "obviation" as the marking of disjoint reference is traditionally called in Algonquian studies), and valence.

Considering the fact that Inuktitut is by no means a "poor" language as far as inflection is concerned, it might be wise to take this seriously. Inflection comprises features that clearly have connecting, that is, syntactic, abilities: person and number on Ν and V, valence, agreement, and obviation/disjoint reference, subordination in relation to a matrix clause, government.

Taking into account the polysynthetic nature of Inuktitut, it is quite conceivable that the processual nature of synthesis uses up the creativity normally reserved for the construction of sentences, with the result that the sentence is nothing more than a comparatively flat arrangement of the synthetic complexes. One will note that the conception of stable word classes which can be defined formally, semantically, and syntactically and which appear as constituents in sentence structure runs counter to the facts exhibited by Inuktitut and possibly other polysynthetic languages.56

Consequently, one of the basic problems to be solved is how to define word classes, or more precisely, the question whether the definition of word classes that relies on the fundamental distinction between Ν and V is necessary at all. The definition of Ν and V traditionally is based on possible syntactic function and equally on the elementary functions of reference and predication. Reference and predication can only be accomplished within the structure "sentence", being distributed among distinct constituents. This assumption might not be valid for all languages. Since polysynthesis is not the topic of this investigation, I will not go into greater detail. But it must be born in mind that a definition of Ν and V, that relies exclusively on the syntactic function of the lexical category, the final syntactic status of the word under consideration, ignores to a certain extent the inherent processes leading to the formation of a sentence constituent. This becomes drastically clear when it comes to an "insertion rule" which regulates the insertion of Ν and V into a syntactic structure.

(212) pulisinit tigulauqtuq tilliktuviniugami pulisi-nit tigu-lauq-tuq tillik-tu(q)-vini(q)-u-gami police-abl,pl take-past-3sg,itr steal-3sg,itr-viniq-be-3sg,itr by the police

'he was seized by the police because he had stolen (unknown to us at the time of the theft)' (Harper 1979: 93)


Although an overt passive -jau- is missing, the matrix sentence has a passive reading: tie was taken', tilliktuviniugami illustrates the basic difficulty concerning lexical categories and their syntactic projection most clearly: tillik-'steal' is regularly inflected tilliktuq 's/he steals'; -viniq indicates unperceived past and has, as discussed above (see 6.2.1.1) a nominal character tilliktuviniq 'a thief (past), unknown to us, the speaker'. But his thievery is described in connection with the matrix sentence and thus has to be verbally inflected again, by means of -u-. Causative (mood) inflection rounds out the complex.

(213) pulaaniaqqaugaluarakkit kisiani sininnirrama pulaa- -niaq- -qqau- -galuaq- -rakkit visit future past although lsg/2sg,tr,caus

kisiani: only

sini(k)- -niq- -rama sleep past lsg,itr,caus

Example (213) is an even more complex, yet perfectly normal sentence. First of all, it must be stated that a matrix verbal complex is missing; it is just implied: I did not come, pulaaniaqqaugaluarakkit exhibits two temporal affixes: -niaq- indicates future, here intention, while -qqau- refers to a perceived, intentional past, giving 1 intended to visit'. Then -galuaq-'although' relativizes this intention and serves to link the word with the second verbal complex. The first one is completed by a transitive causative inflectional ending: 'because I-you'. The second verbal complex states why my intention did not become reality: "because I fell asleep - unintentionally'. This unintentionality is part of -niq-, which otherwise has a past reading. The second complex is marked causative too, so the sentence is a succession of "causes" why I actually did not come - a fact which is known to the addressee and consequently needs no mention. Thus, the compositional meaning of the whole sentence is 'Although I intended to visit you, I only, unintentionally fell asleep.'57

Examples (212) and (213) can be regarded as typical complex sentences in Inuktitut. It can be concluded that synthetic processes, which are fundamental to the structure of the language, contradict the standard conception of "lexical entry", which on the other hand corresponds to the idea of an "insertion rule" and syntactic projection.

The nature and productivity of synthesis frustrates the conventional notion of a lexicon as an inventory. In Inuktitut, elements of the inventory can be only the individual constituents used in the synthetic process, supplemented by the rules of word formation. A nucleus or affix has as little influence over the class of word in which it actually appears as a lexical entry in English

168 6. Transitivity

does over the type of sentence in which it will occur. It can influence only the next step in the derivation, not the final product; "word" always means "synthetic word", since that is the form that can appear in a sentence as a constituent But on the other hand, the types of words used in a sentence are determined exclusively by syntactic and relational criteria. Nouns and verbs represent constituents of the base structure and not prototypical members of lexical categories; the discrimination of lexical categories is relevant only with respect to the rules of synthesis. One can also describe the task of synthesis as utilizing the morphological constituents Nucleus and Affix to create word complexes that can project syntactic categories. Inflection, then, discharges the central function of an interface. Again, it must be kept in mind that inflection fuses exclusively relational features in Inuktitut. To speak of syntactic categories in the context given implies that inflectional paradigms are not interchangeable. That they are not has already been demonstrated at length. And it must also be kept in mind that there is a class of affixes as well as sets of inflectional paradigms that directly affect the possible argument structure of a sentence. Consequently, the internal structure of a verbal complex determines the possible sentence structure as much as sentence structure limits the form of possible constituents.

My argument does not imply denial of the importance of syntax. But it establishes a serious caveat respecting the presupposition that syntax must be predominant.

The primary characteristic of word formation, or synthesis, in Inuktitut is its almost unlimited productivity, which separates it from derivational morphology in languages like German. Inuktitut word formation follows formal rules yet otherwise proceeds according to semantic principles. Consequently, the ordering of affixes is an important factor in determining the meaning of a word, comparable to word order or subordination in syntax.

Whereas in Inuktitut word order plays second fiddle to morphological marking, the ordering of affixes is of the utmost significance for the entire word. Word formation should be understood literally, as "the formation of a word", and can be described as a "word syntax"58 with the properties of productivity, free but rule-governed combinability, and limitation by memory capacity and comprehensibility. The relations within a sentence are precisely expressed, and there is little if any room for misunderstandings and ambiguity. This is guaranteed by the fully developed case system, the obligatory possessive marking, and the extremely exact person marking, including so-called obviation, the indication of disjoint reference. This explicitness also includes the strict isolation or marking of subordinate verb phrases by use of dependent moods.

Thus, the sentence in Inuktitut presents itself as a well-marked creation that to a great extent precludes misunderstanding and inexactitude. This goes hand


in hand with an amazing exceptionlessness: none of the syntactically motivated idiosyncrasies and irregularities that are so common in languages like German or English can be encountered in Inuktitut. Moreover, as far as syntactic complexity in a strict sense is concerned - relative clauses, coordinations, appositions, inversions, and the like - Inuktitut seems to be strictly limited. But both phenomena can be found within polysynthesis, thus indicating a primary domain of productivity.59 On the moiphological level, the spontaneous arrangement determines the semantic content, form, and finally syntactic category. The inflectional suffix indicates not only the syntactic category, but also its relational capacities within the sentence structure, and thereby assumes a mediating function between synthesis and syntax, the latter being understood as the interconnection of synthetic complexes.

Against this background, it is possible to view the parallelism between transitives and possessives in another light. Johns interprets it as a result of the defective category V on the one hand and as proof of the intrinsic nominality of Inuktitut on the other. This interpretation is very much indebted to the traditional concept of the word and associated expectations. It is equally indebted to the traditional concept of argument structure. Because Inuktitut as a polysynthetic and ergative language presents such difficulties, it must be asked whether an analysis that takes as its starting point the traditional concept of the word and sentence can have real explanatory value.

In both instances, that of possessive and that of transitive syntagmata, relationships are set up between different constituents. In transitives, a predicating expression PRED, to use Johns's terminology, determines the relationship between two noun phrases; in possessives, a similar relation exists without PRED. For possessive marking includes not only an affix on the possessed element

(214) irninga 'his/her son'

but also one on the possessor, namely, the -up ending of ergative case.

(215) Jaaniup irninga Jaani -up irni(q) -nga John erg son poss,3sg,abs 'John's son'

(216) Jaaniup illunga Jaani -up illu -nga John erg house poss,3sg,abs 'John's house'

170 6. Transitivity

It is, of course, possible to extend the possessive relationship to further items; here the connection between the individual noun phrases becomes especially clear

(217) Jaaniup illungata ukkuanga Jaarti -up illu -ngata ukkua -nga John erg house poss ,3sg,erg door poss,3sg,abs 'John's house's door'

In maricing the possessive, a distinction is made between the ergative and absolutive cases, whereby only one noun phrase can ever appear in the absolutive case, as opposed to several in the ergative case.

Whereas in (214) simple possession in expressed - his son, her son, your son, etc. - in (215) and (216) the relation to the possessor is added; and finally, (217) displays a hierarchy of possessors. In (215) and (216), the ergative case cannot be interpreted as the case of an external argument of the verb phrase.

Sentences (218M221) are grammatical, in contrast to (222H223):

(218) Jaaniup irninga anijuq Jaani -up irni(q) -nga ani- -juq John erg son poss,3sg,abs go out 3sg,itr,nom part 'John's son goes outside'

(219) Jaaniup illunga takuvara Jaani -up illu -nga taku- -vara John erg house poss,3sg,abs see lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί see John's house'

(220) irninga anijuq irni(q) -nga ani- -juq son poss,3sg,abs go out 3sg,itr,nom part 'his son goes outside'

(221) illunga takuvara illu -nga taku- -vara house poss,3sg,abs see lsg/3sg,tr,ind Ί see his house'

(222) *Jaaniup anijuq

(223) *Jaaniup takuvara

This fact implies that in (218)

[Jaaniup irninga]


constitutes a phrase, whose head irninga bears absolutive case and agrees with the verb. It can be shown that agreement with the verb is not expressed by the possessive marking, but rather by the absolutive case.

(224) irnitik amjuq irni(q) -tik ani- -juq son poss,3dual,abs go out 3sg,itr,nom part 'your-dual son goes out'

This interpretation must also be applied to cases like (216)

[Jaaniup illunga)afos

where again the absolutive agrees with the verb. Kleinschmidt speaks in this connection of casus versus and treats the absolutive case as subordinated to the ergative. This interpretation does not hold in the light of the fact that in sentences like (224) absolutive is quite obviously the case that corresponds to agreement, and not the possessive.

Kleinschmidt himself gives the following example which confirms the interpretation that the NPths is the head of the possessive construction.

(225) arferup sarpiata umiap sujua agtorpä -up -ata -(u)p -0 3sg/3sg,tr erg poss,erg erg abs

The analysis shows that arferup sarpiata, 'the flipper of the whale' touches the 'front of the boat', where it is the 'front', sujua that agrees with the predicate.60 Mallon furnishes the following example for Inuktitut:

(226) Alasiup Jaaniup illungata ukkuanga takuvanga

This sentence corresponds to the constituent structure below:

(2260 [Alasiup]erg,[[Jaaniup illungata^rgûkkuanga^bs^bs takuvanga

In order to avoid confusing NP; and NPj in the ergative case, that noun phrase which constitutes the external argument is positioned adjacent to the verb, after the noun phrase in the absolutive, and set off by intonation or a commalike pause:

(226") [[Jaaniup illungata]i ukkuanga], [Alasiup)i takuvanga Jaani -up illu -ngata ukkua(q) -nga John erg house poss,4.erg door poss,4.abs

Alasi -up taku- -vanga Alasi erg see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

'John's house's door, Alasi saw it'

172 6. Transitivity

Contrasting shaiply with the above are those instances where the two possessors are identical:

(227) Jaaniup illumi ukkuanga takuvanga Jaani -up illu -mi ukkua(q) -nga taku- -vanga John erg house poss,3erg door 4abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'Jaani saw his (own) house's door'

(227') [.Jaaniup illumi] [ukkuanga] takuvanga erg poss3.erg poss4.abs 3sg/3sg,tr,ind

Here, the possessive marking emphasizes the identity of the person, so that the conceivable string in (228) is ungrammatical:

(228) *Jaaniup Jaaniup illungata ukkuanga takuvanga

Of great interest in this respect is Sadock's remark that in Kalaallisut when the possessed NPabs is incorporated, the possessor NPerg need not be omitted, even if the verbal complex has been inflected intransitively with the originally "external" NPabs:

(229) Kunngip panippassuaqarpoq rel panik- -passuaq- -qar- -poq

king daughter many -have -itr,3sg 'There are many kings' daughters (i.e., princesses)'

(230) *Kunngip takuvunga (Sadock 1986: 26)

In possessive constructions, focus falls on the relationship of one noun phrase to another; in transitive sentences, the relationship is expanded upon by the shared predicate. Bok-Bennema (1991) distinguishes a "genitive", but in the course of her discussion concludes that "there is no longer any reason for a terminological distinction between ergative and genitive..."(p.204; see also pp.59, 72).

It is possible to view the parallelism between the transitive and possessive forms as the marking of similar syntactic relations. As I see it, what is unusual is not the fact that specific inflectional endings for nouns resemble others for verbs, but rather the fact that processes occur in the morphology which have a decidedly syntactic look.

In this context, "syntactic" should be understood in the Saussurean sense of "ordered", as opposed to paradigmatic. Here, "ordering" appears inside a word complex. That this ordering has syntactic tendencies even in the usual sense is shown by the above example from Sadock (1986), as well as by his hypothesis that particularly incorporation is an equally morphological and syntactic process. It is also attested by function-changing affixes and

6 J. Properties of predicative expressions 173

inflection indicating the relationship between clauses. It must be kept in mind that there are even speech-act-indicating affixes and affixes that bear pragmatic indications. The existence of such phenomena demonstrates that there is close interaction with the syntactic level, not only with regard to the building of words, but also with regard to the use of finished words. With this background, it is possible to interpret the markings discussed above as establishing a syntactic relationship, and only secondarily as displaying category membership. But again it must be emphasized that they are categorially distinct. Similarity of form can hardly be interpreted as similarity in category. This is true even if similarity in form coincides with similarity of function. "Function" does not merely refer to the indication of relationships, and relation covers both categories in any event. But with verbal complexes function is not confined to the indication of relationship, as it is with possessives. Inflected verbal complexes open up argument positions. Furthermore the differences in distribution are clear-cut.

Johns draws a fundamental distinction between referential and predicating expressions; the latter she divides into four major groups, which I will discuss below. Referential nuclei are predestined by virtue of their referential qualities to appear in possessive constructions; they may also bear plural marking and overt case. Predicative nuclei, in contrast, require mood markers (as previously discussed), which in their turn require agreement markers. Predicating expressions can stand alone to form a minimal sentence, whereas referential expressions cannot.

6.5. Properties of predicative expressions

Johns's thesis that Inuktitut gives no evidence for a category verb does not imply the claim that there are no differences at all between individual expressions. There can be no doubt that such differences are present, and Johns bows to this fact when she says that they can be found not on the level of the word but on the level of morphology.

Syntactic characterizations of the sort that lexemes obtain through their subcategorization frame are not available in Inuktitut. A subcategorization frame can only refer to the capacities of a segment of a complex word. As has been shown above, these capacities are subject to many changes, specifications, and reversions. A subcategorization frame can only in a very basic, potential sense refer to an (external) syntactic structure. It must specify the morphological, synthetic characteristics of a stem or affix. The characterization of a lexical entry as [+N], for example, is as much a morphological characterization as a syntactic one, in that it specifies its synthetic capacities and requirements as much as it specifies its syntactic

174 6. Transitivity

behavior. Verbal stems are only minimally specified for syntactic features: even the distinction +/- transitive is not clear-cut in many cases; the distribution of case marking and agreement patterns is absolutely regular. Where the assignment of semantic roles is concerned, the semantic character of the verbs comes into play. This is of great importance with regard to the general interpretation of the pattern "ergative - absolutive - transitive".

Johns's hypothesis that the category verb is defective can be modified to the claim that predicating expressions are not capable of bringing their predicating character up to the surface of the word and thus into the sentence. To this problem is ascribed a basically referential climate, corresponding to an ergative or nominal language:

I assume that a predicate contains a variable which seeks an index, whereas a referential expression contains an index referring to some referent A variable must seek an index from a term bearing REF, within a sentence. Accordingly, the lexical feature which distinguishes a predicate from a noun is X, where X represents a variable, as in (16)

(16) a. pisuk- 'walk' X (16) b. REF -qaq Tiave a X

In summary, the features described above will provide a means of determining whether a lexical item is nominal or verbal in nature. In this way, it will be possible to study the interaction in Eskimo between referential elements and elements seeking reference, that is, between subjects and predicates. (Johns 1987a: 86).

Based on the four semantic categories state, event, activity, and result, among which Johns distributes predicating expressions, she draws the following picture, which has consequences for the interpretation of the syntactic structure: 1. State predicates cannot be transitive. 2. Event predicates imply a semantic role PATIENT and a semantic role AGENT. Some may appear in intransitive form but must then be interpreted reflexively. 3. Activity predicates, including those denoting movement, can, according to Johns, take on both transitive and intransitive form, whereby "the argument which in the intransitive form receives absolutive case receives relative case in the transitive form" (1987a: 95).61 The classic ergative situation, in which noun phrases alternate between transitive and intransitive sentences, is thus an outstanding characteristic of activity predicates. Woodbury (1975/77) attempted to capture this alternation in a rule, which he called "absolutive shift". This rule expresses the symmetry between the transitive and intransitive variants of a sentence.

"(24) a. Jaani nirijuq (niqi-mik) John(abs) eat-part.3sg (meat-comit.) 'John eats (meat)'" (Johns 1987a: 93)


"(25) b. Jaani-up niqi niri-jaa John-rel meat(abs) eat- part3sg/3sg 'John eats the meat'" (Johns 1987a: 94)

Whereas the argument in the -mik case in the intransitive sentence (24a) assumes the position of the argument in the absolutive case in the transitive sentence (25b), the absolutive argument of the intransitive version is displaced to the position of an ergative (relative) argument in the transitive. This is reminiscent of the explanation of the passive (in English or German, for example), according to which the object is moved into the position of the subject, taking its semantic role PATIENT with it. If one attempts an analogous interpretation for transitive and intransitive sentences in Inuktitut, one encounters the following questions: Does the noun phrase case marked -mik take along its semantic role? What semantic roles do NPibs and NP „^ have in an intransitive sentence, anyway? Is it indeed the case that NPlbs and NP.mi bear the semantic roles THEME or GOAL and that only NPcrg receives the semantic role AGENT? Or could it be that, although NP^ is assigned AGENT in transitive sentences, ΝΡ Λ is assigned this semantic role in intransitive sentences? For the finite activity predicate should always assign the AGENT role, even if to differently marked noun phrases. 4. Result predicates represent the last class. Unlike activity predicates, "result predicates do not allow oblique arguments in intransitive forms as shown in (36):

"(36) a. *kaapi kuvi-juq coffee(abs) spill-part.3sg

b. *titiraut siqumit-tuq pencil(abs) break-part.3sg

The corresponding transitive forms are

(231) angutiup kaapi kuvijanga angut(i) -up kaapi -φ man erg coffee abs 'the man spilled the coffee'

anguti-mit man-abl.

arna-mit woman-abl." (Johns 1987a: 101)

acceptable:

kuvi- -janga spill 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part

(232) arnaup titirauti siqumittaa arna(q) -up titirauti -φ siqumit- -tanga woman erg pencil abs break 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman broke the pencil'

Thus, the parallelism between transitive and intransitive sentences occurring with activity predicates, as seen in (24a) and (25b) above, does not carry over to result predicates. Whereas activity predicates plainly assign the semantic

176 6. Transitivity

roles AGENT and PATIENT/GOAL, which in tum are associated with the ergative and absolutive cases, this is obviously not true of result predicates. In contrast to examples (24a) and (25b), which seem to exhibit the classic shifting of roles associated with the term "ergativity", the result predicates display an affinity with those verbs that in Indo-European languages are referred to as "ergative", that is, verbs whose external argument does not bear the semantic role AGENT in intransitive sentences. It is this affinity that Johns attempts to show when she directs our attention to the similarity between the English (233H234), German (235H236), and the Inuktitut (237M238):

(233) The cup broke. (234) John broke the cup.

(235) Die Fensterscheibe zerbrach 'the windowpane broke.'

(236) Hans zerbrach die Fensterscheibe 'John broke the windowpane.'

(237) titiraut siqumittuq titiraut -0 siqumit- -tuq pencil abs break 3sg,itr,nom part 'the pencil broke'

(238) arnaup titiraut siqumittaa62

In examples (233)—(236) the intransitive sentence expresses only a state or change whereas the transitive sentence in addition names the originator or causer of the state or change. The noun phrase denoting this entity appears in the subject position with the semantic role AGENT, while the noun phrase referring to the state occupies the object position with the semantic role PATIENT/THEME. This transitive structure is taken as the basis for the subcategorization frame: break is then subcategorized as a verb requiring a direct object to which the role PATIENT/THEME is assigned.

(239) VP

V arg

[Y break]


Accordingly, it is unproblematic to insert verbs thus characterized into transitive structures, since the requirement of an object noun phrase is fulfilled and an agentive noun phrase can act as the external argument. But since these verbs can also function intransitively, one might at first think that a sentence like

(240) *John breaks or

(241) *Hans zerbricht

should be grammatical, but it is not. Apparently, then, the direct object is indispensable. As in the passive, the original, agentive subject can be omitted to yield an intransitive sentence:

(242) broke the cup

(243) zerbrach die Fensterscheibe

However, since a sentence without a subject is ungrammatical in English and German, this position must be occupied, so the obligatory direct object is relocated there:

(244) The cup broke.

(245) Die Fensterscheibe zerbrach.

This noun phrase takes its semantic role with it to the subject position, again after the fashion of the passive. Thus an analogy between passives and result predicates is established: the subject of the intransitive sentence is moved from a base object position to the subject position. Two assumptions are fundamental for this interpretation: A basic structure comprising subject -direct object - predicate is presupposed. Furthermore it is assumed that the "natural" semantic role of the subject is AGENT: in transitive sentences, AGENT is clearly assigned by the predicate. If the subject position is generated empty, the noun phrase that then takes it over can bring along its own nonagentive semantic role. However, in a nominative-accusative language like English or German, this leads to a collision. Although the constellation NP - VP is structurally prejudiced toward an AGENT subject, the noun phrase that moves into the subject position fails to fulfill this expectation; the noun phrase brings PATIENT/THEME with it. Thus, the semantic role actually present clashes with the preference for another; the expectation of the AGENT role in subject position is so strong that it takes an effort of thought and interpretation to recognize that this role is nonagentive.

This friction gives rise to two concepts by which theoreticians attempt to deal with the altered situation. Unaccusative focuses on the fact that, although the noun phrase which otherwise would appear in object position bearing

178 6. Transitivity

accusative case can take along the semantic role PATIENT/THEME, it cannot take the case along: it is therefore κ/iaccusative. Designating the verbs in question as ergative calls attention to their behavior in intransitive sentences and sets them in semantic opposition to agentive verbs. Of course, this term brings to mind the classic conception of ergativity, whereby the subject is viewed as a masked object - here, a direct object is raised into subject position.

It is absolutely necessary to observe that this use of the term "ergative", designating a class of nonagentive verbs in nominative-accusative languages is contrary to the inteipretation of the term designating a sentence pattern opposed to that of nominative-accusative languages: ergative case is the case bearing the semantic role AGENT in these languages.63

In an ergative language like Inuktitut, these relations are turned on their heads. The preferred semantic role for the subject would be THEME, which in "unaccusative" constructions clashes with the actual semantic role AGENT.

Johns (1987a: 102ff.) rejects the unaccusative interpretation for Inuktitut and calls for proof that the hypothesized movement of the noun phrases occurs at all with any of the predicate classes; in other words, she doubts that a class of predicative expressions exists which in transitive form take an object with the semantic role AGENT. Johns is justified in noting (1987a: 103) that the causative reading found in (234) and (236) does not carry over to (246H247):64

(246) nirijara Ί eat it' *'I caused him to eat'

(247) siqumittuq 'it broke' *'he broke it'

Accordingly, a causative interpretation is confined to the explicitly causative forms (248) and (249):

(248) niritittara niri- -tit- -tara eat cause lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί cause s.o. to eat s.th.'

(249) siqumitittara siqumit- -tit- -tara break cause lsg/3sg,tr,nom part Ί cause s.o. to break s.th.'

The causative affix -tit- assigns an AGENT role. When it is affixed to an intransitive root/stem, the result is a transitive stem: a THEME role is assigned by the root and an AGENT role by -tit-. When -tit- is affixed to a


transitive root/stem, it is the semantic role AGENT assigned by -tit- that percolates to the mother node, while the AGENT role assigned by the stem cannot percolate: the "lower AGENT" does not agree with the verb but appears in the terminalis case, marked -mut.65

(250) arnaup angut aktuqtanga arna(q) -up angut -φ aktuq- -tanga woman erg man abs touch she-him AGENT PATIENT 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman touches the man'

(251) nutaraup arnamut angut aktuqtittanga nutara(q) -up arna(q) -mut angut -φ aktuq- -tit- -tanga child erg woman term man abs touch cause 3sg/3sg,tr, AGENT AGENT PATIENT nom part 'the child causes the woman to touch the man'

Now, Johns's major objection to the unaccusative interpretation is that, in a simple transitive sentence with two arguments such as (250), neither of the arguments can be analyzed as the direct object. This point becomes clear only in sentences with a causative reading which call for three arguments, such as (251). In (246) and (247) there is no direct object; therefore, a direct object cannot undergo raising to the subject position. Thus, Johns defends the view that a simple transitive sentence in Inuktitut lacks a direct object.

At this juncture in the discussion, this position is quite plausible. In 7.2 I will discuss and support it in detail. Nevertheless, Johns's argumentation is not entirely acceptable. It is crucial that she contrasts the transitive sentences (252a) and (253a) with the intransitive variants (252b) and (253b), which she marks as ungrammatical:

(252) a. arnaup kaapi kuvijanga arna(q) -up kaapi -0 kuvi- -janga woman erg coffee abs spill 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman spills coffee'

b. *kaapi kuvijuq arnamit kaapi -0 kuvi- -juq arna(q) -mit coffee abs spill 3sg,itrjiom part woman abl

(253) a. arnaup titirauti siqumittanga arna(q) -up titirauti -φ siqumit- -tanga woman erg pencil abs break 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman breaks the pencil'

180 6. Transitivity

b. *titirauti siqumittuq arnamit titirauti -φ siqumit- -tuq arna(q) -mit pencil abs break 3sgjtr,nom part woman abl

One will observe that the argument in oblique case is marked with -mit, the ablative case. This is the case which, along with terminalis -mut, can assume the semantic role AGENT; it is the preferred case for the AGENT in passive constructions.66 A passive reading is also intended in (252b) and (253b), with the suggested translations 'the coffee was spilled* and 'the pencil was broken' (Johns 1987a: 101). Passivization of (252a) and (253a) is, in fact, possible, but only by application of the passive affix -jau-/-tau-. Since in (252b) and (253b) this affix is absent, the sentences cannot be grammatical; in contrast, (252c) and (253c) are perfectly acceptable:

(252) c. kaapi kuvijaujuq arnamit kaapi -φ kuvi- -jau- -juq coffee abs spill pass 3sg,itr,nom part PATENT 'the coffee was spilled by the woman'

(253) c. titirauti siqumittaujuq arnamit titirauti -φ siqumit- -tau- -juq pencil abs break pass 3sg4tr,nom part PATIENT 'the pencil was broken by the woman'

arna(q) -mit woman abl AGENT

arna(q) -mit woman abl AGENT

Because Johns claims that a distinguishing feature of result predicates is their inability to have an oblique argument, it is imperative to verify that this is actually so. Her own examples, here given as (252b) and (253b) are not convincing, since they show rudimentary passive forms which would be ungrammatical with any other transitive verb, as well:

(254) *angut takuvuq arnamit angut -φ taku- -vuq arna(q) -mit man abs see 3sg,itr,ind woman abl

In "unmarked" cases like (252b), (253b), and (254), the terminalis and the ablative retain their basic directional meaning, 'to X' and 'from X', respectively.

(255) anaananga panimut titirautimik tunisivuq anaana -nga pani(k) -mut titirauti -mik tuni- -si- -vuq mother poss,abs daughter term pencil obj give ap 3sgjtr,ind '(her) mother gives a pencil to the daughter'

65. Properties of predicative expressions 181

The fact that (252b), (253b), and (254) are ungrammatical indicates that the assignment of the semantic role AGENT to an NP marked with the terminalis or ablative is connected with a alteration of the basic argument structure by an affix: passive -jau-l-tau- allows only an absolutive noun phrase; whether the THEME role of the stem percolates or whether it is the affix which assigns the role PATIENT will not be considered here.*7 The same phenomenon can be seen with causative -tit-. The examples discussed also show quite clearly that the noun phrases under scrutiny are not complements in a strict sense, but hosts for displaced argument roles. The question whether or not there is a direct object at all in Inuktitut must be reconsidered.68

Johns's classification of predicates relies on semantic aspects; however, morphological and syntactic characteristics must be considered, too. Event predicates such as

kunik- Iciss' qilat- 'ty up' uasaq- 'wash' kapi- 'stab' tigu- 'take' tuqu- •kill' aktuq- 'touch' tuni- 'give' kii- *bite' etc.

are basically inflected transitively; when they are inflected intransitively, the reading becomes reflexive.

Activity predicates such as

niri-tamua-inngiq-mumiq-miqsuq-tifd(t)-ijuq-pisuk-aullaq-

'eat' 'chew' 'sing' 'dance' 'sew' 'reach a place' 'laugh' 'go, walk' "leave, be absent'

are generally inflected intransitively. Some of these verbs nevertheless can be used transitively but then may undergo considerable semantic change, for example, ijuqpanga 's.o. makes fun of s.o.' pisuk- and aullaq- were never accepted in a transitive reading, although the consultants reached their decision with some hesitation.

182 6. Transitivity

Intransitive without any exception are

arti- 'go out' isiq- 'come in' ingit- 'sit down' qanit- "be near' sinik- 'sleep' kata- 'fall (into)' paalak- 'fall (stumble, slip)' mamak- 'taste good'

and

quviasuk- "be happy' angi- •be big' miki- "be small' aanniaq- 'be in pain' kaak- ΐ>β hungry' irmiru(q)- 'be thirsty' qanima- *be sick' qiu- 'feel cold'

while verbs of perception such as

taku- - 'see' tusar- - 'hear' nai- - 'smell'

may be inflected intransitively without becoming reflexive. Now, the so-called result predicates, as already pointed out, resemble event

predicates when inflected transitively, but when inflected intransitively they are interpreted as result predicates - and not as reflexives, as is the case with event predicates.

kuvi- 'spill, pour' qupi- 'splinter, split' matuiq- *be open' nuqqaq- 'stop' ukkuiq- 'open' ipiiq- loosen' napi- Veak (long, narrow object)' nakat- 'break (long, narrow object)' siqumit- 'shatter (ice, glass, etc.)'


Consequently, (256H260) are perfectly grammatical:69

(256) a. kaapi kuvijuq kaapi -φ kuvi- -juq coffee abs spill 3sg,itr,nom part 'the coffee spills'

(257) a. qijuk qupijuq qijuk -φ qupi- -juq wood abs split 3sg,itr,nom part 'the wood splits'

(258) a. ukkuaq ukkuiqtuq ukkuaq -φ ukkuiq- -tuq door abs open 3sg,itr,nom part 'the door opens'70

(259) a. qimmiq ipiiqtuq qimmiq -φ ipiiq- -tuq dog abs loosen 3sg,itr,nom part 'the dog is loose'

(260) a. titirauti napijuq / nakattuq titrauti -φ napi- ·juq / nakat- -tuq pencil abs break 3sg,itr,nom part break 3sg,itr,nom part 'the pencil breaks'

The following sentences were given as transitive variants of the above:

(256) b. arnaup kaapi kuvijanga arna(q) -up kaapi -φ kuvi- -janga woman erg coffee abs spill 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman pours the coffee'

(257) b. arnaup qijuq qupijanga arna(q) -up qijuq -φ qupi- -janga woman erg wood abs split 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman splits the wood'

(258) b. arnaup ukkuaq ukkuiqtanga arna(q) -up ukkuaq -φ ukkuiq- -tanga woman erg door abs open 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman opens the door'

184 6. Transitivity

(259) b. arnaup qimmiq ipiiqtanga arna(q) -up qimmiq -φ ipiiq- -tanga woman erg dog abs let loose 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman lets the dog loose'

(260) b. arnaup titirauti napijanga arna(q) -up titirauti -φ napi- -janga woman erg pencil abs break 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman breaks the pencil'

It should be observed that the person acting is simply added in the transitive construction. With respect to the status of inflection, it can be stated that inflectional suffixes have at least the function of a filter: intransitive inflection "filters" away the AGENT role that may be assigned by this class of verbs; only the THEME role is allowed to percolate. This fact also relativizes the designation "activity predicates" quite a bit, since "activity" can only percolate with transitive inflection.

Of special interest is the fact that variant (c), suggested by me, was rejected in favor of the modified (d) forms shown with them below:

(256) c. *arnaq kaapimik kuvijuq

d. arnaq kaapimik kuvisijuq arnaq -Φ kaapi -mik kuvi- -si- -juq woman abs coffee obj spill ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'a woman pours coffee'

(257) c. *arnaq qijumik qupijuq

d. arnaq qijumik qupisijuq arnaq -φ qijuq -mik qupi- -si- -juq woman abs wood obj split ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'a woman splits wood'

(258) c. *arnaq ukkuarmik ukkuiqtuq

d. arnaq ukkuarmik ukkuiqsijuq arnaq -φ ukkua(q) -mik ukkuiq- -si- -juq woman abs door obj open ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'a woman closes the door'

(259) c. *arnaq qimmirmik ipiiqtuq

d. arnaq qimmirmik ipiiqsijuq arnaq -φ qimmi(q) -mik ipiiq- -si- -juq woman abs dog obj let loose ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'a woman lets the dog loose'


(260) c. *arnaq titirautimik siqumittuq

d. arnaq titirautimik napisijuq arnaq -φ titirauti -mik napi- -si- -juq woman abs pencil obj break ap 3sg4tr,nom part 'a woman breaks a pencil'

Thus, result predicates behave no differently from event predicates, which exhibit a nonreflexive reading only if they are "detransitivized" by the antipassive affix -si-. In both cases - and this is praticularly relevant to the question whether there is a direct object or not - a complement noun phrase marked -mik is required. It may be concluded that the reflexive reading of event predicates preserves the AGENT role, whereas in result predicates only the THEME role can be assigned in the intransitive reading, as argued above. Consequently,

(256) c. *arnaq kaapimik kuvijuq

must be ungrammatical, as is

(252) b. *kaapi kuvijuq arnamut -mutt (-mit)

while

(256) d. arnaq kaapimik kuvisijuq arnaq -φ kaapi -mik kuvi- -si- -juq woman abs coffee obj spill ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'the woman spills coffee'

and

(252) c. kaapi kuvijaujuq arnamut kaapi -φ kuvi- -jau- -juq arna(q) -mut coffee abs spill pass 3sg,itr,nom part woman term 'coffee was spilled by the woman'

are perfectly correct.

Regarding the unaccusative hypothesis, the critical point is Johns's observation that in a simple transitive sentence with two agreeing noun phrases, neither of these noun phrases can be considered the direct object The term "unaccusative" is based on the assumption that there is a direct object and that this direct object principally bears accusative case marking; consequently this concept must be misleading and out of place if applied to Inuktitut.

A similar problem revolves around the "passive" and "antipassive", likewise terms inspired by the traditional distribution of subjects and direct objects.

186 6. Transitivity

The term "antipassive" is used in the literature to denote that phenomenon which I have also called "detransivization".71

For Johns, "detransitivization" is an attribute of event predicates, whereby the originally transitive form takes on reflexive meaning in the intransitive. Α nonreflexive form is obtained by adding the affix -si- to the intransitive; the resulting word requires a complement in the -mik case. Since all these verbs are intrinsically transitive, they can be passivized:

(261) arnaup an gut kunikpanga arna(q) -up angut -0 kunik- -panga woman erg man abs kiss 3sg/3sg,tr,ind AGENT PATIENT 'the woman kisses the man'

(262) angut kuniktaujuq angut -0 kunik- -tau- -juq man abs kiss pass 3sg,itr,nom part PATENT 'the man is kissed'

(263) angut kuniktaujuq arnamut(mit) angut -0 kunik- -tau- -juq arna(q) -mut/mit man abs kiss pass 3sg,itrjiom part woman term/abl PATENT AGENT 'the man is kissed by the woman'

In the passive, the noun phrase with the semantic role AGENT and ergative case is removed as an external argument; the other noun phrase, an external argument with the semantic role PATENT and absolutive case, remains untouched. Simultaneously, the predicate is detransitivized, so that it now takes intransitive inflection. The former NPerg with the AGENT role may optionally appear in oblique position with terminalis (-mut) or ablative (-mit) case marking.

The reverse situation obtains under detransitivation with -si-. Here, the noun phrase with the AGENT role is retained in the intransitive sentence. Moreover, unlike the passive, where a noun phrase in oblique case is optional, an antipassive sentence without a noun phrase in the objective case is ungrammatical:

(264) arnaq kuniksijuq angutimik arnaq -0 kunik- -si- -juq angut(i) -mik woman abs kiss ap 3sg,itr,nom part man obj AGENT PATENT 'the woman kisses the man'


Johns (1987a: 12) and Jensen and Johns (1989: 219ff.) accordingly term -si-an "agent marker", referring to the fact that in the antipassive the external argument is the noun phrase with the AGENT role; it contrasts with the passive, where the external argument is the noun phrase with the semantic role PATIENT. This designation implies that the semantic role AGENT is assigned to NP4he by -si-. This fits in well with the data on result predicates just discussed (examples 256d-260d).

Examples (261)-(264) illustrate the fact that here, just as with the unaccusative hypothesis, the primary question is whether one of the two noun phrases that agree with the verb (i.e., those bearing ergative or absolutive case) can be considered the direct object. Passive is traditionally described as the raising of a noun phrase from direct object position to the subject position. So if sentence (262) or (263) is claimed to be not only semantically but also syntactically passive, the implication cannot be avoided that one of the two noun phrases - specifically, the absolutive one - represents an underlying direct object, which has been raised to subject position. In contrast, antipassive means that the direct object is deleted and that an AGENT is implanted in an essentially nonagentive structure. The inconsistency of this argumentation when applied to Inuktitut is noteworthy: whereas in the passive it is the NPtbe that analyzed as an object, in the antipassive it is evidently the NPerg. It is striking that in both instances the NP^ is the one that changes case. Furthermore, it bears remarking that passive and antipassive are important principally with respect to the distribution of the semantic roles AGENT and PATIENT. In the passive, the NPlhe with the semantic role THEME is preserved and is semantically specified as PATIENT, but the NPCTg with the AGENT role can be entirely deleted from the sentence. In the antipassive, the NP^, with the semantic role THEME is sent down to complement position; the remaining noun phrase receives absolutive case, since the external argument of intransitive sentences always bears absolutive. This new NPtbJ, contrary to the preferred argument structure, retains the semantic role AGENT.

Thus, antipassive is a sentence structure that conflicts with the normal argument structure of Inuktitut. Since this is also true of the passive in Indo-European languages, the term "antipassive" should probably be looked upon as complementary to the Indo-European passive - as is appropriate for an ergative, "mirror image" language. The antipassive can scarcely be thought of as a complementary structure to the Inuktitut passive.

A recurrent, central point in the current discussion is the question whether any of the noun phrases that agree with the finite, transitive verb can be understood as objects. The same problems as were described above regarding the term "transitivity", which likewise implies the constellation of subject -predicate - object, are to be found here: "antipassive" and "unaccusative" are

188 6. Transitivity

terms that contain a variety of unexpressed assumptions. There are strong indications however, that neither the NPib, nor the NPeie is an object This fact not only releases the designation "transitivity" from its traditional meaning, but also necessarily changes the definition of "passive". Under the circumstances, it is not possible to move the direct object into subject position, since this direct object does not exist in the sentence structure under consideration. Passive in Inuktitut does include a deletion, but not that of a direct object, either. Antipassive, in contrast, involves not the raising of a noun phrase out of oblique position, but rather a demotion into oblique position.

S tr NP1 NP2 VP erg abs tr -up -Φ AGENT THEME/GOAL

S pass — NP2 VP {NPO V} abs term/abl itr -Φ -mutl-mit PATIENT AGENT

S ap NP2 VP [NPO V] abs obj itr -Φ -mik AGENT THEME/GOAL

Of obvious importance arc the two affixes -jau-l-tau- and -si-: without them, all the sentences in question are either ungrammatical or reflexive in meaning. Both affixes determine the transitivity value of the finite verb. Antipassive -si- assigns the semantic role AGENT to the external argument and THEME to the complement. Antipassive thereby violates the preferred argument structure of Inuktitut. Passive - jau- l - tauon the other hand, behaves in conformity with the preferred argument structure, assigning to its external argument the THEME role, and to its adjunct the AGENT role and terminalis or ablative case.

The proposal of Jensen and Johns (1989: 220) that both passive and antipassive be treated as purely derivational morphological processes is very tempting. Still, one should not forget that they bring with them far-reaching consequences for the interaction of the morphological-synthetic component with the syntactic component. One must also consider that there exists an entire series of verbs in Inuktitut which can be used both transitively and intransitively without becoming reflexive in the latter form. One could of course assume, as Bittner (1987) does for Greenlandic, that such intransitives


are in fact antipassive and simply lack the affix -si-.12 For these sentences, too, require a complement in the objective case. Following formal criteria, antipassive would then be defined as the sentence structure in which an intransitive finite verb requires a complement.

S [NP - VP [NP - V]] abs obj itr -φ -mik

It remains uncertain, however, whether in every sentence of this type the NPlbe receives the semantic role AGENT. This question will not be taken up here. It is worth noting, however, that verbs of perception (taku- 'see', tusar-'hear', nai- 'smell') figure prominently in this group.

Finally, I would like to examine Bittner (1987), a work which discusses the antipassive in Greenlandic. Her chief interest is in the semantic aspects of the antipassive, whereby she attempts to demonstrate that the antipassive affixes -si-, -llir-, -(ss)i-, and -nnig- are not restricted to syntactic functions (pp. 195, 202). Bittner particularly deals with the question whether there exist scope differences between transitive and antipassive sentences (p. 205) and, after thorough investigation of negation, tense, aspect, and modality, concludes, "there is evidence suggesting that, in W(est)G(reenlandic)E(skimo), all antipassive predicates are world-creating, even if their transitive counterparts denote purely extensional predicates" (1987: 225). Bittner closes by formulating a "cross linguistic generalization":

If an argument can be expressed, either by an NP in the case predicted by the parameter settings for the language or by some other kind of phrase, then the parametric alternant will obligatorily take wide scope with respect to sentential operators, such as negation, aspect, modals, the distributive operators etc. while the non-parametric alternant will be permitted to take scope under those operators. It may in fact be restricted to take narrow scope (1987: 230).

In anticipation of the following discussion of ergativity, I would like to point out that antipassive -si- in Inuktitut and antipassive -si- in Kalaallisut behave similarly, at least in the area of syntax; this comes across clearly in Bittner's discussion. It should especially be stressed that in both languages -si- is obviously antipassive, not passive. Bittner's far-reaching conclusion that the change in syntactic relations modifies the semantics is decidedly illuminating.

To summarize: Semantic classifications of predicating expressions, such as that attempted by Johns (1987a), do not correspond to classifications based on morphological and syntactic criteria. The sentence structure implied by the traditional understanding of "transitive" and "intransitive" has resulted in the terms "unaccusative" and "antipassive". Both presuppose the existence of a direct object, which shifts to the external argument position in derived intransitive sentences. An "unaccusative" external argument brings its

190 6. Transitivity

semantic role along from below but receives the structural case marking appropriate to the subject position.

"Antipassive" should be seen as the converse of the passive of Indo-European languages. In Inuktitut the term designates a sentence structure in which an intransitive verbal complex formed with -si- assigns the semantic role AGENT to its external argument; its complement bears objective case and the role THEME. It is noteworthy that this sentence structure corresponds to the basic structure of a nominative-accusative language.

A central problem is the question whether, in a minimal sentence of the type that we have been referring to as transitive, one of the two noun phrases can be considered a direct object. In the preceding discussion it was already observed that the answer is no. It is not difficult to discern that this fact has far-reaching consequences.

Chapter 7 Ergativity in Inuktitut

7.0. Outline of the investigation

The preceding discussion showed that there are essentially two sources of difficulty in the description of Inuktitut: 1. a profound uncertainty as to whether it is possible to classify lexemes according to the basic lexical categories Ν and V and, if so, how to go about doing so, as well as the closely associated tendency to view the language as fundamentally "nominal". This brief characterization passes over the additional problems provided by the polysynthetic character of Inuktitut. 2. a profound confusion in the area of terminology, which not only leads to the hidden redefinition of the expression "transitivity", but also leaves its mark on other terms derived from the postulated contrast between ergative sentence structure and nominative-accusative structure. Terms like "antipassive" and "unaccusative" feed on this contrast. The way they are intrinsically thought of and formulated in terms of such an opposition suggests a complementarity between ergative structures and nominative-accusative ones which does not actually exist.

Both of these latter aspects, the understanding of transitivity and the representation of phenomena in the two language types as polar opposites, are founded on the assumption that the basic sentence structure is appropriately described with the concepts "subject", "object", and "predicate", and above all with the concomitant dependency relations among the individual constituents. The term "transitivity" implies the presence of a direct object, and I have already shown in which way this assumption is applied to Inuktitut: the question simply is which of the two noun phrases under agreement has to be interpreted as the subject; the remaining noun phrase then is automatically viewed as direct object. The appellations "antipassive" and "unaccusative" similarly imply a direct object - the first with regard to the semantic relationship between subject and object as it contrasts with the passive, the second with regard to the objective case accusative.

If one reconsiders the discussion, in connection with the term "ergativity", of the arrangement of subject, object, and their respective semantic roles, questions arise as to how ergativity is described for Inuktitut and what conclusions are drawn from this. Moreover, the characteristics given for the noun phrase labeled "direct object" may vary to some extent, depending on the line of argument or the general point of view; but if we contrast them with those noun phrases which can be identified with certainty as objects, we are led to ask, whether a representation cannot - indeed, must not - be

192 7. Ergativity in Inuktitut

developed that sets aside just the above described presuppositions. "Subject" and "object" must be redefined; the decision as to which of the noun phrases under consideration can be labeled "subject" must be backed up by thorough and fundamental evidence.

To begin with, I will introduce some representations and discussions that deal with Inuktitut as an ergative language. Next, I will step away from "ergativity" and turn to the basic notions "subject" and "direct object". In 7.2 I will inquire about "subjects" in Inuktitut, in 7.3 about "objects" in Inuktitut.

7.1. Ergativity in Inuktitut

7.1.1. Marantz's approach

Although it was previously always assumed that in the transitive sentence the NPabe occupies the object position,73 Marantz (1984) chooses the other option when he identifies the NPerg as the object. For him, Inuktitut is the epitome of syntactic ergativity, displaying a patient in subject position and an agent in direct object position. Dyirbal is the only other language compatible with this representation, so that the group of syntactically ergative languages, with a membership of two, is very small indeed.

Sentences whose subjects are not agents are scarcely restricted to Inuktitut or Dyirbal. But whereas in German such sentences occur only under specific conditions, in Inuktitut there is a real possibility that this phenomenon is structurally driven. The problem with Marantz's suggestion is, rather, that a direct object receives the semantic role AGENT. This is the constellation which, according to his interpretation, is to be found only in these two languages.

Marantz's Ergative Parameter74 likewise shows the well-known symmetrical contrast to agentive languages. It distinguishes among various levels of description, which are intended to permit the differentiated analysis of linguistic idiosyncrasies. The basic categories are S (proposition) and NP; VP, as the (semantic) predicate, is treated as the head of S. V assigns semantic roles within its subcategorization frame, whereas PRED (predicate) assigns the semantic role of the external argument to the subject. Marantz presupposes the classic distinction among subject, direct object, indirect object, and oblique object, so it is not surprising that he understands "transitive" in relation to the occurrence of a direct object. In addition, he recognizes a logical subject (log sub): verbs whose logical subject is not an AGENT are said to have no logical subject and are consequently labeled

7.1. Ergativity in Inuktitut 193

[-log sub] (1984: 34-35). Consequently, nominative-accusative languages are characterized by having the semantic role AGENT assigned by the predicate, so that the subject bears the AGENT role, whereas the verb assigns the semantic role THEME/PATIENT to the direct object. For ergative languages, Marantz turns this pattern around: the verb assigns the direct object the semantic role AGENT, whereas the predicate assigns THEME/PATIENT to the subject (1984: 196) The subject case of intransitive verbs is nominative; accusative is essentially "nonnominative" and thus is assigned to the subject or direct object of the transitive verb: "whichever case is not identical to the nominative case in the language" (1984: 197). It is already possible to discern parallelism to the ergative case in this characterization; the absolutive, as the unmarked case, corresponds to the nominative. Marantz can now differentiate among syntactic subject, logical subject, and the cases, whereby he determines that the three aspects do not pattern alike in all languages. The syntactic level, logical level, and level of case assignment are not linearly tied, so shifts may occur between the levels. The association syntactic subject - logical subject - nominative case - semantic role AGENT represents the ideal case, from which divergences are quite possible and indeed not uncommon. Naturally, the same is true of the alternative setting for the Ergative Parameter. Here the ideal case is the so-called syntactic ergativity, which is characterized thus: "the sole syntactic dependent of an intransitive verb and the theme/patient of a transitive verb are syntactic subjects" (1984: 197). Morphologically ergative languages, in contrast, are languages that exhibit a nominative-accusative structure together with a complete or partial ergative case marking system.

Marantz's definition of syntactic ergativity follows Dixon's (1979); as already stated, the chief problem lies in the requirement that the direct object take on the semantic role AGENT in syntactically ergative languages. Marantz attempts to show that Inuktitut ("Central Arctic Eskimo") fulfills this requirement yet that Greenlandic is merely morphologically ergative. This would not only prove that syntactically ergative languages in the above sense exist but also would necessitate an entirely new typological ordering of the "Eskimo languages", since it would demonstrate profound typological differences between two variants which had been considered extremely similar.

Marantz's argument is based on the point that, as stated in the Ergative Parameter, in ergative languages predicates assign the role THEME and verbs AGENT, whereas in nominative-accusative languages predicates assign AGENT and verbs THEME. Marantz discusses sentences which are supposed to demonstrate that Greenlandic behaves like a nominative-accusative language with respect to these alternatives. In the following Greenlandic sentences,75 the logical object of (4.53) corresponds to the subject of (4.55):

194 7. Ergativity in Inuktitul

"(4.53) Anut-ip arnaq-φ taku-vaa man-ERG woman-ABS see-IND3sg,3sg (IND=indicative) The man saw the woman'"

(1984: 150)

"(4.55) Arnaq-φ anuti-mit taku-tau-puq woman-ABS man-ABL see-PASS-IND3sg The woman was seen by the man' "

(1984: 151)

In the antipassive construction, the antipassive verb bears the features [+ log sub], [-transitive]; and the logical subject of the predicate is the same as the syntactic subject, appearing therefore in the absolutive case.

"(4.56) Anut-0 miirqu-nik paar-si-vuq man-ABS children-INST take care of-ANTIPASS-IND3sg The man takes care of the children'"

(1984: 151)76

Marantz's claim that Greenlandic and Inuktitut typologically differ is based essentially on one assumption, which he derives from his Ergative Parameter, and the evidence that this assumption is correct.

1. The assumption

Passive in a syntactically ergative language of the type

SUB of [-transitive]V - NOM (ABS) SUB of [+transitive]V - NOM (ABS) OBJ of [+transitive]V - ACC (ERG)

must resemble antipassive in a nominative-accusative language of the type

SUB of [-transitiveJV - NOM (ABS) SUB of [+transitive]V - ACC (ERG) OBJ of [+transitive]V - NOM (ABS) (cf. 1984: 198)

This type represents a morphologically ergative language "as far as its effects on the correspondence between semantic roles and case marking are concerned" (1984: 200).

The NP^ (AGENT) corresponds to the NPabs (THEME) of the derived passive or antipassive sentence; NPabe of the transitive sentence corresponds


to an oblique NP in the intransitive sentence. Since Inuktitut is supposed to be syntactically ergative and Kalaallisut morphologically ergative, the passive in Inuktitut must be equivalent to the antipassive in Kalaallisut.

2. The evidence With this schema in the background Marantz contrasts the Greenlandic sentences (4.53), (4.55), and (4.56) cited above with sentences from Inuktitut, postulating that they are equivalent. This is, unfortunately, not the case in the least; and due to this egregious error, it is difficult to follow his argument at all.

Marantz's argument covers two aspects: (1) the interpretation of intransitive sentences and (2) the interpretation of antipassive. Both arguments are severely hampered by the use of isolated and selected data and false interpretation. Since Marantz depends exclusively upon material gathered by others, one cannot fault him for errors and imprecision in morphophonemics. However, the shortcomings are not limited to such misspellings. Marantz very rarely names his sources, so it is not clear how he reaches the false interpretation of intransitive sentences and of antipassive and why he appears to be ignorant of -jau-1-tau-, the passive affix, in Inuktitut.

To begin with, Marantz's discussion of intransitive and reflexive forms is inconsistent and highly problematic. He makes the general claim that reflexives are formed by intransitive inflection of otherwise transitive verbs, including verbs like taku- 'see'. In addition, Marantz continues, a reflexive pronoun in the "comitative" (-mik, objective) is used, never one in ergative or absolute. The reflexive is thus a simple intransitive sentence complemented by a pronoun.

Marantz then states that an intransitive verb without such a pronoun "is generally used for the passive". Surprisingly enough, Marantz introduces examples (6.31.a-b),

"(6.31) a. angut arnar-mik taku-vuq man-ABS woman-COM see IND3sg 'the man sees the woman'

(1984: 214)

angut ingminik taku-vuq man-ABS himself-COM see-IND3sg 'the man sees himself "

and goes on: "It should be clear from a comparison of (6.31 λ) and (6.3l.b) that, just as in Dyirbal, the passive and reflexive constructions have the same syntax in Arctic" (1984: 214). Of course, it is difficult to make such a claim

1% 7. Ergativity in Inuktitut

without a true passive sentence. This argumentation becomes even more puzzling shortly thereafter, when Marantz contrasts "Arctic" and Greenlandic just on the ground of a passive reading of the Greenlandic sentence:

"(6.33) Arctic a. angut taku-vuq

man-ABS see-IND3sg 'the man sees (something)'

Greenlandic (from Woodbury 1977a; (45)) b. Tigianaq taku-vuq

fox-ABS see-IND3sg 'the fox was seen' "

(1984: 215/216)

It is from the assertion that in Greenlandic sentences like (6.33b) or

"(6.34) Piniartoq toquppoq hunter-ABS kill-IND3sg 'The hunter was killed' or 'The hunter killed himself"

(1984: 216)

can be interpreted either reflexively or passively that Marantz finally derives his claim that Greenlandic, unlike Inuktitut, is a nominative-accusative language: "The present theory predicts that the reflexive will be synonymous with the passive in any language. If (6.34) is passive, then its subject (the patient argument) must be the logical object of the verb. But if the patient arguments of verbs like toqupp- Trill' are logical objects in Greenlandic, the language is nominative-accusative" (1984: 216). A passive interpretation of intransitive sentences in Inuktitut is utterly untenable; (6.3l.b) is reflexive thanks to the reflexive pronoun ingminik 'self, which is not declinable as to number or the structural cases absolutive, ergative and objective.

As previously explained, such simple intransitive sentences as

(1) * angut takuvuq

are incomplete and require an addition in the -mik case, since taku- 'see' belongs to the group that cannot be reflexively interpreted in simple intransitive form. In contrast to a verb like kapi- 'stab', classified as "event predicate" in 6.5, taku-, like the other verbs of perception, must make use of the reflexive pronoun to express reflexivity.

As far as Greenlandic is concerned, neither Kleinschmidt nor Fortescue mentions a passive reading of intransitive sentences; moreover, the passive affix -jau-f-tau- is just as applicable in Kalaallisut as in Inuktitut, and the affix -niqar- is also common. Bittner (1988: 66) rejects the passive reading as downright wrong. Still, there have always been passive paraphrases of


intransitive sentences. This, however, I attribute to the attempt to capture the nonactive (or "nominal") character of the language. The reader is reminded of the Nominalist Hypothesis and the discussion of the nominal participle. This inertness is not at all confined to Kalaallisut; it is equally found in Inuktitut.

As far as Marantz's claim regarding the "sameness of syntax" is concerned, this is actually true: passive and reflexive are both ordinary intransitive constructions including no syntactic movements at all. This is not the case with antipassive, the other topic of Marantz's argument.

Marantz presumes that the affix -si- in Inuktitut is a passive marker. As a result, he manages to represent the passive of Inuktitut as identical to the antipassive of Greenlandic, thereby confirming that passive in an ergative language has the same effects as antipassive in a nominative-accusative language.

Actually, -si- is the antipassive affix in Inuktitut, just as it is in Greenlandic. Both languages furthermore mark the passive with -\au-l-tau-'?1

Inuktitut/Kalaallisut: -si-: Antipassive -jau-f-tau-: Passive

Thus, the parallelism between the two languages is considerably more extensive than the mirror-image relationship between antipassive and passive hoped for by Marantz. On the contrary, Greenlandic and Inuktitut behave exactly alike with respect to passive and antipassive.

The Greenlandic sentences (4.53) and (4.55) quoted above and repeated here correspond to the Inuktitut (2) and (3), which Marantz does not bring up:

"(4.53) Anut-ip arnaq-φ taku-vaa man-ERG woman-ABS see-IND3sg,3sg (IND=indicative) The man saw the woman'" (1984: 150)

"(4.55) Arnaq-0 anuti-mit taku-tau-puq woman-ABS man-ABL see-PASS-IND3sg The woman was seen by the man'" (1984: 151)

(2) angutiup arnaq takuvanga angut(i) -up arnaq -φ taku- -vanga man erg woman abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the man sees the woman'

(3) arnaq angutimut takujaujuq arnaq -φ angut(i) -mut taku- -jau- -juq woman abs man term see pass 3sg,itr,nom part 'the woman is seen by the man'78

198 7. Ergaüvity in Inuktitut

Although Marantz's proof utterly collapses at this point, for completeness' sake I would like to comment on the rest of his argument.

Marantz contrasts the "passive" of "Arctic" represented in (4), the Greenlandic antipassive (S), and an Inuktitut antipassive sentence (6) constructed by him (1984: 210-211):

(4) angut titirauti-mik nutarar-mut tuni-si-vuq man-ABS pencil-COM child-ALL give-PASS-IND3sg 'The man gave a pencil to the child'79

(5) Piruutisi Siisa-mik kapi-si-vuq Brutus-ABS Caesar-COM stab-ANTIPASS-IND3sg 'Brutus stabbed Caesar'

(6) *angut titirauti-mik nutarar-mik tuni-si-vuq man-ABS pencil-COM child-COM give-ANTIPASS-IND3sg 'The man gave a pencil to the child.'

The hypothetical sentence (6) is ungrammatical. According to Marantz, (6) is ungrammatical because both -tuni- 'give' and

-si- assign the semantic role GOAL and the case -mik - which, as we have seen, he designates "comitative" - resulting in the ungrammatical double case marking:

"a. tuni-, V, give (theme,goal), [+log sub], [+transitive] b. tuni-, V, give ( t h e m e [ + l o g sub], [+transitive]"

(Marantz 1984: 211)

Marantz's analysis predicts that if -si- is interpreted as antipassive and if it is attached to tuni-, an ungrammatical sentence like (6) will be the outcome. "In short, the ergative analysis of Arctic predicts that -si- should not attach to the verb in (6.9b), the nominative-accusative analysis predicts that -si- will attach to the verb in (6.9b), yielding the verb in (6.25)" (1984: 211).80

But as a matter of fact, -si- does combine with tuni- - in exactly the same way as described by Marantz for Greenlandic. In the light of Marantz's fundamental error, it is interesting to see how the passive behaves in Inuktitut.

(4) angut titirautimik nutararmut tunisivuq angut -0 titirauti -mik nutara(q) -mut tuni- -si- -vuq man abs pencil obj child term give ap 3sg,itr,ind AGENT THEME GOAL 'the man gave the pencil to the child'


(7) angutiup titirauti nutararmut tunivanga angut(i) -ψ titirauti -φ nutara(q) -mut tuni- -vanga man erg pencil abs child term give 3sg/3sg,tr,ind AGENT THEME GOAL 'the man gave the pencil to the child'

(8) ?titirauti nutararmut tunijaujuq titirauti -φ nutara(q) -mut tuni- -jau- -juq pencil abs child term give pass 3sg,itr,nom part THEME/PATIENT GOAL 'the pencil was given to the child' ??'the pencil was given by the child'

(9) ΊΊ titirauti nutararmut angutimit tunijaujuq titirauti -φ nutara(q) -mut angut(i) -mit tuni- -jau- -juq pencil abs child term man abl give pass 3sg,itr, THEME/ GOAL AGENT nom part PATIENT 'the pencil was given to the child by the man'

Here again, an potentially ungrammatical accumulation of case markings is produced. The request that my consultants passivize sentences like (4) and (7) caused them some trouble, which in most cases was finally resolved after the fashion of (8). The solution in (10)

(10) titirauti nutararmik angutimut tunijaujuq titirauti -φ nutara(q) -mik angut(i) -mut tuni- -jau- -juq pencil abs child obj man term give pass 3sg,itr, THEME/ GOAL AGENT nom part PATIENT 'the pencil was given to the child by the man'

cannot be excluded; however, it is less probable. The oblique cases are primarily semantically determined, most of them

indicating directionality; the terminalis (-mut) is associated with the role GOAL, the ablative with the opposite role SOURCE. Both cases may take over the role AGENT in passive or causative constructions; which case is employed depends on the dialect. In South Baffin, -mut is clearly preferred The assignment of the roles AGENT and GOAL to two different noun phrases both marked with the terminalis is not possible, for a decision as to which noun phrase bears which role is then not possible. In (9), the terminalis keeps its semantically determined role, while the ablative takes over AGENT. In (10) the terminalis takes over the AGENT role; ambiguity can be avoided only by relegating GOAL to the objective case, which is also able to support


this role. But it is much more likely - as well as being preferred by my consultants - that the role AGENT would be marked by the ablative (-mit), which is often used for this puipose too. Consequently, the semantic role AGENT can be assigned to an oblique, semantically determined case like -mut or -mit only if the case is not required to express its natural semantics on another noun phrase. In addition, it must be stated that it is not case which is assigned by tuni- or -si-, but a semantic role, tuni- assigns GOAL and THEME, and -jau- assigns THEME as well; the two "themes" are coindexed. Quite obviously, -jau- cannot assign both AGENT and the case -mut, and here -mut is occupied by the semantic role GOAL assigned by tuni-. The antipassive is more complicated, since here the semantic role AGENT is exceptionally assigned by -si- to the structural case absolutive. While GOAL finds its appropriate expression in -mut, THEME is demoted to the objective case.

Contrary to Marantz's claim, -si- does not assign the role GOAL, but clearly AGENT.81 Consequently, no collision of semantic roles occurs; sentence (4) is absolutely correct. Sentence (7) exhibits the "ordinary" transitive case; again following Marantz's interpretation, tuni- assigns THEME and GOAL. The question to be asked now of course is, who or what assigns the AGENT role and ergative case to 'the man' in (6)?

It is much more reasonable that tuni- assigns AGENT, THEME, and GOAL; thus in a transitive sentence all roles can be assigned in accordance with structural and semantic case marking. In an antipassive formation, the affix -si- has two features: its AGENT role is coindexed with the AGENT role of the verb, which consequently can percolate. But on the other hand, -si- is marked for intransitivity; therefore, no ergative case can be assigned. This results in a "deviant" syntactic structure, a structure where the semantic role AGENT is assigned to a noun phrase bearing absolutive, while the THEME argument is demoted - obligatorily - to direct object and marked with objective (-mik). Thus, antipassive represents a syntactic operation involving the shift of semantic roles. The antipassive is directly opposed to the passive -jau-l-tau, which is specified only for THEME, with the result that the AGENT argument of transitive sentence is suppressed or demoted. If we take one basic characteristic of ergativity seriously, namely, that the ergative case is semantically determined as AGENT, it follows that passives cannot exhibit an ergative noun phrase. Passive can be viewed as an aspect, intensifying the nonagentivity of the absolutive noun phrase to the semantic role PATIENT.

In the end, Marantz reaches the following characterization of the difference between Greenlandic and Inuktitut: Whereas in Greenlandic the NP.te of the intransitive sentence corresponds to the NPlbs of the transitive sentence, in Inuktitut it corresponds to the NPerg of the transitive sentence. Thus, the


"ergative shift" between subject and object is carried out in Inuktitut but not in Greenlandic (1984: 215).

It must be reemphasized that the sole foundation for this analysis is the passive interpretation of the Kalaallisut intransitive sentence, contrasted with the active interpretation of the same sentence in Inuktitut The correctness of this passive reading, however, is subject to considerable doubt

Johns (1987a: 3Iff.) goes into a detailed examination of Marantz's claims about derived intransitives and reflexives. She, too, reaches the conclusion that no typological difference can be made between Inuktitut and Greenlandic. Of some interest is her information as to the source of Marantz's crucial example

(6.33b) tigianaq takuvuq 'the fox was seen'

and its passive translation. According to Woodbury, this sentence originates with Swadesh (1946: 45), by whom it was constructed (Johns 1987a: 43; Woodbury 1977: 324).

Johns (1987a) challenges the Ergative Parameter with its requirement that the direct object bear the semantic role AGENT. In so doing, she leans heavily upon arguments from learnability theory (1987a: 21-28), which make this requirement appear "counterintuitive". But independently of any psychological argument, it is this very requirement which largely evades empirical support.

This requirement is possible only under the assumption that every sentence can have only one subject and that all other noun phrases automatically have object status. It is then the business of linguists to arrange the data along this preordained axis in such a way that all holes in the explanation are avoided. The question whether within an Ergative Parameter the noun phrase in the absolutive or the ergative case is the direct object is then nothing more than a question of elegance and preference. A grand example of this approach is Marantz, who manages to construct a hermetic argument for the syntactic ergativity of Inuktitut as opposed to the morphological ergativity of Kalaallisut, all on the basis of an incorrectly interpreted sentence and an incorrectly understood affix.

In the light of correctly interpreted data, Marantz's characterization of Greenlandic as merely morphologically ergative in contrast to syntactically ergative Inuktitut completely lacks evidence. There is no reason to assume that Inuktitut behaves so differently as to justify such a far-reaching distinction. But if Inuktitut does not behave in the way required by Marantz, his characterization of syntactic ergativity establishes a class without a member.


Though Marantz does not provide any independent evidence for his claim, the difficulties in determining the "degrees of ergativity" are worth noting. As we will see below, they show up again in Bok-Bennema's approach and must be taken as a clue to a more fundamental solution.

7.1.2. Bittner's approach

A modified solution is suggested by Bittner (1988) for Kalaallisut. She suggests that the "d-structure" of a transitive sentence has the following form:

IP

NP,(ERG,s) VP,(x) I

Jacob ((N)„) ( „)

NP,(y)

Ann ((N)„) ( „)

V* ind-3s/3s ((I)„(NOM,s)) ((V)„(ERG,s))

kick (,(x)>) (>(y)>)

Aana Jaakup isimmip-p-aa Ann(NOM) Jacob-ERG kick-ind-3s/3s Lit. "Ann, Jacob, he kicked her." (1988: 96/97)

At "s-structure", NP(y) is moved into the empty subject position. The NP(ERG) appears as a modified object that is - in contrast to a true object -not dominated by VP but rather by I'. It is therefore sister to VP and I, and is governed by I.

The tree structure suggested by Bittner for the intransitive sentence, which she designates the S-NOM-type, holds for passives, sentences with


unaccusative verbs, and other intransitive sentences in which the subject position is empty at d-structure.

IP

NP(by)

Jacob ((N)„) ( „)

kicked Ann ( , « , ) ((N)„) U y l ) ( „)

"Ann has been kicked by Jacob" (1988: 95; cf. also 156-157)

I VP(ex)

has ((I)„(NOM,s)) <(V)„ )

V'

been ( (ex) ) ((V)„(by))

V


The intransitive sentence is characterized thus:

S - NOM - type ((I)0,(NOM,s)) (00,0,0)

On the other hand, the transitive sentence is described as follows:

((I),0,(NOM,s)) (00,0,(ERG,s))

This means simply that in the intransitive sentence an empty subject position is possible but Infi (I) assigns only nominative case, whereby no object is possible. In the transitive sentence, called the ERG-type sentence, the subject position is likewise empty, as shown above; Infi assigns nominative here, as well, but now an object in the ergative case is possible. Bittner's representation incorporates a distinction between transitive and intransitive sentence forms for languages referred to by her as ACC-type and D-NOM-type, so every language can be classified as to whether Infi assigns ACC or ERG. Crucial for Bittner is the introduction of "grid filters", which permit a language to be assigned not just one such filter but several, which then correspond to different sentence structures. Kalaallisut, therefore, has an ERG-filter for transitive (= ergative) sentences and a NOM-filter for intransitive sentences. In both sentence types, the s-structure subject is moved from a d-structure object position into the originally empty subject position.82

It is interesting to consider that the subject position could actually be empty. The notion of a subject position that is systematically empty at d-structure provokes the question why this position cannot just as systematically remain empty: the result would be an "amputated" phrase structure tree, which would be of significance only as a theoretical construct. The empty subject position at d-structure is helpful by making room for two noun phrases that are not objects, without giving up basic sentence structure. The problem is thus again how to determine which noun phrase is in fact the highest in the hierarchy and where the noun phrase with NOM=ABS at s-structure is generated at d-structure. The sole motivation for locating this NP under VP and subsequently moving it to another position is the assumption that all sentences include an IP level:

IP [NP - Γ]

"I propose that, universally, an inflection must take a VP complement and if finite, must assign the nominative case feature to the subject" (Bittner 1988: 94).

This statement does not touch upon Bittner's hypothesis that in languages with mixed systems, or "splits", the split is caused by Infi. This description also applies to the alternation between transitive and intransitive inflection in


Inuktitut, with the exception that there is no split in the sense of a shift to a different language type.

The hierarchical ordering of the two noun phrases remains an obscure point. The placement of the NPlbs under V' at d-stmcture is problematic, especially since Bittner views the -mik case as accusative, that is, as the classic case for objects (1988: 264-265). Her representation of sentences with complements in -mik or -mut (1988: 163) shows that she sees no fundamental difference between this case and the absolutive: at d-structure both occupy the position from which the NPlbe is later moved to subject position.

IP

NP,(z),(Nom,s)

Ann

NP,(Erg,s) vP(x)

Jacob

NP,(Ins,y)

jewels

ind 3s/3s ((I), ,(Nom,s))

y. ((V), ,(Erg,s))

NP,(z) I

give ((x) (Ins,y)) ((z) )

Aana Jaakup pinnirsaatinik tuni-v-aa Ann(NOM) Jacob<ERG) jewels(INS) give-ind-3s/3s Lit. "Ann, Jacob, he gave her jewels" (1988: 163)

The trouble with Bittner's representation is less her proposed s-structure than the d-structure said to be behind it and the relationship between the two structures. At s-structure the fact is expressed that neither the NP^ nor the NPlbe is an object. If one assumes that the phrase structure tree starts out "unlabeled", then, independently of which case and which role are assigned

206 7. Ergativity in Inukütut

to the external argument and whether they are controlled by ΙηΩ, a hierarchy can be clearly read off the structure. The problem is, however, that just such a hierarchy between NPlhe and NPerg cannot be identified, at least in Inuktitut. The reason fa* this nonlinear representation can be found in the well-known descriptive problem: whereas one of the two positions is indubitably occupied, the other is dependent upon the presence of a feature in Infi, namely, [+tr]. Consequently, it is logical to infer that the position dependent on [+tr] is that of the NPerg. Bittner's universal assumption cited above can then be modified thus: "It is claimed to be universal that Infi is projected by a constituent classified for the lexical category +V; and that if Infi is finite, at least one case is assigned by it to a noun phrase; this case is called nominative/absolute." The emphasis here is on "at least", which is meant to indicate that finite Infi has the option of assigning case and a role to more than one noun phrase. This is, of course, a substantial difference from the statement that only one noun phrase is assigned case. Bittner's d-structure corresponds to this restrictive interpretation. Since the NP„g is not supposed to appear in the subject position, this position must initially remain empty and then receive the NP>bs. Because the intransitive sentence has the same form as the passive, one is also asked to swallow the presupposition that the NP in question comes from an object position; in other words, the NPabs is an underlying object, although it never appears as one at s-structure.

We are faced with the fundamental question of how much such "mirror-image" templates are worth. For a descriptive interpretation, such structural types cannot be satisfying. The requirements implicit in them are determined by the template; by polarizing nominative-accusative languages and ergative languages, they offer variations that are only theoretically possible. For a deductive interpretation which makes claims of universality, however, such templates have explanatory value.

7.1.3. Bok-Bennema's approach

Bok-Bennema (1991) presents yet another approach to ergativity in Inuit languages.83 She adopts Marantz's notion of ergativity and the first half of the book is dedicated to the discussion whether or not, in Marantz's Ergative Parameter, Inuit languages must be viewed as morphologically or syntactically ergative. She views ergativity as generally manifested in case systems and points out that "the grammatical status of the two NPs of transitive structures is unclear" (1991: 1). Consequently, one of her major objectives is to clarify this status. Bok-Bennema works within a Govemment-and-Binding framework, and her argumentation can partly be viewed as a further development of the Johns and Bittner analyses. As far as


polysynthetic structures are concerned, Bok-Bennema follows a syntactic interpretation oriented towards Baker's (1985 and 1988) mirror principle; she does not make any difference between affixes and their specific properties on the one hand and lexical items proper. Consequently, Bok-Bennema treats affixes as words, incorporated verbal nuclei as nonfinite verbs, and the directional case endings as prepositions. Verbal nuclei such as ani- 'go out' have the same status as affixes like -qu- 'tell s.o. to do s.th.'; the synthetic form aniqu-(vanga, etc.) 'he/she told him/her to go out', is interpreted as consisting of a complement verb, ani-, and a finite verb, -qu- (Bok-Bennema 1991: 15). This approach to morphological structure poses many problems, on which, however, I will not elaborate here.

Contrary to Jensen-Johns (1989: 218), who take a lexicalist position, Bok-Bennema claims that the absolutive cannot be assigned by the "complement verb", "since there is no absolutive available in infinitives" (1991: 30). This interpretation turns out to be important in her discussion of the empty category PRO, where she analyzes the "subject" of the incorporated verb as PRO, the antecendent of which is, according to her, always AGENT. Because she also argues that verbal complements always must be intransitive (1991: 15) or detransitive (1991: 30), she allows subjects of "intransitives" to bear the role AGENT. It will turn out later that these somewhat perplexing interpretations are used to substantiate the claim of split ergativity triggered by transitivity.

To reach this conclusion, Bok-Bennema first discusses ergativity according to Marantz's Ergative Parameter and then presents a very interesting analysis of her own. She is very well aware of Marantz's fundamental misconceptions regarding the data, and she discusses his proposals at length (1991: 147ff.). Discussing PRO, reflexivization, passive and antipassive, incorporation, word order, and anaphoric binding, she concludes that syntactic ergativity in Marantz's understanding of it cannot be attested for Inuit languages: it is extremely unlikely that the AGENT noun phrase can be viewed as an object. This is a serious blow to Marantz's theory, as already pointed out: it leaves the class of syntactically ergative languages according to his definition empty.

But having ruled out Marantz's notion of syntactic ergativity does not solve the problem of case assignment existing in Inuit languages. The definition of "subject" and "object" is crucial. Having discussed all the above-mentioned aspects that could help to determine subjecthood, Bok-Bennema states that it is impossible to define unique positions for subject and object at surface structure. D-structure at least offers some help, since it seems uncontroversial to assume that the direct object is principally generated as a complement of V.84 Measuring the collected arguments against a basic sentence structure given below


IP

/ \ Ζ Γ

/ \ VP I

Y VP

\ V·

/ \ X V

X is the object position, the d-structure position of THEME in morphologically ergative languages, of AGENT in syntactically ergative languages; Y is the d-structure position of AGENT and THEME, respectively; and Ζ is the surface subject position (Spec of IP).

Bok-Bennema must conclude that a final decision concerning the status of AGENT is not yet possible whereas the status of THEME seems to be fairly clear.85 Since the problem of the ergative case pattern is still not solved - she states that AGENTs are subjects and THEMEs are objects, implying a perfectly normal sentence pattern, which only leaves the subject position in an intransitive structure empty - Bok-Bennema goes on to make a closer inspection of the remaining case system.

First she turns to I, inflection; it must be noted that the "mood morphemes" given on page 193 constitute a mixed set of inflectional morphemes: -vuq, -suq, obviously grammaticalized affixes such as -gi- in Greenlandic, and pure markers such as -va-f-va(r)-,86 if they should be split off from transitive inflection at all. Bok-Bennema carries the distinction between mood and agreement even further, ending up with the following analysis:

(11) tikip-puq-0 ind 3sg (cf. 1991: 194 (11a))

(12) niri- να- a - φ ind 3sg 3sg (cf. 1991: 195 (11c))

Of course she points out the similarities of the transitive paradigm to the possessive.87

(77)

(1991: 183)


She argues that essentially there is no accusative available, but "both ergative and absolute case in Inuit are assigned by Inflection (I), the head of IP" (1991: 192), an assumption that is very close to Johns position that there is no direct object in Inuktitut. Consequently, both noun phrases, NPlh, and NP^, must be viewed as "subjects". But Bok-Bennema later on modifies her position with respect to the case in -mik, which I call objective, and its role in antipassive. She concludes that Inuit languages are in fact split ergative: the factors that primarily determine the split are the verb type and transitivity. "Inuit... manifests a "transitivity split": most transitive (i.e. polyadic) verbs are unaccusative and ... trigger the appearance of an ergative case pattern. A number of them, however, are either completely or optionally accusative and must or can occur with a nominative-accusative pattern" (1991: 280).

Although it seems quite plausible that inflection plays a crucial role as far as the opening up of structural case positions is concerned, it is not equally plausible to assume a "transitivity split". Since the whole question of ergativity results directly from issues of transitivity and the assumed basic sentence pattern of subject - direct object - predicate in the first place, it is somewhat redundant to assume such a split. Split ergativity usually is associated with independent features such as aspect, as Bok-Bennema herself points out for Georgian, or personal pronouns as is shown for Dyirbal by Dixon (1979) or semantic features such as animacy.88 As I have extensively discussed above (see 6.4) a correlation between semantically motivated verb classes and the morphosyntactic feature [±transitive] is very hard to establish. Consequently, it seems to me to be equally difficult to isolate semantic verb classes in Inuktitut which trigger an ergative pattern.

7.1.4. Johnson's approach

Johnson (1980) takes into account syntactic as well as semantic criteria. In contrast to her syntactic approach, Johnson's semantic interpretation of transitive sentences versus intransitive sentences is convincing. She argues against the well-known theory of definiteness and indefiniteness (1980: 17), offering in its stead an interpretation which attributes to transitive sentences the following properties: - specific statement - pertaining to the momentary situation - special relation between the persons involved

Intransitive and antipassive sentences, on the other hand, are characterized by these features: - general statement about a condition - abstract (1980: 19-20)


This distribution of traits brings not only purely semantic but also pragmatic aspects into the picture, and indeed, Johnson strives toward a semantic-pragmatic representation in the second part of her work. Unfortunately, this part of her work is hampered by a very uncritical discussion of the syntactic aspects.

Johnson bases the first, syntactic part of her work largely upon the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy of Keenan and Comrie (1977), from which she derives a list of criteria for her discussion. Her work shows dramatically the difficulties and confusion that arise from the uncritical application of traditional grammatical concepts and general typological patterns. Typical of her approach is the use of the given definitions as a template for her description, causing a somewhat circular argumentation. She joins Dixon in his notion of ergativity when she writes of Inuktitut that "...an agentive NP is case-marked by the genitive suffix -up and the verb cross-references two NFs in a sentence." (1980: 2), while the PATIENT noun phrase bears absolutive case. Keenan and Comrie consider it entirely possible that a subject may have different properties in different languages. To be sure, they believe that if their criteria for determining the hierarchically highest noun phrase turn out to give ambiguous results, this fact would represent evidence disconfirming the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy: the concept of subject would then be of debatable applicability. Johnson reports this restriction but then neglects it in dealing with Inuktitut, stipulating:

" (a) the NP with the genitive case (-up) is the Su of the clause; (b) the NP with absolutive case is the DO of the clause; and (c) there are no other grammatical relations relevant to the syntactic

analysis of such clauses" (1980: 5).

For Johnson, then, testing the proposed criteria does not come into question; she simply uses them in her description. She thereby ignores the data that do not fit into her definition, namely, verb agreement and relativization, as irrelevant. Passive, on the other hand, receives a thorough discussion from her. She defines passive as a raising of the direct object into the subject position: every passive subject must previously have been a direct object. Consequently, the NP l ta of the transitive sentence must be the direct object The fact that the NPabs in both variants, the passive and the transitive, exhibits the same features goes unheeded. Since Johnson's approach is grounded in the classical understanding of ergativity with semantic roles being exchanged between subject and object, she uses the passive as evidence that the N P ^ of transitive sentences has properties of an object, while discovering arguments for ascribing subject properties to the same noun phrase in the intransitive sentence. A closer look reveals that her understanding of transitivity is


absolutely unrelated to the so-called transitive inflectional paradigm and its peculiarities; she entirely omits mention of the two inflectional paradigms, transitive and intransitive. Instead, she presupposes the classical meaning of transitivity with its relation to a direct object.

Therefore, Johnson can attribute an "intransitive nature" to an affix like -juma- 'to want', regardless of the equal probability of its being transitively inflected. She supports this claim by arguing that synthetic forms with -juma-can be neither passivized nor antipassivized. However, with respect to antipassive she notes only that -si- cannot be used together with -juma-; the possibility of detransitivizing without -si- is overlooked (1980: 22).

The discomfort occasioned by Johnson's treatment of syntactic concepts is fed by other lapses, for instance, by her calling the ergative case (-up) first genitive, then ergative, without explaining this vacillation. At another point, she devotes a whole section to "dative movement" but does not attempt to prove which one of the possible cases under discussion is in fact dative. The complete exclusion of verbal inflection and the only passing mention of semantic role assignment leave the discussion of ergativity strangely pale and flat. Matters are not helped by the fact that only an extremely brief definition of ergativity is given, at the beginning, and afterwards only data for filling out this definition are assembled; no attempt is made at an explanation for the shift between subject and object. Johnson actually makes it appear as though she wants to demonstrate that formal syntactic criteria are not explanatorily useful but rather inherently circular.

It is therefore not surprising that she finishes up the syntactic part in the following way:

Finally, I have shown that the case system of Eskimo is determined by a mixed set of pragmatic and semantic variables (and NOT by grammatical relations in any direct way). Terms are marked according to their pragmatic roles: absolutive marks referential prominence on intransitive subjects and direct objects, while ergative case (-up) marks role prominence on transitive subjects. Non-terms are marked according to their semantic roles (1980: 28).

Johnson's discussion of the syntactic interpretation of ergativity serves as an example of what determining force concepts and categories develop when defined a priori and decreed to be valid: if one expects that in a sentence of type A the subject will have features 1-3 and in a sentence of type B, the features 3-4, then confirmation that the subject in A and the subject in Β have little in common will merely strengthen this expectation and not prompt the question of what really are suitable criteria few subjects and objects. The fact that features which are used to identify subjects can be attributed to both the ΝΡ,^, and the NPerg of Inuktitut can obviously be interpreted in two ways: as support for the semantic role shift or as an indication that there could be more than one subject.


7.15. The accessibility of noun phrases

Keenan and Comrie's Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (1977) attempts to give a universal hierarchy for noun phrases to be utilized as a criterion for explaining typological differences among languages. The basic idea is that there exists a clear hierarchy among the noun phrases in a sentence:

Su > DO > 10 > Obi > Gen > OComp

The abbreviation OComp stands for "object of comparison". This hierarchy is not meant to imply that all languages must exhibit all the

categories included. Still, Keenan and Comrie consider variations only in the set of nondirect objects, leaving subject and direct object untouched (1977: 66). From their discussion it becomes clear that the highest position in the hierarchy is always occupied - by exactly one noun phrase, which, however, need not display all possible features of a subject. Features of subjecthood and criteria which determine subjecthood are discussed in detail in Keenan (1976). The implicational character of the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy allows data to be interpreted which otherwise could only be described as being present or not: not all languages necessarily satisfy all criteria. But under the assumptions that (1) there must be a single noun phrase highest in the hierarchy, and (2) if a criterion is present, it must apply to the highest in the hierarchy - without excluding further application to other noun phrases - a selection of subject criteria should be sufficient for a basic test.

Keenan and Comrie refer to their conception of subjects as "traditional" (1977: 75) and consequently exclude the possibility of two coexistent subjects, in other words, a situation in which features attributed to subjects are shared in such a way that no decision is possible in favor of one or the other noun phrase: "A language in which the subject properties were systematically distributed across two or more NPs then might arguably be said not to have a single category subject. In such a case the A(ccessability) H(ierarchy) for that language would lack the subject position" (1977: 75).

Keenan and Comrie discuss the applicability and descriptive adequacy of the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, taking relativizablility as an example. They assume that in each language in which relativization is possible, it is the subject that can be relativized. Consequently, they predict that it will be impossible to relativize any object if the subject cannot be relativized. But if the subject can be relativized, it cannot be predicted how many objects lower in the hierarchy can also undergo relativization. It is possible that it is only the subject that can be relativized, or it is possible that it is both the subject and any number of objects, just as in German. But it is not possible that it is only the direct object that can be relativized. This fact


demonstrates the effect of the hierarchy, and relativization can thus be considered a posssible test for subjecthood. As relativization turned out to be especially problematic with respect to Inuktitut, I will return to it only later.

Subject and object represent basic categories of the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy; or to put it another way, Keenan and Comrie make use of the hierarchical constellation associated with the two concepts. It is presupposed that syntactic structures are hierarchically arranged; logically, there can be only one hierarchically highest noun phrase, which by definition is the subject; it is followed by the series of possible objects. Keenan and Comrie do not discuss a hierarchy of roles and how this correlates with the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy. Nonetheless, it becomes clear from their discussion that they assume such a hierarchy. Thus, on the topic of Dyirbal they note, "it turns out that the most subject-like NP in basic transitive sentences is the absolutive and does not express the agent" (1977: 84). Unlike the "ergative analysis" outlined in chapter 5, which imputes to Dyirbal as well as Inuktitut a multitude of abnormalities, the analysis of Keenan and Comrie ends up showing but a single aberration: if one interprets the NPlbs rather than the NPCTg as the subject, ergative languages differ from agentive languages only in that "the transitive subjects in basic sentences are not agents" (1977: 84).

Most approaches described in the foregoing did not concentrate on specific phenomena but rather attempted a global estimation or, as in the case of Marantz, a general theory of grammatical relations. Thus their focus is on the property "ergativity" - and not the determination of the "subject in Inuktitut". It is important to note that it is the deviant nature of ergativity which is the topic of discussion: but since Inuktitut shows double agreement in so-called transitive structures, the subject cannot be readily isolated.

The different approaches clearly show how wide the range of representations and interpretations is. There is no consensus regarding the basic sentence structure of Inuktitut or its "degree of ergativity". Therefore it seems only reasonable to turn back to the very beginning and try to identify the "subject in Inuktitut".

Keenan and Comrie claim that relativization in Dyirbal and Eskimo (Greenlandic) presents problems for their hierarchy. As sources they cite Woodbury (1975) and Creider (1978). But it is not only relativizability which makes it hard to determine the subject: subject and direct object cannot be clearly differentiated, because the criteria of subjecthood, such as verb agreement, deletion under coreference, passive, and antipassive are divided between NPCTg and NPlbs. This uncertainty, of course, poses an enormous problem not only for the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, but also for identification of the "subject in Inuktitut". As has been shown, this difficulty comes up in a number of investigations.


In the following section I will investigate a number of subject features identified by Keenan and Comrie: agreement and case marking, reflexivizability, relativizability, passivization and antipassivization, deletion under coreference, incorporation, anaphoric coreference, and coordination. It is apparent that semantic and pragmatic aspects are excluded. This is simply because I felt them to be too difficult to investigate in a field-work situation. Instead, I concentrated on syntactic and morphological features. As will be pointed out below, even these comparatively accessible features present some suiprises. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly review certain aspects already discussed in some detail.

7.2. Subjects in Inuktitut

7.2.1. A look back

In the course of our discussion, focus has fallen increasingly on the following questions: Which of the two noun phrases that agree with the finite verb can be interpreted as the subject? Can either of these noun phrases truly be analyzed as the object?

It is quite remarkable that in the course of discussion of ergativity as a deviant arrangement of subject - object - predicate, related case marking and assignment of semantic roles, the understanding of the term "subject" has become even more imprecise. Researchers have not noticeably moved toward agreement on the question of which noun phrase is to be considered the subject. Most often "object" is merely defined in terms of "subject" rather than any independent criteria, so that "object" becomes quite automatically "the other noun phrase"; depending on the choice made by the scholar, this can be either the NPerg or the NPlbs. In the works of Johns and Bittner, yet another possibility is taken into account. Bittner employs an underlying object position: the s-structure subject is moved out of this d-structure object position into the originally empty subject position (see 7.1.2), thus giving rise to two s-structure subjects. Johns does not take this detour to save the traditional sentence pattern yet does state quite clearly that she assumes two subjects but no direct object for Inuktitut (cf. 6.5).

Rischel (1971) proposes essentially the same solution, whereby two equally ranked noun phrases coexist, both of which represent external arguments of the verb phrase and have subject status (Rischel 1971: 230, 239-241). The structure suggested by Rischel,

NP - NP - VP

72. Subjects in lnuktitut 215

develops out of his discussion of Mey's proposal that the "object NP" (in other words, the NPibJ be placed within the verb phrase. To Rischel, it is the "subject NP" (the NP«,) which is the more closely connected to the verb. He continues:

From the point of view of traditional syntax it is rather clear that the absolutive case form ... marks the word as self-contained, whereas the relative case form ... marks it as entering into a relation with another constituent of the sentence: a sentence can consist of forms without relative case marker... but relative case forms presuppose the existence of a (latent or actualized) absolutive case form. According to this line of reasoning one may claim that the object of a transitive verb constitutes a noun phrase that is immediately dominated by S, and that there is a separate verb phrase likewise immediately dominated by S. In intransitive sentences the former constituent is represented by the subject (which is formally identical with the object of transitive sentences), but the question is, where the subject belongs in transitive constructions (1971: 228-29).

Rischel is unable to discover any distributional evidence for locating the NP^ under VP, but those who would like to justify doing the same to the NP^ are every bit as unsuccessful:

...it is indeed most dubious whether there is at all any reason for insisting on a node "VP" in the underlying representation of sentences like (1.1-1) or (3.1-1). The process of morphological interaction between subject and transitive verb can be formulated without reference to any such node provided that subject and object are somehow marked as distinct in the underlying representation (1971: 229).

It is significant that Rischel fails to find any reasons for placing either of the controversial noun phrases under VP and thus declaring it an object. However, his suggestion of analyzing sentences (1.1-1) and (3.1-1) with only a verb but no verb phrase is, of course, shortsighted.

"(1.1-1) ajuqip palasi akivaa 'the catechist answers the priest' "

(1971: 215)

"(3.1-1) puisi piniartup pisaa 'the seal that the hunter caught'"

(1971: 222)

In doing so, he does not take into account the phrasal status of any verb, especially any fully inflected verb, which has entered the syntactic level. The fact that Rischel would rather make do without the VP-node than embrace a structure with two subjects is remarkable and demonstrates the evidently great resistance to such a solution.

The notion of ergativity relies solely on the assumed basic sentence structure of subject - predicate - direct object. In the course of the discussion the importance of clarifying these notions has become even more evident


Since I am convinced that Inuit languages are not deficient in their verbal capacities (cf. 4.3 and Chapter 6) and cannot be interpreted as "nominal" languages, it seems to be necessary and worthwhile to recollect the aspects already touched upon which are relevant for a clarification of "subject in Inuktitut". In section 7.3 I will tum to the "object in Inuktitut".

7.2.2. Agreement

The peculiarities of agreement features - verbal inflection as well as possessive marking - have been pointed out and discussed extensively in the foregoing.

Verbal agreement has always been interpreted as an indication of subjecthood: if there is agreement at all, it is the subject that agrees with the predicate. Now, it is the double agreement of Inuktitut that originally gave rise to the difficulties in determining which of the two noun phrases is to be viewed as subject. A very straightforward but most probably too general conclusion would claim that all noun phrases bound by agreement are potential subjects. The opposite claim holds that, in spite of agreement, one noun phrase must be an object, thus depriving agreement features of explanatory force as far as subjecthood is concerned. This latter stance causes the difficulties elaborated upon above. In addition, it entails a specific view of both inflection and agreement features. In morphological theory a strict differentiation is normally made between inflection and derivational processes. Whereas derivational processes can effect category changes and head qualities are generally ascribed to derivational affixes, this is not the case with inflectional affixes. The morphological status of inflection in Inuktitut has thus far not been investigated thoroughly (but see Chapter 6); for the present discussion these two possibilities are available: (1) Agreement features might be interpreted simply as a kind of relational marker and not as functional heads. Agreement then could be viewed as a specifier - head relation, in which features of the two elements must match.89

This standpoint leaves the question of subjecthood unanswered; agreement cannot serve as evidence in favor of one or the other interpretation of subjecthood. (2) The morphological status of agreement features might be more complex; reconsidering the peculiarities of verbal roots and the role of transitive versus intransitive inflection discussed in Chapter 6, it is not implausible to consider head qualities for inflectional endings. This becomes even more plausible if the following aspects are taken into account: - the restriction of ergative case to "transitive" sentences, i.e., the dependency

of this case on double agreement features. - the selection of the two different paradigms discussed in 6.2.1.1

72. Subjects in Inukritut 217

- the role of inflection in reflexivity - the correlation of semantic features of roots but especially of affixes with

inflection type - the role of the so-called subordinate mood inflection, its inherent distinction

of coreference, and the consequences for syntactic interpretation. With respect to the last-mentioned aspect of inflection, it is of course not only agreement that shows up as a feature, but also mood. As has been discussed extensively, it seems to be extremely difficult to posit a mood feature with respect to what might be called "indicative" versus "participial". Agreement itself is independent of mood, both subordinate moods and matrix moods, insofar as it is not triggered by any such feature, but always fused with it.

Considering the question of heads again, it is worthwhile to note that morphological heads show other properties than syntactic heads. From a syntactic point of view, there is nothing strange about inflection as a functional head. The difference from other systems of functional syntactic categories is that inflection exclusively has bound morpheme status and that no lexical constituents such as auxiliaries are available. Turning to the morphological characterization and viewing inflection again as the head constituent of a synthetic process, the emerging problems are quite obvious: from a morphological point of view, it is very difficult to argue for inflection as a head if we take into consideration aspects like feature dominance and argument structure or the paradigmatic arrangement.

I do not want to go deeper into the various problems connected with the polysynthetic nature of Inuktitut, although today it seems to me it is just there that the key to a solution lies. But just consider the derivational processes proposed in Jensen and Johns (1989): While the interaction of semantic features of root and affixes can be handled nicely, it remains unclear what triggers inflectional morphology. Is it the semantic features [+/-AGENT] or [+/-THEME] that trigger [+/-transitive]? This would imply a direct relationship between the semantic features of a root or affix and its inflection as transitive or intransitive: double agreement consequently being a marker of agentivity, single agreement being an indication of nonagentivity. If, however, reflexivity brought about by a switch in agreement morphology is taken into account, this purely formalistic interpretation is disturbed again. Reflexivity is not the mere "deletion" of a semantic role; and in many cases it is nothing but the single agreement feature that establishes reflexivity. It is also interesting to note that reflexivity is not achieved by the so-called reflexive pronoun ingminikr, a double agreement sentence with this pronoun is not possible.90

But to return to the question of subjecthood: whereas inflection signalizes the enormous importance of synthetic processes and calls for a thorough


analysis of the interaction of synthesis and syntax, it still does not serve as evidence for a hierarchical ordering of NP^, and NP^, nor does it provide evidence for a linear interpretation.

7.2.3. Case marking

Agreement is closely connected to case marking. Generally it is assumed that if a case marking system is found in a language at all, the case highest in the hierarchy, the subject case, is unmarked, while the other cases are marked. It is obvious that the absolutive is the only unmaiked case in Inuktitut, while all the other cases are clearly marked. This potentially qualifies the absolutive as the hierarchically highest case.

But case marking tends to be subject to various irregularities and erosion, to dialectal and diachronic change. Moreover, it is well known that the connection between case marking and sentence structure can be quite arbitrary, a fact that led to Dixon's differentation of morphological from syntactic ergativity. It also must be kept in mind that the absolutive usually does not carry the semantic role AGENT; agentivity is regarded as ranking highest in the semantic role hierarchy.91

Agreement and case marking provide only weak evidence - if any at all -but still, case marking points to the NP^ as the most likely candidate for subject.

7.2.4. Reflexivity

As has been shown in 6.1.2 and 6.2.2, reflexivity is connected to a certain class of verbal roots which in non-reflexive use require double agreement inflection. If these verbal roots are inflected for single agreement, the reading is reflexive:

(13) angutiup nanuq kapijanga angut(i) -up nanuq -φ kapi- -janga man erg polar bear abs stab 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the man stabs the polar bear"

(14) kapijanga kapi- -janga stab 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 's/he stabs somebody/something'

72. Subjects in Inuktitut 219

(15) kapijuq kapi- -juq stab 3sg,iti\nom part 's/he stabs herself/himself

(16) angut kapijuq, tuqujuq etc. angut -0 kapi- -juq, tuqu- -juq man abs stab 3sg4tr,nom part kill 3sg,iü\nom part 'the man stabs himself, kills himself

The so-called ambiguous roots like taku- 'see' require in addition a reflexive pronoun to establish a reflexive reading:

(17) angut ingminik takuvuq angut -φ ingminik taku- -vuq man abs self see 3sgjtr,ind 'the man sees himself

While it is interesting to note that the reflexive pronoun is obligatorily marked with the objective case, the relevant point concerning the question of subjecthood is that the antecedent of a reflexive is always a noun phrase in the absolutive case.

7.2-5. Passive and antipassive

If passive is considered a primarily syntactic phenomenon, the following fact must be taken as evidence for the ergative noun phrase being highest in the hierarchy: this noun phrase, associated with the semantic role AGENT, disappears in passive, so that only the absolutive noun phrase remains. Subjects of passives are usually interpreted as former objects. But it must be kept in mind that the absolutive noun phrase does not behave like the direct object in passives of Indo-European languages, either morphologically or syntactically.

As a process of word formation, the affixation of -jau-l-tau- entails consequences concerning inflection, with the result that the ergative noun phrase cannot be a grammatical part of the passive sentence: the position occupied by the ergative noun phrase is no longer available. If passive is viewed primarily as a morphological process, emphasis falls on the semantic aspect; from a syntactic point of view, the absolutive noun phrase is preserved in exactly the same form as in the transitive sentence. Only the ergative noun phrase is concerned at all, and here a parallel to Indo-European passives can be drawn. By analogy, this can be interpreted as supporting the ergative noun phrase as subject.


In antipassive constructions, the case marking is altered in accordance with the single agreement inflection of the verb, but the original semantic roles are preserved: antipassive presents a deviation from the basic sentence patterns and the semantic patterns associated with them. In this respect, antipassive can be compared to passive in nominative-accusative languages, syntactically as well as semantically; it would even be plausible to view antipassive as a "nominative-accusative" system encapsulated in an ergative system and vice versa.

As a syntactic process of demotion and a semantic process of role preservation, antipassive can be taken as evidence in favor of the ergative noun phrase as potential subject.92

7.2.6. Incorporation and synthetic processes

In the discussion of noun incorporation,93 it is generally agreed upon that it is always the object that can be incorporated, never the subject and never an agent. Since I have not touched upon this discussion yet and do not want to go into it now, let me just point out that it is always the absolutive noun phrase that can be incorporated

(18) angutiup nanuq malikpanga angut(i) -up nanuq -φ malik- -panga man erg polar bear abs follow 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the man hunts a polar bear'

(19) (angut) nanusiuqtuq (angut(i) -φ) nanuq -siuq- -tuq (man abs) polar bear hunt 3sg,itr,nom part

he hunts a polar bear 'the man hunts a polar bear'

There is no evidence in the literature that the NPerg undergoes incorporation in any way. Thus, in possessive constructions the possessum, the NPlbs, can be incorporated, but the possessor, the NPerg, cannot. When incorporation of the NPabs occurs, the ergative case of the possessor noun phrase may even remain intact - although the verbal complex is inflected intransitively: "incorporating verbs alone may have external possessors in ergative case" (Sadock 1986: 26; see also 1980: 309ff.):

(20) kunngip panippassuaqarpoq -ip panik-passuaq-qar-poq Poss/erg daughter-many-have-3sg

There are many kings' daughters (i.e., princesses)' (Sadock 1986: 26)


Turning to synthetic processes involving verbal affixes such as causative, it is the THEME argument (spelled out as NP^J that is retained after causativization:

(21) nutaraup angut kunikpanga nutara(q) -up angut -0 kunik- -panga child erg man abs kiss 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the child kisses the man'

(22) arnaup nutaramut angut kuniktittanga arna(q) -up nutara(q) -mut angut -φ kunik- -tit- -tanga woman erg child term man abs kiss cause 3sg/3sg,tr, AGENT AGENT PATIENT nom part causer causee 'the woman made the child kiss the man194

7.2.7. Coordination and relative clauses

Both coordination and relative clause formation play an important role in the discussion of how to distinguish the subject in ergative and nominative-accusative languages. Both criteria are purely syntactic. Coordination draws upon the linking of sentences and the possibility of omitting a noun phrase and is not in the strict sense a criterion for determining a subject, but it will shed some additional light on a major result of the discussion of relative clauses.

Relativization is the feature discussed extensively by Keenan and Comrie in connection with the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy. They formulate three "hierarchy constraints", which summarize all the differences that were to be found in the languages researched. This does not, of course, refer to the details of individual strategies of relativization. These strategies vary from language to language, in terms of shift of position, case marking, marking by particles, and so forth. The three conditions are instead concerned with possible placement within the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, as well as the domain of use with respect to the Hierarchy:

" 1. A language must be able to relativize subjects. 2. R(elative) C(lause)-forming strategy must apply to a continuous segment of the AH. 3. Strategies that apply at one point of the AH may in principle cease to apply at any lower

point" (Keenan and Comrie 1977: 67).

Thus, relativizability is a genuine property of subjects, and it is implied that a noun phrase which cannot be relativized cannot be a subject. Moreover, "no language can relativize only DO, or only locatives" (1977: 67). So if a noun


phrase of low rank can be relativized, the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy predicts that all higher-ranked noun phrases will also be able to be relativized. The reverse of this principle does not hold, however.

The problems issuing from these conditions are obvious. According to the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, the N P ^ is ensconced at the top of the hierarchy, with the NPibs one rank down as befits direct objects. Now, quoting Woodbury (1975), Keenan and Comrie claim of Kalaallisut that the NP„g can be relativized only with the greatest difficulty whereas the NPabe can be relativized without further ado.95 Creider (1978) claims the same for Inuktitut and emphasizes its importance: "...relativization is a very heavily used syntactic process in Inuktitut and is at the heart of the syntactic creativity of the language" (Creider 1978: 96).

With respect to the question whether it must be considered possible for an AGENT-noun phrase, the Α-phrase of Dixon's ergativity pivot, not to be the subject, the data provided by Eskimo and Dyirbal seem to disturb the assumed hierarchy: there must either be a different hierarchy for ergative languages, putting the NP>be at the top, or the basic restriction must be lifted whereby subject features may not be distributed across several noun phrases.

Smith (1984) attempts to show that such drastic revisions of the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy are unnecessary, and that at least in Labrador Inuttut, relativization of the NPerg is possible, after all, so that conditions 1 and 3 are fulfilled. He argues that certain relative clauses which are normally considered transitive and thus ought to contain an NPerg, are actually detransitive, being derived possessive constructions. He imputes an inherently nominal character to relative clauses, since they are constructed with the "active participle" in -juk/-tuk (= -juql-tuq) or the "passive participle" in -jakf-tak (= -jaq/-taq), depending on whether it is the "logical subject" or "logical object" that is relativized.96 The relativized, and therefore nominalized, verb agrees with its head noun in case:

(23) takuvunga angutimiki

taku- -vunga angut(i) -mik see lsg,itr,ind man obj Ί see the man'

(24) angutii aullaqtuq angut(i) -0 aullaq- -tuq man abs leave 3sg,itr,nom part 'the man leaves'

(25) takuvunga angutimiki aullaqtumiki taku- -vunga angut(i) -mik aullaq- -tuq -mik see lsg,itr,ind man obj leave 3sg,itr,nom part obj Ί see the man who leaves'

72. Subjects in lnuktitut 223

In (25), a noun phrase in the objective case -mik is relativized, and to follow my own proposed interpretation, it is the direct object of (23) that undergoes relativization. If one takes (25) to represent a combination of (23) and (24), then it is the NP^, of (24) that is omitted in the restricting sentence. Examples (26H28) are somewhat more complex yet behave essentially in the same way:

(26) takuvunga puijimmik• taku- -vunga puiji -mik see lsg,itr,ind seal obj Ί see the seal'

(27) angutiup puiji l takuvanga angut(i) -up puiji -φ taku- -vanga man erg seal abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the man sees the seal'

(28) takuvunga puijimmikl angutiup takujanganik taku- -vunga puiji -mik angut(i) -up taku- -janganik see lsg,itr,ind seal obj man erg see 3sg/3sg,tr,poss,obj Ί see the seal that the man sees'97

Here again, the matrix sentence (26) is intransitive and the direct object is relativized, but the relative clause itself is transitive. Since the "head noun" in the matrix sentence coincides not with the logical subject of the relative clause but with the logical object, that is, with the NPlhs, the relative is constructed with -jak, a possessive marker, and the same case marking as on the head noun (Smith 1984: 296). Smith rejects the description of relative clauses as transitive or intransitive: according to his analysis, the endings -jukl-tuk and -jakl-tak are nominalizers, which for this reason are compatible with case marking. The NPerg in (28) does not offer reliable evidence as to the transitivity of the relative clause, since relative case marking appears in possessive constructions, as well, and -janganik might be analyzed as

-jaq + -nganik (= jak) 3sg,poss,obj

'hisêr ...'

So Smith "deverbalizes" the whole relative clause, which thereby acquires more or less the character of a nominal complement. But as I have already explained in section 6.2.1, there is considerable reason to doubt that the so-called relative clauses actually are clauses at all.

In contrast to the nominal participle, the verbal participle represents a subordinating mood and clearly functions to create dependent clauses.


Whether the verbal forms diachronically took over this function from the nominal participle is a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, the question remains unanswered of whether a noun phrase in the ergative case can be relativized as described above.

Smith discusses the following examples with regard to the issue under consideration:

" (10) anguti-up taku-ju-up puijim-mik nigi-vaa niqik man-rel see-3s-rel seal-mod eat-3s,3s meat 'The man who saw the seal ate the meat'

(8) angutik taku-juk puijim-mik nigi-juk niqim-mik man see-3s seal-mod eat-3s meat-mod 'The man who saw the seal ate the meat'"

(Smith 1984: 297)

Whereas (8) is unproblematic, since it is the NPlbs that is relativized, (10) could be the proof needed to show that an NPCTg may also undergo relativization. In (10), the head noun of the relativized form takujuk is the NPerg angutiup. If one follows Smith's analysis, however, the relativized clause in (10) is based not on a transitive sentence but the intransitive sentence contained in (8):

(29) angutik takujuk puijimmik angutik -φ taku- -juk puiji -mik man abs see 3sg,itr,nom part seal obj

Example (11) is considered less than fully grammatical.

" (11) ?angutiup takujanga puijik nigivaa niqik man-rel see-one who-3s seal eat-3s,3s meat 'the seal that the man saw ate the meat'

?angutiup takujangata puijiup nigivaa niqik 'the seal that the man saw ate the meat' ',98 (Smith 1984: 297)

After discussing all possible relativized variants, Smith reaches the following tentative conclusion: "Although matrix and relative clauses can be transitive or intransitive, the NP relativized into in the relative clause can never be the subject of a transitive verb. All such NPs (ignoring the advancement of oblique relations) are intransitive subjects or transitive objects" (1984: 298). But Smith is not satisfied with this outcome, which corresponds to the Findings of Woodbury and Creider. It will be recalled that this result excludes the NP from the highest position in the Noun Phrase Accessibility


Hierarchy, eliminates it as a candidate for subjecthood, and thereby calls the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy into question, or necessitates the postulating of a second Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy for ergative languages. Now, Smith would like to demonstrate that the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy still applies to Inuktitut, nonetheless treating the N P ^ as a subject. A prerequisite for this is that the N P ^ of a transitive sentence be able to be relativized. Smith argues that this is indeed possible, because although an intransitive clause appears on the surface, it is not actually intransitive. Instead, it is a detransitivized clause and thus underlyingly transitive. It is the base-generated transitive sentence with the desired NP„g

that undergoes relativization. In this argument, Smith falls back on the classical understanding of "transitive". From the presence of two nominal constituents, one of which constitutes a mere nominalizer {-jukj-tuk is translated 'one who') and is represented in the matrix clause only by the inflectional ending, he infers that both clauses are actually transitive:99

"(4) takuvunga angutimik see-I man-mod

takujumik annamik see-one who-mod woman-mod

Ί saw the man who saw the woman' (1984: 296)

"(21)

I II V Τ taku-/ \ saw'

Ν S angutik, 'man'

I II V -juk, annak taku

'one who' 'woman' 'saw'

Ί see the man who saw the woman'" (Smith 1984: 302)

"This sentence confirms that there is no constraint statable at the level of initial structure, which prohibits relativization into transitive subjects" (1984: 302). Either Smith's argumentation falls victim to the terminological confusion or he intentionally exploits the discrepancy between the classical understanding of "transitivity" and the agreement phenomenon of the same name. When Smith describes a sentence like


(30) takuvunga angutimik taku- -vunga angut(i) -mik see lsgatrjnd man obj Ί see the man'

as transitive, he is referring exclusively to the traditional meaning of the term - and thereby skirting the crucial question of whether an NP^ can be relativized It is strangely pleasing that he chooses to support his argument with a sentence that is generally agreed to have only an intransitive form. In a sentence like Smith's example (21) or (30) above, an NP^ would not be possible at all, except in a possessive NP. Consequently, Smith's reasoning remains unconvincing. He only peripherally touches on the differences between the traditional meaning of transitivity and the meaning applied to Inuttut or Inuktitut; neither the altered interpretation nor its consequences are explicitly mentioned. Hence his only real contribution is the research into the possible sentence variations, and the conclusion that NP^ cannot be relativized seems to stand.

As already mentioned, Keenan and Comrie (1977: 83) briefly discuss the difficulty in relativizing the NPerg in Inuktitut; their succeeding discussion of Dyirbal refers to the same problems as are found in Inuktitut. As a result, the NPtbe would have to be analyzed as the highest NP in the hierarchy, just as Marantz proposes, leading to the typological anomaly already mentioned: "in the least marked type of transitive sentence the NP with the referential or topic properties of subjects does not express the agent" (Keenan and Comrie 1977: 84).

Taking the discussion of Creider and Smith at face value, the claim that the ergative noun phrase cannot be relativized appears to be valid. But a rather surprising side effect must be illuminated. In re-examining the data published by Creider and Smith, I discovered that only simple sentences such as those given below under (31) and (32) are acceptable at all; more complex sentences containing relative clauses such as those discussed by Creider and Smith were rejected throughout by all consultants.100

(31) nutaraq aanniaqtuq siniktuq nutaraq -φ aanniaq- -tuq sinik- -tuq child abs be sick 3sg,itr,nom part sleep 3sg,itr,nom part 'the child who is sick sleeps'

(32) iliniaqtitsiji angutiup takujanga anijuq iliniaqtitsiji -φ angut(i) -up taku- -janga teacher abs man erg see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind ani- -juq go out 3sg,itr,nom part 'the teacher who the man saw went out'


(33) *angutiup iliniaqtitsiji takujanga titirauti nakattanga angut(i) -up iliniaqtitsiji -φ taku- -janga man erg teacher abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind titirauti -φ nakat- -tanga pencil abs break 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the man who saw the teacher broke the pencil'

Creider's claim that relative constructions are at the heart of the language is valid only if "relative construction" is taken to include verbs in the so-called participial mood like

(34) angutiup iliniaqtitsiji takujanga titirautimik nakatsitilugu angut(i) -up iliniaqtitsiji -φ taku- -janga man erg teacher abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part titirauti -mik nakat- -si- -tilugu pencil obj break ap 4sg,itr,part 'the man sees the teacher who breaks/breaking the pencil'

(35) angutiup iliniaqtitsiji takujanga titirautimik nakatsitsuni angut(i) -up iliniaqtitsiji -φ taku- -janga man erg teacher abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part titirauti -mik nakat- -si- tsuni pencil obj break ap 3sgjtr,part 'the man sees the teacher, breaking the pencil;

- and breaks the pencil - while breaking the pencil'

Sentences like (36) below, which figure prominently in the relativization discussion and which thus should be possible after all, were rejected throughout, not because of their ungrammaticality, but because of their being unnatural:

(36) ??? iliniaqtitsijiup takujangata nutaraup titirauti nakattanga iliniaqtitsiji -up taku- -jangata nutara(q) -up teacher erg see 3sg/3sg,tr,erg,poss child erg titirauti -φ nakat- -tanga pencil abs break 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the teacher sees the child who breaks the pencil'

Contrary to Creider, I can do nothing but state that relative constructions taken in the strict sense discussed by him and Smith are possible only in their simplest form; more complex forms are not considered to be natural in Inuktitut at all. This seems to be true of all complex sentences involving transitives where subordination is not indicated by one of the subordinate moods.101


Considering (31) above, it is perfectly possible to represent these phrases as appositions, an approach which would also bring out their nominal character. Furthermore, it is worth noting that in a sentence like (31) subordination can at best be identified by means of word order.

The form in -juql-tuq does not indicate subordination in itself; it can at best mark matrix coordination. It is likewise interesting to note that the coordination of matrix sentences, in other languages accomplished by conjunctions like "and", "or", and so forth, was met with resistance equal to that greeting the more complex relative clauses.

(37) a. paningata anaanani ikajuqpanga panik -ngata anaana -ni ikajuq- -panga daughter 4sg,poss,erg mother 3sg,poss,abs help 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'the daughter is helping her mother"

b. isiqpuq isiq- -puq come in 3sg,itr,ind 's.o. comes in'

(38) paningata anaanani ikajuqpanga amalu isiqpuq

The attempt to form a coordinate structure by combining (37a) and (37b) to (38) produced confusion, and the interpretation finally suggested was more along the lines of a causal relationship: "The daughter is helping the mother to come in (because she has trouble doing so)." As alternatives giving explicit information, the following sentences were suggested:

(39) a. paningata anaanani isiqtsuni ikajuliqpanga pani(k) -ngata anaana -ni isiq- -tsuni daughter 4sg,poss,erg mother 3sg,poss,abs come in 3sg,itr,part ikaju(q)- -liq- -panga help begin 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'coming in, the daughter started to help her mother'

b. paningata anaanani isirrami ikajuliqpanga pani(k) -ngata anaana -ni isi(q)- -rami daughter 4sg,poss,erg mother 3sg,poss,abs come in 3sg,itr,caus ikaju(q)- -liq- -panga help begin 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'because she came in the daughter started to help her mother'

Thus, relativization and coordination do not merely represent indications of the dominance of the NPlte. In this area the superiority of the NPth. is unquestionable; but compared to the rather marginal status of these syntactic

72. Subjects in Inukütut 229

configurations, the more exciting outcome seems to be the "relativization" of syntactic configurations in general and their substitution by inflection.

7.2.8. Anaphoric coreference

As was pointed out in the previous section, the subordinate moods (cf. 3.2.2) play an exceedingly important role in Inuktitut. The whole area of dependent clauses is covered by verbal complexes in subordinate mood.102

While the truly syntactic configurations discussed in the previous section single out the NPlbs as highest in the hierarchy, the opposite is true of the subordinate moods. All subordinate moods differentiate between third person and a fourth person: while the third person indicates coreference with a noun phrase mentioned in the matrix clause, the fourth person indicates disjoint reference.

(40) Aatamii quviasuktuq, nuliaqarami{ Aatami -φ quviasuk- -tuq nulia -qaq- -rami Adam abs be happy 3sg,itr,nom part wife have 3sg,itr,caus 'Adam is happy because he (= A.) has a wife'

(41) anaanangai quviasuktuq, nuliaqarmatj anaana -nga quviasuk- -tuq nulia -qa(q)- -mat mother 3sg, be happy 3sg,itr wife have 4sg,itr,caus

poss,abs nom part 'his mother is happy because he has a wife' (i Φ j)

While (40) and (41) are intransitive, (42) and (43) are transitive:

(42) Taamiup Miali ikajurpanga uqaalavigimagu Taami -up Miali -φ ikaju(q)- -panga Tom erg, Mary abSj help 3sg/3sg,tr,ind uqaalavigi- -magu phone 4sgk/(3sgj),tr,caus Tom helps Mary because she phoned himk'

(43) Taamiup Miali ikajurpanga uqaalavigigamiuk Taami -up Miali -φ ikaju(q)- -panga Tom erg, Mary abSj help 3sg/3sg,tr,ind uqaalavigi- -gamiuk phone Ssg/isg^tr.caus 'Tonii helps Mary because she phoned him,'103

The indication of coreference in transitive sentences aims exclusively at the NPe„, never at the NP4bs.


In sum, the criteria for subjecthood are distributed equally between the N P ^ and the NP^: - overt marking: NP^ marked, NPlh, unmarked - verb agreement NPCTg and NPlbs - reflexivity: NP^, - relativizability: NPlh, - passive and antipassive: NPerg - incorporation: NPibs

- anaphoric agreement (coreference): NPerg

There is no clear indication singling out either of the noun phrases as the undisputed subject.

7.3. Objects in Inuktitut

7.3.1. Scenario

A review of the hypotheses about ergativity introduced so far yields the following variants: 1. A shift is postulated between the subject of the intransitive sentence (the NP^jJ and the subject of the transitive sentence (the NPerg). Under this view, the noun phrase with the semantic role AGENT has the greatest subject potential. Simultaneously, the intransitive sentence is treated as "actorless" and therefore "subjectless". The primary problem with this suggestion is the unmotivated shift in case marking between subjects. 2. The NPlhs is identified as the subject, with the result that the subject is labeled [-agentive]. At the same time, the direct object is assigned the semantic role AGENT. Languages providing support for this hypothesis are virtually nonexistent, Dyirbal and Inuktitut being the only possible candidates. 3. The third variant is the one that Keenan and Comrie describe as "fatal" for their Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, for it calls into question the assumption that only one noun phrase can claim subject status in a given clause, whereby it is set opposite the direct object as "the other noun phrase". As the discussion of subject criteria in the previous section showed, in Inuktitut both the NPahl and the NPerg are candidates for subject. Similar interpretations are defended by Bergsland (1955), Rischel (1971), Woodbury (1977), Johns (1987a), Bok-Bennema (1991), and Bittner (1988).

This variant can now be extended by a further hypothesis, namely, that neither of the noun phrases in question fills the requirements for an object. In fact, the question must be raised whether Inuktitut has direct objects at all.

73. Objects in Imktitut 231

Whereas the first two variants are concerned solely with how to divide the noun phrases into subjects and objects, the third proposal leads to the rejection or reinterpretation of these concepts. One must further consider that these concepts are tied to fundamental assumptions about basic sentence structure and assumptions about hierarchical ordering. The proposed analysis, according to which there are two external arguments, is expanded via the statement that neither of the noun phrases is a direct object. It would be necessary, of course, to determine whether this interpretation accords only with the facts of Inuktitut or with those of other languages, as well. According to Guilfoyle et al. (1992), a distribution of subject properties over more than one noun phrase can be found in other languages too; they may be distributed according to a split between semantic features such as binding and control on the one hand and structural features on the other. This position very closely resembles the position of Bok-Bennema as well as that of Johns and Bittner. But it must be kept in mind that the notion of "split" in descriptive linguistics involves the interaction of two basically distinct syntactic patterns, namely, the nominative-accusative pattern and the ergative pattern. I am not arguing for the coexistence of two distinct but interacting syntactic patterns but rather the option of two structural positions covering the range of "subject of ' .

Another consequence of this approach is that ergativity as a complex phenomenon must be reconsidered. Ergativity is no longer a different arrangement of subject and object or a "mirror-image" distribution in agentive sentence structures. The differentness of Inuktitut consists of the fact that it has two external arguments instead of one, that these arguments are not hierarchically ordered with respect to each other but instead coexist on the same level, and, perhaps, that there is no direct object but instead a variety of largely semantically determined oblique objects. Transitivity is then reinterpreted as the ability of the verb phrase to assign case and semantic roles to two external arguments, as is already common in the literature on Inuktitut. In direct opposition to Marantz's assumption based on analogy with English verbs, it is irrelevant for the subcategorization frame of a verb whether or how many objects it can take. Of much greater interest is the ability of the finite verb to assign case and semantic roles to external arguments - in this sense, to be transitive or intransitive.

While the idea of syntactic structuring is intimately connected to the idea of hierarchical grouping and grammatical relations are viewed primarily as subordination, the option of two equal-ranked external noun phrases suggests strongly that this basic understanding of linguistic organization needs to be reconsidered. If we also take into account what was said above (in 7.2.7 and 7.2.8) about the nature of subordination in Inuktitut, the assumption seems to be plausible that a linear, nonhierarchical ordering is much more important


for Inuktitut syntax than it is for the syntax of Indo-European languages. Subordination and syntactic coordination are almost exclusively effected by polysynthesic derivation and are thus primarily connected with verbal complexes. It must also be kept in mind that the external arguments need not necessarily be expressed. So compared to Indo-European languages, Inuktitut displays apparently a much "flatter" syntactic structure, while relational complexity is achieved by means of polysynthesis, specifically its inflectional part

In chapter 6 I discussed in detail how the term "transitivity" should be interpreted with respect to Inuktitut: "Transitivity" refers to the ability of the finite verb to agree with two noun phrases. I showed, however, that the verbs called intransitive because they agree with only one noun phrase can have a complement in the form of a direct object and thus be transitive in the classical understanding of the word (cf. 6.2.3 and 6.3.1).

In the proposed analyses of ergativity discussed up to this point, focus was invariably on the question which of the NPCTg and the NP>h, should be the subject and which the object. The NP-mik, which represents the complement in so-called intransitive sentences, was entirely ignored. One must then ask whether the ergativity debate, with its tacit assumption that only the ergative and absolutive NPs are possible candidates for direct object, is barking up the wrong tree, or whether one of these two noun phrases can actually have the status of an object. It must be possible to find criteria for objects, particularly direct objects, comparable to those described above for subjects. Still, one cannot help but think of "object" as dependent on "subject", in being merely the obligatory noun phrase which is not the subject. This oversimplification of the concept object veils the fact that it represents a syntactic category with its own identifying properties: - secondary status in the sentence hierarchy - specification in the subcategorization frame of the verb as an "internal

argument", i.e., dependency on the lexical verb - structural case assignment or lexical case assignment. The question of hierarchical ordering of the noun phrases in the sentence is of central importance. Such aspects as morphological marking, agreement, semantic roles, relativizability, reflexivity, and passivizability are interpreted against the background of the traditional sentence hierarchy as "subject features". Inteipreting the direct object simply as the conceptual opposite of the subject is nearly impossible, at least as long as there is no explicit redefinition in this sense. As will be shown below, "direct object" actually has a status distinct from "subject" and "oblique object". Finally, if one considers that the noun phrase was originally introduced as a neutral syntactic concept and remains available in that capacity, one cannot escape the fact that recourse to the traditional terms means recourse to their content, as well.

7.3. Objects in Inuktitut 233

7.3.2. The direct object

Johns (1987a) defends the hypothesis that Inuktitut lacks a direct object and in so doing takes a stand against Marantz's Ergative Parameter and the argumentation he employs. After differentiating between referential and predicative expressions, as described above, she writes:

all subjects of non-referential (or attributional) predicates receive the same case, absolutive, and all subjects of referential predicates receive the same case, relative. This analysis therefore claims that Inuktitut has two types erf subjects, but no direct object.2 [2 See also Woodbury (1985a and 1985b) who states that both the subject and the object are external to the VP, which means that the object is not a conventional direct object.] (1987a: 45-46).

That not only Woodbury advocates this interpretation has already been mentioned several times. Johns first disputes the requirement of the Ergative Parameter that the direct object in ergative languages must bear the semantic role AGENT; she views this requirement as unnatural and supports her opinion with a learning theoretic argument which she calls "semantic bootstrapping". With agents in direct object position characterized as psychologically unnatural and indeed nonexistent, it follows that the NP^, which of course bears the semantic role AGENT, cannot occupy direct object position. Since the ergative is not considered to be an oblique case, by process of elimination the NPerg must represent a subject - just like the NPlbe.

In addition to this psychological argument, there are a number of purely syntactic reasons for believing that a transitive sentence in Inuktitut has the structure

NP - NP - VP

In the previous chapter I demonstrated that the common tests for subjecthood do not clearly favor one of the noun phrases over the other. On the other hand, the tests applied show that neither of the noun phrases exhibits the behavior of a direct object. The fact that both the argument for the NP^, being in direct object position in a transitive sentence and the argument placing the NP„g in this position are unsatisfactory likewise speaks for this conclusion. However, it is questionable whether one can infer from it that there are no direct objects in Inuktitut at all, as Johns does. It has only been shown that neither the NPerK nor the NPlbs fills the bill.

Johns's and Bittner's solution suggest an underlying level at which a distinction between subject and direct object is possible - at least with respect to the layered ordering of branching nodes. Consequently, the number of possible structural arguments, namely, two, is maintained. Even if at surface

234 7. Ergativity in lnuktitut

level both noun phrases exhibit subject properties, one of them originates still from a basic dO-position. This position is of course then already "used up", even if it is systematically occupied only by a kind of "trace". Following this line of argument, no additional direct object can be assumed.

But again the situation is slightly different. A simple transitive sentence -whereby "transitive" in the sense of "agreeing with two noun phrases" is intended - has no object, but an intransitive sentence of the kind shown in (44) most likely does:

(44) Jaani Miurimik kuniksijuq Jaani -φ Miuri -mik kunik- -si- -juq John abs Mary obj kiss ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'John kisses Mary'

1. The -mik case appears in intransitive sentences as the complement of the verb; in the antipassive, too, it occurs as the case of the complement. The noun phrase in the -mik case of an antipassive sentence is equivalent to the NPibe of its transitive counterpart. The -mik case never has the semantic role AGENT but is otherwise semantically underspecified. It is assigned structurally. 2. In the passive, the -mut (terminalis) case can take over the AGENT role. In some dialects, the case in -mit (ablative) is able to do so, as well. When several noun phrases in oblique cases occur simultaneously in one sentence, both of these cases may be used to differentiate the semantic roles.

Whereas the -mut case as a primarily locative case (terminalis, 'to') exhibits strong semantic ties which override its potential as abstract case (see the discussion of passive and causative), the -mik case is semantically unspecified; it is determined only to the extent that it cannot take on the semantic role AGENT. Its primary characterization as instrumental case seems to be exaggerated and cannot be confirmed.104 It is clear that this case is the highest in the hierarchy after the ergative and absolutive: it is not only the case of the complement in intransitive sentences, but also the structural case of the third noun phrase in transitive sentences:

(45) Jaaniup Miuri titirautimik tunivanga Jaani -up Miuri -φ titrauti -mik tum- -vanga John erg Mary abs pencil obj give 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'John gives Mary the pencil'

In lnuktitut generally, it is not possible to discern any idiosyncratic selection of an object case by the verb; therefore, it would be unwise to postulate a subcategorization frame of the usual type. Rather, a verbal nucleus or verbal

7.3. Objects in Inuktitut 235

affix must be characterized on the basis of whether it can assign the semantic role AGENT to an external argument. Between the external argument cases and the internal oblique argument cases the following correspondence can be observed:

NPlbe > N P ^ -AGENT NPcrg > Ν Ρ _ / Ν Ρ ^ +AGENT

The fact that there are two possible subjects in Inuktitut, which divide up between them the semantic roles that traditionally are attributed to the subject and direct object, naturally affects what one can expect of a direct object. Once freed of the expectation that either the NPlbs or the NPcrg must be the object, we may look to the -mik case as a good candidate for the case of direct objects. First of all, and most obviously, it does not agree with the verb; but most important of all, it is the case of the complement of the verb. It thereby fulfills an important criterion for direct objects, that of being the obligatory nominal supplement to the predicate. It occurs in this function in sentences with single agreement, particularly the antipassive (cf. 6.2.3).

It is also clear that the NP-mik is dominated by the VP; there is no agreement relation, and it cannot be omitted. A second important argument is that the NP-mik can never be an agent. If one considers the classical interpretation of "direct object", the object is always distinguished from the agentive subject, whose presence of necessity relegates it to the theme or patient role. This is certainly true of the antipassive, although intransitive sentences permit other types of objects, semantically determined noun phrases with locative case marking, for example. These noun phrases are not complements and cannot be listed in a subcategorization frame of V; they correspond to prepositional phrases and are fully interpreted as such by Bok-Bennema.

The search for a possible direct object raises the terminological confusion we already know so well, since the only sentences with an obligatory object are labeled intransitive. To avoid the connotation of "patient in contrast to the subject", it is perhaps best to shun the term "direct object", as well. The formal characterization given above makes it possible for us to describe the -mik case as the hierarchically highest case of an internal argument Antipassive conforms to this structural description if the direct object is governed not by the verbal root but by the antipassive affix -si-.

As a result of this discussion, Bittner (1988: 264-265) concludes that the -mik case can be properly designated "accusative", thereby not only distinguishing it from the ergative and absolutive, but also tentatively establishing its position in the tree structure. Bok-Bennema (1991) devotes a whole chapter to the "Accusative Case in Inuit" (247ff.). As far as antipassive


is concerned, she views the noun phrases case-marked objective i-mik) as nonobligatory; she is here referring to Greenlandic, and it actually seems to be possible that in Greenlandic an antipassive without a complement noun phrase may be grammatical. To my knowledge, this is not the case in Inuktitut. It is of special importance to note that the obligatoriness of NP^ was not directly investigated in the tests. On the contrary, it was an automatic correction added by all consultants in the whole range of tests.

In her analysis of causative, antipassivized causatives (1991: 252), Bok-Bennema finally treats the NP^ as a complement and presents arguments for the "Modalis as Accusative Case" (1991: 256ff.).

To sum up, the objective case fulfills all criteria by which one can identify a direct object from a syntactic point of view. Further empirical investigation would be necessary to decide whether objective case is assigned by the antipassive affix or represents a purely structural case. In addition, it remains to be determined whether all intransitive sentences containing a complement should be analyzed as antipassive.

Chapter 8 Transforming the images

8.1. Conclusion

From our discussion of the empirical data and the application of grammatical and syntactic categories the following inferences (8.1.1-8.1.7) can be drawn.

8.1.1. In the description of Inuktitut, the terms "transitive" and "intransitive" are used in a sense differing from the traditional. They refer to the ability of a finite verbal complex to have and agree with either one or two external arguments. Simultaneously, transitivity as a syntactic property continues to be interpreted in the traditional manner, which is built upon subject and object as the basic nominal constituents of a sentence. This inconsistent usage gives rise to problems of representation and interpretation. The double agreement of the transitive verbal complex is construed from the outset as agreement with subject and object, yet a closer look shows that neither of the noun phrases in question qualifies as an object. This premature interpretation, moreover, prejudices the eye to the fact that there actually is a direct object in Inuktitut The result is the paradoxical situation where sentences with a direct object are called intransitive, because they exhibit only simple agreement.

8.1.2. Ergativity as a syntactic concept falls back on the classification of sentences according to the behavior of their subjects and objects. Older treatments describe ergativity as a shift - an unmotivated one, it must be added - from subject to object (or vice versa) between intransitive and transitive sentences, whereas more recent analyses take issue with this pat generalization, decomposing the concept into syntactic position (internal versus external argument), morphological marking (case), and semantic interpretation (semantic role). Even so, this advance does not alter preconceived notions of basic sentence structure. Ergativity may now be described in greater detail, but it is viewed as the "mirror image" of better known, agentive sentence structures. Implicitly this approach likewise depends upon the traditional structuring of the sentence around subjects and objects; this is expressed in the conception of possible hierarchical relations within the sentence.

The typological image of ergativity in its hitherto existing form is not applicable to Inuktitut. The fact that the extreme case for typology, "syntactic ergativity", can at best be ascribed to two languages in the world, namely, Inuktitut and the Australian Dyirbal, gives cause for reflection. A typology

238 8. Transforming the images

whose different classes are symmetrically defined but in some areas are alarmingly empty fails because of just this forced symmetry. Now Inuktitut withdraws from this classification as well, making the question of its descriptive adequacy even more urgent. Even if the remaining candidate Dyirbal should prove to fulfill the criteria for syntactic ergativity, not only is the distribution of languages among the types regarded as possible remarkably unbalanced, but the fact must also be faced that Inuktitut does not conform to any of these types. Whether Inuktitut constitutes a singular, exceptional case is yet another question to be asked.

8.1.3. The description of syntactic structures in Inuktitut suffers from the prejudicial character of traditional concepts and the expectations as to sentence structure connected with them even when these concepts are broken down into subparts. Since the differentness of a language is taken as a test case for the appropriateness of a grammatical model, people are usually more willing to accept extremely complex and baroque representations than to alter the model. The requirements derived from the postulated schemata - for example, the requirement of an agentive object for syntactic ergativity - often turns out to be nearly impossible to fulfill and force the language into a typological no man's land. The premise that differentness must immediately constitute the opposite of the known form is simplistic and represents an impediment to adequate description.

The history of grammar writing for the Inuit languages Kalaallisut and Inuktitut can be viewed only as a series of descriptive errors, with but a few exceptions, going on for centuries. It traces the repeated failure of models of grammar that were supposed to be equally appropriate for all languages. The empty tense paradigms of the eighteenth century, in which all slots were filled by the same form, are a fatal reminder of the empty columns of the Ergative Parameter. These facts lead us to recognize that it is not the language itself which is chaotic, faulty, or "backwards" - but rather the kind of representation and interpretation that puts it in a skewed perspective.

8.1.4. The obvious thing to do is to investigate this discrepancy between linguistic terminology, grammatical categories, and theoretically motivated concepts on the one hand and the linguistic data on the other. It is the cause of the apparent difficulty in describing Inuktitut and the reason the language seems so alien. This is not to say that Inuktitut is actually simple and easily understood. I mean that the differentness and strangeness can be dealt with better if one does not rely blindly on traditional parameters, however elementary and self-evident they may seem. They are products of a centuries-long cultural, philosophical, and scientific development and therefore cannot be neutral. Their original empirical nature, which was

8.1. Conclusion 239

intended to aid in the description of languages and was derived from such description, is often forgotten. Understood as the products of historical growth and a particular empirical basis, models of grammar lose their apparent purely deductive character and can be tested. This critical reflection on its historical limitation is required to create the distance necessary for the continued development of the familiar instrument of description and explanation. This essentially constitutes a scientific process which uses linguistic data to form general concepts that are then applied outside the range of the original empirical evidence. In this way, traditional concepts aid us in getting a first grip on new and often very different linguistic material.

As I have shown elsewhere (Nowak 1994a), it was just this crucial step that was not taken by rationalist grammarians in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: to be sure, grammar was freed from its intimate connection to the one language it had been based on and was now viewed as an instrument of description, but the opportunity for systematic comparison and the theoretical importance of the diversity among languages was not recognized. Consequently, typology developed rather independently of rationalist tradition and became "historical-comparative" and was reduced to genealogies.

Yet rationalist tradition dominated descriptive linguistics and indeed continues to do so. The general pattern of description laid down by it has been adhered to through all further developments and changes to the present day. This becomes especially clear with respect to analyses that apparently break entirely with tradition: behind all elaborate representations the old notions of constituents and their relation to one another endure, thus proving their determinative power.

The greatly increased knowledge of many different languages has of course left its imprint on present-day typology. It is interesting to note that the modem science of typology emerged simultaneously with the reviving and rethinking of rationalist grammar. Again - still - it is tied to the idea of universal grammar, and still focus is on the unity of grammar and the unity of languages. Again the crucial step to be taken is at stake: the step away from unity towards diversity, viewing diversity not merely as a database.

8.1.5. The fundamental assumptions about language in general, which manifest themselves in terms like "subject", "object", "sentence", "word", "noun", or "verb", but which elude more precise analysis in a strange, multi-layered manner, constitute the framework not only for the description of languages but also for their typological placement Nevertheless, general grammatical theory and typology stress different things: whereas the former is primarily interested in general or generalizable statements about linguistic structures, the latter concentrates on the diversity of languages. It necessarily


makes use of the categories and concepts offered by grammatical theory, just as it largely accepts the theoretical background. The relationship of linguistic typology - understood as that part of linguistics that systematically investigates the diversity of languages - to general grammatical theory -understood as covering any systematic analysis of language - has the potential to be a dialectical one promoting mutual development In point of fact, however, grammatical theory plays down the importance of linguistic diversity as a basic phenomenon, and linguistic typology too credulously puts its trust in grammatical theory. It is utterly characteristic of typology to borrow theoretical assumptions and accept wholesale their application to languages for which they were not developed. Of course, it is usually legitimate to apply to little-known languages devices that have arisen out of the description of individual languages and language in general and proven useful for this purpose. The danger lies less in the application of such devices per se than in blind faith in them and unwillingness to review the validity of fundamental notions. Moreover, that the theory itself leaves its stamp on its "new" object of study is seldom considered; any theory guides our expectations in such a way as to suppress novel ideas.

8.1.6. The latent, gentle pressure of this background becomes clear when one considers that one and the same phenomenon, namely, the lack of an agent in intransitive sentences, has given rise to the Nominalist Hypothesis under a taxonomic-descriptive view and to the very different ergativity hypothesis under a syntactic view. The determining force of the theoretical background is also evident in those accounts which outwardly appear to have freed themselves from linguistic tradition. In modern syntactic theories the terms "subject" and "object" are not common, being used only for informal explanations of syntactic relations. Nevertheless, they, or rather the concepts they denote, are just as omnipresent and just as unanimously accepted as before.

The labeling of phrases based on lexical categories (NP, VP, PP, etc.) are perfectly comprehensible without reference to hierarchical relations amongst them; thus, they do not describe sentence structure but only characterize its possible elements. Not until the discussion turns to the syntagma do questions of relations, hierarchy, and dependence become relevant.

Unencumbered by traditional baggage, any conceivable hierarchy would be possible, all the way down to the abandonment of hierarchical thinking itself. Instead, the proposed sentence patterns reflect the very relations that traditionally were designated by the terms "subject" and "object"; and the only alternative ever contemplated is reversing the two.

What distinguishes a subject? The definitions often stress different aspects, such as being a minimal nominal constituent, combination with the predicate

8.1. Conclusion 241

to create a statement, agreement with the matrix verb, being the highest noun phrase in the hierarchy. These characterizations are further refined by the application of syntactic tests which help to single out the subject noun phrase: in addition to agreement, such properties as reflexivity and relativizability arc utilized for this purpose. What all these criteria have in common is the intuitive assumption that there can always be only one subject

In the same way, formal syntactic criteria can be assembled for the direct object, for example, direct dependency on the verb and having a nonagentive semantic role.

The application of these generally accepted criteria to Inuktitut demonstrated that neither the NPerg nor the NP,ta can be identified as a direct object. Furthermore, the subject criteria fail to identify either noun phrase as the sole subject. We can infer that the noun phrase case marked -mik represents a direct object, in part because of its occurrence in the antipassive.

If we recall the debate about ergativity, including the motivation for and development of this concept, as well as the syntactic and typological claims associated with it, then it is clear that the phenomenon "ergativity" as a linguistic theorem depends on the notions of subject and object and the sentence structure they presuppose. Now, the issue of which noun phrase in a transitive sentence is the direct object has been settled by an empirical examination showing that neither fills the bill and that in fact both represent subjects. Herewith that sturdy edifice called "ergativity" begins to wobble. In its bias it turns out to be - at least for Inuktitut - a mere phantom. It is interesting in this regard that ergativity as it has been conceived up to now is more useful in distinguishing a certain class of verbs in nominative-accusative languages (e.g., English, German), namely, those verbs which lack agentivity and whose subjects do not bear the semantic role AGENT in intransitive sentences. If one considers the following intransitive sentence and its transitive counterpart in English

(1) The stone moves.

(2) John moves the stone.

one finds the "ergative" pattern to be beautifully confirmed: in (1), the subject is [-AGENT] and there is no direct object, whereas in (2), the previous subject has wandered into the object position and a new, agentive subject has taken its place. The only flaw in this picture is that the original subject bears a different case once turned into an object - which in the case of "genuine" ergativity never occurs. What at first appeared to be a daring appropriation now corroborates the insight that ergativity was conceived with agentivity very much in mind and is better suited to the description of variation within the nominative-accusative language type than that of truly divergent structures.


It would be very interesting to look into whether this fact is also the reason for the increasing tendency to recategorize languages originally deemed ergative as "only" morphologically ergative. Taking it a step further, one must ask the obvious question whether "ergativity" designates a real language type at all anymore, or whether the term might actually throw together languages of very different kinds that do not form a unified class. In order to determine this, however, it would be necessary to critically examine other languages in addition to those characterized as ergative or partly ergative. It seems unlikely that of all languages it should be Inuktitut that alone refutes the Ergative Parameter or the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy.

The whole discussion presented in the foregoing is entirely and firmly based on the assumption that sentences are necessarily structured hierarchically, indeed binarily. This is clearly expressed in the X-bar theory.

Sentence structure consequently exhibits a highly structured topography; most probably it is not only the more specific assumption concerning subjects and objects, but also the most fundamental one concerning the topography that needs revision.

From a current standpoint, it appears that hierarchical layering in the syntax of Inuktitut is much more restricted than in Indo-European languages. Further aspects must be noted: 1. There are no idiosyncracies, irregularities, and exceptions to be found in Inuktitut syntax. These characteristics of syntax in Indo-European languages are confined to polysynthesis. 2. Syntactic subordination is virtually nonexistent In place of syntactic subordination, we find inflectionally indicated relations between verbal complexes. Here again, traditional interpretation differentiates between subordinate and matrix moods, but examination of spoken and written data does not support this differentiation: in many cases the matrix verb is simply omitted - implied - and one finds oneself looking at a chain of "subordinate" verbal complexes. 3. The influence of the polysynthetic nature of Inuktitut on its syntactic structure needs further investigation. The claim that synthesis is the central domain of productivity and creativity is hypothetical but plausible. It entails the claim that syntax is not the primary but a secondary stratum of productivity, with the consequence that it is necessarily flatter in structure and highly regular. Additional evidence for this hypothesis comes from language acquisition, which strongly suggests that polysynthesis plays a more important role than syntax (cf. Fortescue 1993).

All in all, it seems as if the question of ergativity is not the central problem, at least for Inuktitut. The more important typological differences, including the sentence structure, all point to the fundamental significance of polysynthesis.

8.1. Conclusion 243

The question must also remain open whether the description of Inuktitut proposed here could be part of a new and different typological ordering. Such a typology would have to divorce itself - "feeling its way back", so to speak, step by step - from all assumptions about language that are not strictly deductive, that is, from all empirically derived assumptions. In this way, the terminology used would become more and more empty, until it designated only possible relations - values in the Saussurean sense - which then could be employed in empirical description. A reciprocity would thereby arise between data and theory which would always remain open for revisions: the theory would be applied and simultaneously tested on the one hand; description would be empirically based and critically reviewed on the other.

8.1.7. This work has undertaken an empirical examination of the concept "ergativity" with respect to a language classified as ergative. For this purpose, the history of this concept has been unfolded and its weaknesses laid bare. The result was the rejection of the concept "ergativity", at least in the form it has taken up to now. At the same time, we have discovered no grounds for rejection of basic grammatical notions such as Ν, V, Infi, the phrase, or the idea of hierarchical structuring in syntax in itself. But the nature of this structuring must be reconsidered, and the domain of polysynthesis must be taken ino account in a first tentative approach.

The rest of this chapter will be devoted to an attempt at giving an elementary description of Inuktitut whereby the weaknesses and errors discussed above are avoided.

As a preface to this undertaking, let me observe that I do not mean to set priorities in my decision to concentrate on syntax and not on polysynthesis; furthermore, the entire foregoing discussion should not be misunderstood to the effect that the only major problem in Inuktitut is in its sentence structure. This is certainly not the case. Since the objective of this work was ergativity, the wealth of new perspectives provided by polysynthesis came to my attention only late in the course of investigation. Consequently, statements about synthesis that go beyond a general and rudimentary characterization would require a more solid foundation. Nevertheless, I will address questions regarding synthesis to a limited extent, since it is impossible not to. A satisfactory treatment of polysynthesis as a whole would go far beyond the scope of this book.

The problems start with the isolation of word classes and the characterization thereof. This underdetermination is systematically set up and forms the basis for the productivity of the synthetic process. Indispensable are the categories Ν and V, and the distinction between nucleus and affix ("item" and Ί-unit" in Bittner's terminology). Although Ν and V are partly semantically determined, they should nonetheless be defined primarily in terms of formal criteria, syntactic as well as morphological (synthetic).


Nucleus and affix, as well as Ν and V, are principally functional concepts, which are generally employed independently of semantic interpretations. The characterization of lexical entries as [+Nuc] or [+aff] determines the elementary categories of synthesis, the two complementary classes of morphemes. The additional characterization as [+N] or [+V] indicates selectional restrictions in the course of a synthetic process. Strictly speaking, Ν and V are metaphoric expressions, playing on associations with familiar lexical categorization.

While Ν and V are necessary for determining synthetic processes, they are also necessary for the definition of possible syntactic functions. Assuming a principled differentiation of nominal and verbal constituents with respect to basic sentence structure, the functional category Infi (inflection) gains primary importance.

Up to now, Infi has been characterized as fusing the features Agr (agreement) and Mod (mood). This interpretation will be maintained in the following representation. It clearly emphasizes syntactic capacities: case assignment, opening of argument positions, and clarification of the relationship between several concatenated phrases. Since the present work has been an investigation into the syntactic structure of Inuktitut, the existence and relevance of such a structure has been presupposed from the beginning. But the investigation has shown, the presupposed hierarchical pattern of argument positions could not be attested. Likewise, the linearity of the assumed relation between lexicon and syntax must be given up: Inuktitut sentences are not made up of words which can be listed in a lexicon, nor can they necessarily be divided into component words. What Johns interprets as deficiency, namely, the inability to project the complexity of syntactic structure widely assumed to be universal, might just as well be inteipreted as a fundamentally different process, a process feeding on synthetic capacities, a process to a large extent disregarding syntactic configurations. Every now and then, the idea of nonconfigurationality has come up.105 Since ergativity is a purely syntactic notion, viewing Inuktitut as a nonconfigurational language would amount to a total transformation of its image. The course of our investigation has revealed the constant necessity of reinterpretation and therefor a constant transformational process. The final step towards a nonconfigurational approach includes the re-interpretation of the total outcome of the investigation.

The different sentence pattern attested for Inuktitut should most probably not be interpreted as an alternative syntactic structure - still putting the emphasis on syntax. There are a number of facts that strongly suggest a more fundamental difference, a difference emerging from the primarily synthetic nature of Inuktitut. The breakup of hierarchical structures in syntax fits in well with this impression.

82. Parva grammatica 245

In a next step, the status of ΙηΩ might be questioned again: is it reasonable to assume external argument positions at all? Is it not much more reasonable to accept a literally internal - word-internal - saturation of both reference and predication? Arguments linked by agreement might be viewed as appositions.

In the light of this reinterpretation of agreement, the status of the relative (= ergative) case marking on an overt noun phrase might be reconsidered, too: the old interpretation as casus versus, given by Kleinschmidt, must be reexamined, including the relationship of possessor and possessum.

The possible "stranding" of ergative noun phrases when the absolutive noun phrase is incorporated points to the lack of an agreement relation in the strict sense, as well.

Obviative marking, which can be found in inflection (fourth person) as well as possessive marking might well serve as a basis for the interpretation of the three structural cases and their distribution - by indexing references either to internal argument positions manifested by inflection or to likewise internal argument positions indicated by affixes like -si- or -tit-. Strictly external in the sense of not manifested within the synthetic complex are then only noun phrases in oblique case.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the representation of Infi as a distinct functional syntactic category can be applied to Inuktitut only metaphorically, as a relic of more familiar arrangements including auxiliaries and their functions in sentences. Inflection never enters the syntactic level as a free form, nor do "complementizers". Again, it must be asked why such a syntactic position should be maintained if it never can be filled. Can it really be fruitful to merge - if not to say confuse - morphological (that is, synthetic) faculties and syntax to such an extent? It must also be taken into account that a large number of synthetic complexes cannot be paraphrased by a syntactic configuration. This is due to the fact that no corresponding nuclei are available for affixes such as -gi-l-ri- and -qaq- "have', -galuaq- 'although', or -niraq- 'say that...', to name just a few.

All these reflections emerged at the end of an investigation into the syntax of Inuktitut, which was equally an investigation into syntactic typology.

To substantiate these speculations, it will be necessary to depart on another investigation, which in the end might complete the transformation of our image of language.

8.2. Parva grammatica

The following attempted grammar of Inuktitut should be understood as a preliminary sketch. The speculations presented in the previous section are taken into account to the extent that no primarily syntactic interpretation is


attempted. Rather, the representation is consciously left as the description of parts, of bits and pieces which can easily be used and rearranged should the speculations become more substantial. The following little grammar is in many respects the essence of the work contained in this volume, particularly the insight that we should distance ourselves as much as possible from the familiar parameters and patterns of description, along with their associated concepts. Of course, this sketch cannot get by without a few known concepts, either; in fact, I would hope to introduce as few new terms as possible. The terms used must, however, be defined or introduced from the start. It is equally important that they be free of any hidden connotations or expectations, "empty" in the sense set forth above. Most of the terms employed here are primarily formal or relational. Semantic interpretations are generally not attempted, chiefly because my current knowledge of the language is too limited.

The impression may arise - or may have already arisen - that the proposed representation is a highly distilled version that systematically suppresses exceptions to the rules. This is not the case. Exceptions like the strong verbs of Germanic languages and idiosyncracies such as lexical case assignment or the choice of prepositions constitute irregularities unknown in Inuktitut. Suspicions that this claim, too, stems from insufficient knowledge of the language appear implausible under closer examination: our level of knowledge suffices to determine that such irregularities, if they should exist after all, cannot play more than a marginal role and certainly not an essential one, as do the examples from Indo-European languages just mentioned. It is much more likely that the exceptions, irregularities, or idiosyncrasies are to be found in another domain of the language, not in elementary syntax.106

8.2.1. Basic categories and components

The basic categories initially needed for the description of Inuktitut should be the following:

- nucleus (Nuc)

- affix (Aff)

- particle (Part)

- nominal (N) - verbal (V)

- inflection (Infi) - case (Case)


- nominal complex - verbal complex

- noun phrase (NP) - verb phrase (VP) - finite phrase (IP)

Nuc and Aff are morphological-synthetic categories and designate possible positions and functions in the synthetic process.

Nuc is necessarily the initial element in a complex word; if Nuc is a free morpheme, it is interpreted as a nominal. If a nucleus is specified for neither Ν nor V, it is a particle.

Affixes are never free morphemes. The word formation processes arc primarily incorporational and derivational; compounding does not occur. Nominals and verbals (N and V) are not to be analyzed as lexical categories in the familiar sense. The categorization of a formation as Ν or V indicates that it is ready to act as a "landing site" for case (N) or inflectional marking (V). Viewed in this manner, Ν and V are syntactic categories, categories that designate the possible constituents of a sentence. They also aid in the categorization of Nuc and Aff and in the identification of category changes during the synthetic process. In addition, Ν and V are categories pertinent to synthesis, or word formation. Unlike Nuc and Aff, which are defined on a purely morphological basis, Ν and V are categories that designate or restrict synthetic processes. A nominal complex or a verbal complex is always a fully formed word that can take on the appropriate syntactic function. Ν and V are primarily synthetic categories; their phrasal projections are projections of synthetic categories, which of course embody a lexical content. Evidence that Ν and V do not represent genuine lexical categories can be found in the fact that, although the polysynthetic nature of Inuktitut does not prohibit direct insertion of lexical entries, this is clearly the exception. True, Ν and V are not entirely defined by their synthetic and syntactic properties, yet these do provide the essential character of the categories.

With respect to affixes it must be stated that not all express lexical content, but many indicate functions. Some of these functions are related to argument structure, whereas others represent syntactic functions, such as passive, antipassive, causative, modality, or epistemic functions. Examples of epistemic affixes include -rasugi-/-gasugi- 'think that' or -niraq- 'say that'.

Inflection marks the morphologically completed verbal complex; moreover, inflection determines possible syntactic configurations, such as case positions or subordination, and thus establishes the interconnection between synthetic (morphological) processes and syntactic structures. As noted above, inflection encompasses agreement (Agr) and mood (Mod). Agreement includes both


patterns: (1) agreement with the absolutive noun phrase (AgrJ and (2) agreement with the absolutive noun phrase as well as the ergative noun phrase (Agre).

Since Infi is always an (inflectional) affix, the minimal VP (Γ) consists of an inflected verbal complex. It opens up possible lexical noun phrase positions which are linked by case. These case positions and the corresponding nominal complexes are merely optional. This assumption rejects the interpretation of these positions as being necessarily or underlyingly available but remaining empty under certain circumstances (pro).

Internally, the VP may contain adjunct and/or complement NPs, and relate to subordinate phrases, which are linked by one of the subordinate moods.

An overt noun phrase comprises at least one nominal complex and is case marked; syntactic positions of noun phrases in external argument position are optional.

Syntactic-semantic categories include external argument, internal argument, oblique argument, and semantic role. They refer to the relation of nominal constituents to I' and to their interpretation in terms of the "role" they can play within the syntactic configuration. External arguments occur at the same hierarchical level as I', as lexical arguments, whereas internal lexical arguments are dominated by VP.

The grammar of Inuktitut thus far is composed of the following major subparts: an inventory in which nuclei and affixes are listed, the synthetic component responsible for word formation, and the syntactic component. Syntax and synthesis represent the productive processes of the language. I favor the designation "inventory" over "lexicon", because this inventory does not, strictly speaking, contain words but the basic elements of synthesis. These are the morphemes, some of which happen to be free morphemes. As a result, this inventory cannot function as a dictionary in the usual sense, such as might be useful to speakers of Inuktitut. But also in the sense of "lexicon" as opposed to syntax, Inuktitut hardly has a lexicon. The differences have been touched upon in the foregoing. But since the topic of the present study has been primarily syntax, the fact can only be accorded brief mention. The reader is reminded of the difficulties in establishing a noun - verb distinction and of the peculiar nature of single agreement inflection, to name just the most striking and interesting problems connected with lexical categories and their syntactic projection.

8.2.2. The inventory

The inventory features two subparts, one listing the nuclei and one listing the affixes. Each entry must contain, in addition to the gloss, information as to

82. Parva grammaäca 249

possible or required synthetic and/or syntactic behavior. For nuclei, this information includes designation as +V or +N; this is equivalent to noting whether the morpheme is free (+N) or bound (+V). I is also equivalent to a selectional restriction with respect to affixing, including inflection. Among the nuclei are diachronically complex forms which have become lexicalized: titirauti 'pencil, writing instrument', nunasiuti 'car1, nipiliuruti 'cassette player-recorder', tingmisuuq/qangatasuuq 'airplane', etc. The same is true of lexicalized affix combinations such as -muaq- 'get to, arrive at'.

As to affixes, it is necessary to specify whether they are nominal or verbal, that is, whether they mark a finished (+N) or open (+V) synthetic process. Further information, regarding the kind of synthetic behavior in which the affix engages, and the extent to which it may do so, must also be given in the entry: Does the affix have a category-changing effect? Is it transparent to the category of the stem it is affixed to, or is it restricted to stems of the same category? These features can be stated in terms of a subcategorization frame; on a non-idiosyncratic level, the interaction of affixes, the synthetic process might be represented in terms of percolation conventions and a head rule. It must be noted that the status of inflectional affixes is quite unclear. Syntactically relevant properties must be declared, such as induced changes in the argument structure or the opening of argument positions.

The formal characterization tentatively encompasses the following notations:

+V/+N: morphological status; selection

subcategorization of

NucV: selects Infi VAgr,: V with single agreement VAgre: V with double agreement VAgr^: V with either single or double agreement -j/-t: requires inflection with -juql-tuq

Since the application of antipassive (ap) cannot be structurally derived in the same way as passive, an entry must be specified for it: +ap.

NucN: selects case Nuc-N/-V: particle

Entries for affixes must, of course, also specify the type of nucleus or complex to which they may be attached.

It is necessary to indicate the distributional restrictions of affixes too. These include not only restrictions to a specific category, +N or +V, but also the


capacity of an affix to change this underlying category. In the representation of synthetic processes, this can be stated in terms of head rules and percolation conventions.

Thus, an entry

VAgre + -si-: >VAgr,[NPmik]; ap

is to be read "V with double agreement is converted by -si- into a V with single agreement and an obligatory internal argument in the -mik case."

It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of such characterizations; this list could be compiled only alongside preparation of a full inventory or a complete grammar for Inuktitut. The tentative entries offered below are intended only to illustrate the theoretical form of inventory entries.

1. Nuclei

nanuq : +N, 'polar bear' angut: +N, 'man, male being' tingmisuuq : +N, 'airplane'

quviasuk-: +VAgrt, -j/-t, *be happy' kii - : +VAgre, ap, "bite' taku- : +VAgr^, 'see'

Verbal nuclei like taku- 'see' are considered to be ambivalent as far as agreement is concerned. I assume that these nuclei may be inflected for single or double agreement alike. This assumption excludes a reflexive reading of VAgr,. As already argued above, posing a zero antipassive morpheme seems not to offer a good hypothesis. With a number of verbal nuclei such as kuvi- 'spill' both varieties of inflection and antipassive -si-coexist. This is clearly not the case with verbs like taku- 'see', but nevertheless the argumentation in favor of a zero antipassive is hampered by this fact.

2. Affixes

-si-: +VAgr.; -j/-U [NP..J ap; change of argument structure to NP.ta [+AGENT] a) VAgre +-si-: >VAgr.[NPmik] ap b) -tit- +-«-: >VAgr.[NPmik]

-tit-: +VAgre; 'cause ... to ...' a) VAgr, +-tit-: >VAgre

b) VAgre +-tit-: VAgre{NPmut} second AGENT in oblique case

82. Parva grammatica 2S1

-jau-l-tau-: +VAgr,; ρ a) VAgre +-jau-f-tau-: >VAgr. {NP,,,,^}

-uti: +N, 'thing for a) +V +-«//-: >+N

-gi-l-ri: +VAgre, 'have, possess have as/use as ...' a) +N +-gi-/-ri>+VAgre

-.tsiaq: +N, t>ig, good, nice' a) +N + -tsiaq-: +N

8.2.3. Synthesis

8.2.3.1. Constituents of synthetic processes

The difference between word formation in Inuktitut and in Indo-European languages is best brought out by an examination of synthesis. Synthesis is a largely productive process, equal to syntactic processes in freedom and creativity.

In Inuktitut, the notion of the word as a unit of speech calls for clarification. If one understands a word to be a constituent that can take on a function in the syntagma, then it is possible to speak of words in Inuktitut, too. These words, however, are composed as the need arises, to fulfdl some function in the sentence. Words in the sense of ready units which can be listed in a dictionary and which, modified (only) grammatically, appear in a sentence can of course also be found in Inuktitut Yet the use of such simplex elements plays only a minor role compared with that of newly created, polysynthetic words; a sentence consisting solely of simple forms is taken as restricted code. The derivation of words, like that of sentences, is rule governed. The system of rules underlying the synthetic process has been investigated but little to date; the general practice has been to ascribe specific functions or conditions on use to the individual synthetic building blocks in the same manner as specific meanings are ascribed to them. Since these building blocks only sometimes enjoy the status of words in the above sense, it is wise to treat them all as morphemes (free or bound, grammatical) instead. It is possible to categorize the morphemes with respect to the following aspects: 1. behavior in polysynthesis 2. behavior in the sentence 3. effect Chi the sentence.


The first of these aspects encompasses the restrictions within the synthetic process, such as initial position in the word, category changing or category retainment, and compatibility. The second aspect refers primarily to the ability to be used in the sentence as a free form and thus forms the basis for distinguishing between nuclei and complexes on the one hand and affixes on the other; it also refers to the consequences that specific affixes entail for sentence structure. The third aspect is closely associated with the ability to be used in a sentence and classifies a nucleus or a complex according to its possible functions in a sentence. Accordingly the fundamental division into +N and +V can be viewed in this way: Nominale are grammatically marked for number, case, and (if relevant) possession; nominal nuclei are free morphemes. Verbals are grammatically marked for agreement (person[s], which include number) and mood; verbal nuclei are bound morphemes (roots). Nominale and verbals differ fundamentally from a third class of nuclei, which are inalterable, bear no grammatical marking, and mostly do not participate in synthesis, although this is still possible. These nuclei are called particles; they are not specified for Ν or V. Particles play a role only at the sentence level; examples include

amalu 'and'

uwa 'or'

kisiani 'only'

nauktaima 'where'

suuq 'why'

ikpaksaq 'yesterday'

ikpaksaam 'a while back'

arraani 'last year'

qaukpat 'tomorrow'

It must be emphasized that there are no complementizers such as that in Inuktitut.

Nuclei represent the basis for every word derivation. They occur only in initial position; the concatenation of nuclei is not possible. There exist two basic types of nuclei:

- free morphemes that can appear in a sentence in their nuclear form. This nuclear form corresponds to the grammatical marking for absolutive singular. Such nuclei are nominals.

82. Parva grammaüca 253

- bound morphemes, roots, which require an inflectional ending to become free, complex forms. This inflectional ending (Infi) contains information regarding agreement and mood. Such nuclei are, of course, verbals.

A simple or complex word is recognized as complete when it bears either an inflectional ending or a case marking. Oversimplifying the matter slightly, it can be said that all synthesis takes place between a nucleus as the initial element and a grammatical ending as the terminal element

Nuc - Aff - grammatical marking

Affixes are formally distinct from nuclei: they are never free morphemes and always require a nucleus as a base.

The number of affixes is limited only by natural memory capacity:

Nuc - Aff, - ... - Affn - grammatical marking Affixes vary considerably with regard to their synthetic properties. Like nuclei, affixes have categorial features (+N/+V). Moreover, they differ according to whether they (a) are "true to category", that is, able to be attached only to nuclei or complexes of the same category, resulting in a new complex that preserves the old category;

(3) nuna - tsiaq nunatsiaq [N N]N 'the big land*

or (b) are category-changing affixes, that is, able to be attached to nuclei or complexes of the opposite category, whereby the new complex receives the category of the affix.

(4) niri · tit - tanga niritittanga [V V]V Infi 's/he makes him/her eat' eat cause 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part

(5) qimmiq - qaq - tunga qimmiqaqtunga [N V]V Infi Ί have dogs' dog have lsg,itr,nom part

The affix farthest to the right always modifies the whole preceding complex; in other words, it behaves as though the complex were a nucleus. This means that the synthetic process can be stopped at any point and brought to an end by the application of a suitable grammatical ending.


(6) [qangata-]V 'to fly'

[qangata-] + [-jumÂffN 'a thing for...'

[qangatasuuq]N 'airplane'

[qangatasuuq]N + [-/i^nûaÂffN 'model, picture of..., toy'

[qangatasuungnguaq]N 'toy airplane/model airplane'

[qangatasuungnguaq]N + [-liuq-]AiiV 'to make, manufacture'

[qangatasuungngualiuqtuq] V 's.o. makes a model airplane'

[qangatasuungngualiuq-]W + [-v//t]AffN 'place where ...'

[qangatasuungngualiurvik]N 'place where model airplanes are manufactured, i.e., model airplane workshop'

[qangatasuungngualiurvik]N + [-jufl^JAffN 'big'

[qangatasuungngualiuvirjuaq]N "big workshop for model aiiplanes, factory'

[iqangatasuungngualiuvirjuaq]N + [-mut\ loc

[qangatasuungngualiurvirjuarmut]Loc 'to a model aiiplane factory (directional)'

(7) MM qangatasuungnguarliurvirjuarmut aullarrumavuq aullaq- -ruma- -vuq leave/go to want 3sg,itr,ind

'Mike would like to go to the big model/toy airplane factory'

(8) Mild qangatasuungnguarliurvirjuarmuarrumavuq -muaq- -ruma- -vuq go to want 3sg,itrjnd

'Mike would like to go to the big model/toy airplane factory'

Since synthesis is a cumulative process, each newly added affix becomes the head of the derivation. This generalization can be said to hold even for the "true to category" affixes. Although here the relation between nucleus and


affix does not clearly evidence dominance, a layered structure with a head can easily be maintained, even if the affix may be transparent to the features of the stem.

If we compare

(9) [[nuna] - [-tsiaq]] +N +N +N

with

(10) [[nuna] - [-qaq-]] - Infi +N +V +V

or

(11) [aulla(q)-] - [-ruma-] - Infi V THEME THEME

as opposed to

(12) [aulla(q)-] - [-tit-] - Infi THEME TH,AG

it appears that a morphological rule such as the right-hand head rule and percolation conventions are quite suitable for Inuktitut.107

In (8) the affix -muaq- 'go to, arrive at' can serve as an example for lexicalized affix combinations. The complex affix -muaq- is composed of the ablative case -mut and a verbalizing affix -aq- 'arrive at a place'. The validity of this analysis is confirmed by instances where the underlying ablative is a plural, -nut; this plural is preserved in the derived form:

(13) Iqalungnuaqtuq Iqaluk -nut -aq -tuq fish to,pi go to 3sg,itr,nom part 's/he goes to Iqaluit/arrives at Iqaluit'

Of special importance is a group of verbal affixes which have a direct influence upon the syntactic behavior of the verbal complex. In the synthetic process, this is most obvious in the selection of the proper agreement marking Agr, or Agre. At this point, synthesis penetrates the syntactic structure and plays a part in determining the outcome. Consequently, one can refer to these affixes as syntactic affixes; some of them even lack a semantic interpretation.

As an example, let us consider the synthetic process surrounding the antipassive affix -si-. From a morphological standpoint, the effect of suffixing -si- to a complex amounts to nothing more than the conversion of an Agre agreement pattern to Agr..


[VAgre + -si-] Agrt

This could mean simply that -si- selects a certain inflectional paradigm, but this is not the case. The antipassive affix causes extensive alterations in the overall sentence structure and especially the argument structure, of which the change in agreement marking is but one indication.108

8.2.3.2. Grammatical marking

A fundamental distinction to be drawn is between nominal grammatical morphemes, in the form of case and possessive, and verbal grammatical morphemes, in the form of inflection.

Whereas case marking can be viewed as obligatory in the sentence, possessive marking is not - although it is quite common. Case and possessive distinguish three numbers: singular, dual, and plural.

Inuktitut has the following cases:

absolutive - -φ; THEME (nonspecific) ergative - -up; AGENT objective - -mik; THEME (nonspecific) terminalis - -mut; LOC ('towards'), {GOAL, AGENT, CAUS, INSTR} ablative - -mir, LOC ('from'), {AGENT} locative - -mi; LOC ('in') vialis - -kkuv, LOC ('through') similiaris - -titur, COMP AR ('like', 'as...')

Only the singular forms are given here. Concerning the semantic interpretations of cases given above, it must be

kept in mind that they represent the default interpretations. The characterization THEME is meant as a cover term for nonagentivity, including more specific characterizations such as EXPERIENCER or PATIENT.

Possessive is also inflected for case; moreover, possessive marking can include coreference marking such as

(14) uluni ulu -ni knife abs,3sg 'her own knife'

(15) uluganik tigusivunga ulu -ganik tigu- -si- -vunga knife obj,lsg take ap lsg,itr,ind Ί take my knife'

82. Parva gramma tica 257

(16) ulungannik tigusivuq ulu -ngannik tigu- -si- -vuq knife obj,4sg take ap 3sg,itr4nd 'he takes her knife'

(17) uluminUc tigusivuq ulu -minik tigu- -si knife obj,3sg take ap 'she takes her (own) knife'

(18) illumini sinippuq illu -mini sini(k)- -puq house loc,3sg sleep 3sg,itr,ind 's/he sleeps in his/her own house'

(19) illunganni sinippuq illu -nganni sini(k)- -puq house loc,4sg sleep 3sg,itr,ind 's/he sleeps in his/her (s.o. else's) house'109

As already stated, inflection comprises

Agreement (Agr) Mood (Mod)

whereby agreement contains the classic person and number features. Agreement marking creates a relation to one argument or two arguments and in so doing expresses the number of these arguments and in the latter instance their relation to each other, as well.

Moods are divided into

(a) matrix moods (b) subordinate moods

Moods identify not only the modality of the sentence (indicative, imperative, or interrogative), as in their traditional conception, but also discharge a syntactic function. As the above distinction implies, only the verbal complex of the matrix clause can occur in a matrix mood; all other concatenated verbal complexes must appear in a "subordinate" mood.

The matrix moods are

Indicative Agr.: -vuql-puq (3sg) Indicative Agre: -varaJ-para (lsg/3sg)

- -vuq 3sg,ib\ind

Nominal participle Agr.: -juql-tuq (3sg) Nominal participle Agre: -jaral-tara (lsg/3sg)


Interrogative Agr.: -val-pa (3sg) Interrogative Agre: -vigufpigu (lsg/3sg)

Imperative Agr.: -U (3eg) Imperative Agre: -lagu (lsg/3sg)

The subordinate moods are

Causal Agr.: -gamil-rami (3sg) Causal Agre: -gakkui-rakku (lsg/3sg)

Conditional Agr.: -gunil-runi (3sg) Conditional Agre: -gukkul-rukku (lsg/3sg)

Verbal participle Agr.: a) -luni (3sg) b) -tillugu (4sg)

Verbal participle Agre: a) -lunitigut (3sg/lpl) b) -tsugu (any - 4sg)

All subordinate moods distinguish a fourth person, whereby an unambiguous relation to the person/persons of the matrix clause can be expressed. Whereas the above third person endings always represent coreference with one of the persons of the matrix verbal complex, and thus coindexation with the matrix Agr, the fourth person introduces a new, as yet unmentioned person:

(20) Aatamii quviasuktuq^ nuliaqaram^ Aatami -φ quviasuk- -tuq nulia(q) -qaq- -rami Adam abs be happy 3sg,itr, wife have 3sg,itr,

nom part caus 'Adam, is happy, because he, has a wife'

(21) anaanangüi quviasuktuq, nuliaqarmatj anaana -nga quviasuk- -tuq nulia(q) -qaq- -mat mother poss,abs be happy 3sg,itr, wife have 4sg,itr,

nom part caus 'his mother is happy, because he has a wife'

(22) Jaaniupi Miurij kunijanga ikajurgamiuk Jaani -up Miuri -φ kuni- -janga ikaju(q)- -gamiuk John erg Mary abs kiss 3i/3j,tr, help 3j/3i,tr,

nom part caus 'John, kisses Maryj, because she, helps him/


(23) Jaaniupi Miurij kunijanga ikajurmagu Jaani -up Miuri -φ kuni- -janga ikaju(q)- -magu John erg Mary abs kiss 3i/3j,tr help (3j)/4k,tr,

nom part caus 'John, kisses Maryj, because sheQ helps himk'

(24) Miuriupi Jaani, ikajukpanga Piitak ikajulaurmagu Miuri -up Jaani -φ ikaju(q)- -panga Piita -φ Mary erg John abs help 3i/3j,tr,ind Peter abs ikaju(q)- -lau(q)- -magu help past (3j)/4k,tr,caus 'Mary; helps John^ because he(j) has helped Peterk'

As has been discussed, it is important to note that coreference to the AGENT, that is, the NPCTg, is excluded in fourth person. In (23) and (24) the NP^,, is taken up again. This is the most likely case if no new participants are introduced (i.e., named). Of course it would be possible to do without any explicit reference to the participants of the matrix clause.

The strictly regulated distribution into matrix and subordinate moods brings up the question whether syntactic structuring is not equally a synthetic phenomenon. It is quite obvious that syntactic structures are synthetically generated - and not in the least idiosyncratically, dependent on a lexical entry, but generally.

The interpretation of inflection as a connecting link between a synthetic component and the syntax now takes on new meaning, but it also becomes clear that inflection encompasses more than just agreement features. Just as "word" has a much greater scope in Inuktitut than conventional thought allows, inflection must be understood on a much broader plane. As a syntactic category, Infi determines the structure of the sentence to a larger extent than Infi in an Indo-European sentence does. One could speculate that the structuring effect of Infi on the sentence restricts from the outset the complexity and variability of the actual syntactic structure. The most important reason for this is that the relations within the sentence are made extremely clear by the explicitness of inflection. In addition, the introduction of particles, which are responsible for expressing nuances as in the Germanic languages, is accomplished just as much within the synthetic process as changes in modality. Even more clarity is furnished by the impressive differentiation of the agreement paradigm into matrix and subordinate moods.

The inference that Inuktitut is a language in which misunderstandings and double meanings are impossible may now seem close at hand, but it can be dismissed with certainty. Here as well, one may conjecture that vagueness tends to crop up more in the synthetic process than in the sentence. Interestingly, questions of order are also of fundamental importance in


synthesis; although there are preferred word orders for sentences, the additional morphological marking is sufficiently clear to largely prevent misinterpretations when the word order varies.110

The following sentence is intended to again illustrate the aforementioned problem of the relationship between synthesis and syntax; the synthetic analysis sometimes overlaps with the syntactic analysis:

(25) uqaqlunilu niqiliuqiunilu qaujilaunngituq isiqtuqarngmat 'as she spoke and prepared the meal, she did not notice that someone had come in.'

uqaqtunilu uqaq-

-luni -lu

niqiliuqiunilu niqi

-liuq-

-iuni -lu

qaujiilaunngituq qauji-

-lauq--ngit-

-tuq

isiqtuqarngmat isiq-

-tuqaq-

-mat

+V 'speak' 3sg verbal participle, Mod,,,,, and she, speaking and while speaking and ... 'as she spoke and ...'

+N 'meat' affV 'make, prepare something' a) NucN + -liuq->+VAgr./Agre

3sg verbal participle, Mod„b

and she, preparing meat and ..., while preparing meat and ... '... and prepared a meal...'

+V 'notice' affV past affV negation 3sg, itr, Modnj 'she did not notice'

+V 'come in' affV/N terminal, a) NucV + -tuqaq- >+V 'completed' b) NucN + -tuqaq- >+N 'old' 4sg caus, Modsub

(because) somebody else had come in 'that X had come in'

'As she spoke and prepared the meal, she did not notice that someone had come in.'


8.2.4. Syntax

8.2.4.1. Infi

The types of inflection described in the previous section do not represent conjugational variants that are selected by the verbal nucleus. Rather, they constitute widely divergent alternatives that imply very different meanings. The difference in meaning is situated on the one hand in that domain which often goes by the name of modality and includes such aspects as "indicative", "interrogative", or "causality"; on the other hand, the difference in meaning lies essentially in the syntactic arrangement determined by the specific inflectional marking. The number and type of external arguments is set by the finiteness feature, as is coordination or subordination of clauses. Therefore, it is natural to interpret this functional node as being primarily of syntactic value. Following customary usage, I will refer to it as "Infi" (Inflection). Despite the syntactic associations of this term, however, I support a double interpretation of Infi as simultaneously being morphological (synthetic) in its appearance and having syntactic consequences. The interrelationship between the synthetic nature of inflection in its whole range of possibilities and its determining force in syntax needs much further empirical investigation. Equally challenging will be a theoretical reevaluation of syntax as the primary domain of productivity and creativity.

Infi is the terminal element of synthesis. It is by the attachment of Infi that the word complex, which has remained indeterminate (although not neutral), is assigned a final category. This not only identifies it unambiguously as +V, but simultaneously determines its function in the sentence and the range of possible sentence structures in which this function can be discharged by such a V-complex. Infi must be viewed as having a double status: As the inflectional affix, it terminates synthesis. It is difficult to ascribe the status of being a head to an inflectional affix - but in this case it represents a plausible possiblity. Infi is likewise a syntactic marker. The number and kind of available argument positions and case positions is dependent on Infi. Infi, though not being a copula, might be viewed as a predicative variable which opens up argument positions. It can be further assumed that the content of semantic roles assigned by Infi is minimal, being restricted to the default values [+AGENT] and [-AGENT] associated with the respective structural cases, since semantic roles are determined primarily by the verbal nucleus and/or the attached affixes. Considering again cases like taku-, it might be argued that Infi in fact can act as a filter for role assignment, not being an assigner


itself. The maximal projection of Infi is IP, the finite phrase, whereby IP often adds no new constituents to I':

IP I Γ

V

taku- -vait Ί see you'

As has been mentioned, overt external arguments in IP are optional: their semantic content is fully specified in Infl-Agr4 or Infl-Agre.

The two aspects of Infi, Mood (Mod) and Agreement (Agr), are fused in a single feature bundle yet must be described independently.

Infi [Mod - Agr]

Mood (Mod) designates - borrowing from the traditional understanding of mood - the various ways in which sentences can be marked; indicative, interrogative, and imperative are good examples. But the following peculiarity of Inuktitut must be noted which does not conform to the traditional conception of mood: the mood feature designates the relation of the respective IP to other (possible) IPs: it establishes them as either matrix IPs (indicative, interrogative, imperative) or coordinate or subordinated (related) IPs (participle/contemporative, causal, conditional).

In addition, it should be observed that "subjunctive" does not exist as a mood in Inuktitut. Subjunctive meaning is expressed by affixes such as -najaq-,

(26) tikippat takunajaqpara tiki(t)- -pat taku- -najaq- -para arrive 4sg,itr see would lsg/3sg

cond Modmb ind Mod,,, 'If he comes I would see him' (Harper 1979: 45)

by the imperative mood, which is generally used in optative contexts, and of course by the conditional mood.

Mod [{Mod matrix}

indicative interrogative imperative

{Mod sub}]

participle causal conditional


If one takes the notions "matrix mood" and "subordinate mood" to theo-logical conclusion, it must be assumed that the Mod feature determines the hierarchical position of I': Mod,,, specifies that its I' is the hierarchically highest; in contrast, ModMb indicates that Γ is dominated by IP. However, this representation is problematic in that it creates the impression that I'[ModJ is identical to I'[Mod,uJ, differing only in their position in the sentence. This is not the case. As Harper (1974) points out and as can be seen in any Inuktitut text, matrix verbal complexes are typically quite rare, as the sequence is made up primarily of concatenated verbal complexes in subordinate moods.111

Again, this peculiarity requires further investigation, especially the examination of texts. But it can already be observed that a supposed sentence pattern consisting of a matrix verbal complex, adjunct or complement noun phrases, and subordinate clauses is not very illuminating for InuktituL Considering the fact that all coordination and/or subordination of clauses is expressed by synthetic verbal complexes (see Nowak 1993) and not by syntactic configurations, recognition of this difference in behavior may have consequences for syntactic theory at large.

If the image of hierarchical ranking between matrix and subordinate clauses is maintained, syntactic structuring is identified as a synthetic process. An Indo-European subordinate clause may exhibit a different configuration of constituents from a main clause, yet morphologically these constituents would equally qualify for insertion into a matrix clause; however, this does not hold of Inuktitut.

Consequently, inflection in Inuktitut cannot be viewed as a uniform functional marker. The subordinate or even coordinate clause is identified not by a syntactic configuration, but by specific features which are an integral part of inflection. Since these features cannot be isolated or reconstructed into agglutinative parts, inflection itself must be broken down into types on the basis of syntactic relationality. What is interpreted as a subordinate clause is created, constituted by inflection. Therefore, a differentiation between matrix Infi and subordinate Infi is not just a differentiation between inflectional paradigms; both Inflm and Infi, include the features "person" and "number" (Agr); both of them exhibit an abstract feature "mood" - but this feature must be specified in terms of syntactic relationality. If the Inuktitut sentence is to be viewed as a layered, hierarchical structure, then Ιηίζ, must be viewed as superordinate, while Infi, is a verbal adjunct, subordinate under IP, which actually must be specified as I„P. Again, it must be kept in mind that it is not


sufficient just to embed an unspecified IP into an superoidinate IP. Such a representation cannot account for the fact that the embedded IP exhibits a different set of features. As far as can be determined now, these features are not triggered by or related to any other external features such as relative clause markers, complementizers, or case.

Under this point of view it seems to be more reasonable to envisage Inuktitut sentence structure as barely layered - although there is layering -but as primarily flat in topography, especially as far as verbal complexes, IPs, are concerned. The assumed hierarchy implicit in the term "subordinate mood" needs thorough investigation, as does the whole domain of polysynthesis with respect to consequences for the nature of syntactic structures.

Agreement generates the possible arguments within I', as well as corresponding overt case positions. In those instances where first or second person is involved, these argument positions in the sentence remain empty; they can be filled, if at all, only by "third persons". It is these noun phrases which provide the sole overt case positions; case is assigned structurally by Agr. Here the situation again arises in which Infi, as the end product of synthesis, by virtue of Agr determines the kind of agreement and the possible sentence structure, in this case by establishing the number of external nominal elements:

Agr,: IP[NP, -1]

Agre: IP[NPe - NP. -1]

Thus, whereas Mod conditions the veibal aspects of sentence structure, Agr influences the nominal aspects. Since agreement in the above sense naturally occurs in subordinate or coordinate clauses as well as matrix ones, Agr as a receptacle for features is always available in I'. With the division into Infi,,, and Infi,, however, even the ability of Agr to represent the "persons" involved in IP as coreferent or not is affected: differentiation of third from fourth person (obviation) is possible only in ISP.

8.2.4.2. Nominal constituents

Characterization of the sentence as a finite phrase (IP) entails that Infi is the head of the sentence. As already pointed out, a finite (verbal) complex can be considered to be a fully developed syntagma, covering referential as well as predicating elements. The overt expression of nominal constituents can be of two different kinds: 1. noun phrases linked by case and agreement with the verbal complex, whereby noun phrases linked by both agreement and case (external


arguments) must be distinguished from noun phrases linked by case alone (internal arguments) 2. noun phrases in a semantically specified relation, not linked by case or agreement.

In the description of the nominal constituents of the sentence I distinguish the following levels: 1. the purely syntactic level, concerned primarily with concatenation of verbal complexes and noun phrases associated with them 2. the morphological-syntactic level of case marking and case assignment 3. the argument structure with its semantic roles, whereby it should be said that the assumed hierarchies of the syntactic level are reminiscent of the traditional, familiar structuring. Speaking of external arguments indicates the external, overt realization of arguments already present within the verbal complex, linked by case and agreement. Speaking of an internal argument indicates the obligatoriness of an overt noun phrase which cannot be realized within the verbal complex but is bound to it by case.

Infi assigns case to its external arguments, insofar as these are lexically explicit. This case assignment is strictly regulated: Infl[AgrJ assigns absolutive case; absolutive is unmarked. Infl[Agre] assigns one noun phrase ergative case, which is marked (-up); it assigns a second noun phrase absolutive case, which is unmarked.

The matching of semantic roles to individual cases is on the one hand quite clear-cut; on the other, the correct pairings can sometimes be determined only negatively. It is our relatively limited knowledge of semantic nuances that is responsible for this problem, especially since intuitive decisions are not possible.

One of the clear-cut cases is the pairing of the semantic role AGENT with the ergative case, whereas the absolutive can be primarily negatively defined as NONAGENT. To go beyond that and call it THEME would be a mere stopgap measure in the absence of sufficient knowledge. In many cases it would certainly be justified to characterize it as a state, event, source, experiencer or the like. All of these more specific designations represent counterparts to AGENT and are thus summarized under the heading THEME. The objective case is likewise plainly associated with the semantic role NONAGENT and shares the above-mentioned properties of the absolutive. The objective thus appears to be the VP-internal correlate to the absolutive.

The terminalis has a distinctively locative character, yet it is also the internal case that can take over the semantic role AGENT, in the form of an oblique case in the passive. In some regions, this role can be borne in the passive by the ablative, as well. Nevertheless, the cases terminalis, ablative, locative, vialis, and similiaris remain primarily semantically determined, "prepositional" cases. A nesting or accumulation of noun phrases marked with


the same case is extremely rare; it is comparatively common only in the possessive construction, where the ergative case indicates several possessors. A sequence of noun phrases marked absolutive is not possible, whereas there may be several noun phrases marked objective, forming a relative clause construction.112 Oblique, semantic cases may not be assigned repeatedly, except in listings.

As mentioned earlier, the semantic interpretation of an oblique case overrides its abstract meaning whenever this is possible. This can be clearly seen in the discussion of causative -tit-: while the THEME is always maintained, the two AGENT roles are assigned to NPerg and NPfcrm. If the terminalis is required in its inherent semantic role, it is not available for AGENT.

(27) Jaaniup arnamut Miki ikajuqtitanga Jaani -up arna(q) -mut Miki -φ John erg woman term Mike abs AGENT AGENT THEME ikajuq- -tit- -tanga help cause 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part, Moc^ 'John causes the woman to help Mike'113

(28) Jaaniup nutararmit arnamut titirauti tunititanga Jaani -up nutara(q) -mit arna(q) -mut titirauti -φ John erg child abl woman term pencil abs tuni- -tit- -tanga give cause 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part, Mod,,, 'John causes the child to give the pencil to the woman'

The external argument cases are absolutive and ergative. No hierarchical relation can be discovered between them. They are assigned by Infi and are specified/selected by Agr. This generalization obtains for subordinate clauses as well as matrix clauses.

While the external arguments do not have to be realized overtly and are not if they are in the first or second person, internal arguments must always be overtly expressed. They represent additional information to that found in I'. Inuktitut exhibits the following argument structure:

structural arguments and cases

external external internal THEME AGENT THEME Poss'ed Poss'or NP NP NP abs erg obj -Φ -up -mik

82. Parva gramma tica 267

adjunct/oblique arguments and cases

internal LOC GOAL AGENT CAUSE

internal LOC AGENT

internal LOC

internal LOC INSTR

internal COMP AR

NP NP NP NP NP term abl loc vial sim -mut -mit -mi -kkut -titut

This structure represents a semantic role-template which seems to be almost invariable. Several aspects bear comment.

The ergative case is clearly a structural case, but it is semantically determined as AGENT or POSSESSOR.

There is no lexical case marking. Structural cases are clearly assigned by Infi. Lexical items, in the form of roots or synthetic complexes, select Infi with respect to AgrJAgrc. Infi assigns case and filters semantic roles according to the above given template. If the assigning of roles is to be altered, affixation takes place and influences the Agr feature of Infi, selects another type of Infi or, in rare cases such as antipassive, alters the role assignment itself, creating an exceptional pattern of case marking.

8.2 J Synthetic processes: passive and antipassive

The Inuktitut sentence is a textile woven by synthetic and syntactic processes. Passive and antipassive serve as impressive examples of this fact.

Synthetic processes of the kind described above form the basis for syntactic processes. Synthetic processes flow into syntactically relevant constituents, which to that extent are categorially unambiguous. This means that the assumption of lexical categories in a strict and narrow sense has to be redefined. As has been discussed at length, the categorial description of a constituent which is to be inserted into a syntactic base structure is the outcome of a polysynthetic process - not an inherent property of a lexical item. The basis of synthetic processes is to be characterized on a morphological level; the description of such processes must contain a morphemic specification, a categorial specification, and subcategorization features covering semantic and synthetic (processing) facets of an item, whether nucleus or affix.

In the case of items specified as +V, a characterization which can be called syntactic must be added: a characterization which specifies Infl[Agr] and


accordingly possible argument positions. The semantic characterization includes an overt semantic gloss, if there is any; it also includes an argument frame for items specified +V.

Passive and antipassive may be understood as synthetic processes: a verbal nucleus or verbal complex specified for the feature Agrc is transformed into a verbal complex bearing the feature Agrt. This operation has consequences for the syntactic characterization and the argument frame. While in other cases a glossable semantic interpretation can be identified (e.g., -juaq- "big'), this is not true of purely functional affixes such as antipassive or passive. Only an abstract semantic interpretation can be given which consists of features such as "change in argument structure" and "change in agreement". Both passive and antipassive are indicated and controlled by affixes; they produce alterations in the syntactic structure and the argument structure, manifested in the change of InflfAgr]. However, antipassive is the only one of the two which requires a noun phrase complement, an internal structural argument. Passive and antipassive each occur simultaneously on the synthetic and syntactic levels.

It is common to think of passive as a form derived from the active, or to view the argument structure of a passive sentence as the result of an "argument shift" in the corresponding active sentence. It is thereby assumed that the sentence has a normal form which encompasses syntactic representation, morphological marking, and semantic interpretation. Argument shift then signals a rearrangement of the nominal constituents and semantic roles with respect to the norm. It is likely here, however, that the explanation of argument shift for languages whose productivity lies primarily in the syntax and includes configurational processes will differ from that for languages whose productivity lies at least equally, if not chiefly, in synthesis. Since a given synthetic passive form is derived from some nucleus (or complex), and since this nucleus has its own synthetic and syntactic potential, it is logical to investigate the changes brought about by the derivation. These changes should, of course, be sought in the areas of argument structure and synthesis.

Passive, like antipassive, in Inuktitut constitutes first and foremost a synthetic process, namely, that of affixation. In both cases, this process effects a change from Agre to Agr..

If we look at Infi first, the argument structure is altered to match the value of Agr; that is, the two argument positions opened up by Agrc are reduced to a single one as required by Agr,. Externally, it is now only possible to link one overt noun phrase, marked absolutive, to the verb form.

A passive structure is thus formally indistinguishable from any other structure of the type InflfAgr J; it is interpretable specifically as passive only by the gloss of the affix -jau-l-tau- and by comparison with the


nucleus/complex prior to passive formation as discussed above. The host nucleus/complex exhibits a synthetic and syntactic potential of its own.

Passive:

synthetic characterization: +V Infl[AgrJ; a)V[Agre] +-jau-/-tau-: > +V Infi [Agr.] { N P ^ }

argument frame (I) V[AgrJ (Π) -jau-l-tau-

AGENT - NPe NPe > 0, { N P ^ . J THEME - NPa NP, -> NP,

(III) V[AgrJ THEME - NPa

{AGENT - N P ^ J

If one analyzes passive and antipassive chiefly as synthetic processes, one has the advantage that interpretations can be built on analogy with other affixations, such as causatives or modals, and checked against a default structure which includes a semantic role-grid, a default distribution of semantic roles, and a case structure, a default distribution of morphological case assignment. The various ergative parameters discussed in previous chapters attempt to deal with these default structures. Whereas antipassive (and also causative, which after all introduces another actor into the clause) has effects on the argument structure beyond the change of Infi and the associated reduction of case positions, such effects are not found in passive. A passive sentence still is in perfect accordance with the default structure and no different from any other synthetic verbal complex derived by a semantic affix, as, for instance, -juma-t-ruma- 'want' or a simple inflected verbal root:

(29) Jaani kiijaujuq qimmimut Jaani -0 kii- -jau- -juq qimmi(q) -mut John abs bite pass 3sg,itr,nom part dog term/AGENT 'John is bitten by the dog'

(30) Jaani aanniaqtuq Jaani -0 aanniaq- -tuq John abs sick 3sg,itr,nom part 'John is sick'

(31) Jaani aullarumavuq Jaani -0 aulla(q)- -ruma- -vuq John abs leave want 3sg,itr,ind 'John wants to leave'


The argument frame given above is suitable for a complex like kiijau-; it clearly shows that the synthesis of (i) kii- and (ii) -jau-/-tau- to (iii) kiijau-does not diverge from the default structure.

To avoid misinterpretation it is necessary to point out that the affix -ruma-l-juma- 'want' can be compared to -tau-l-jau- only with respect to the example given, the aim of which was to illustrate the default structure of an IP,. With respect to synthesis, -ruma-l-juma- actually exhibits a number of differences from -jau-l-tau-; -ruma-l-juma- most probably is transparent to the argument structure of the root/complex it is affixed to. Its primarily semantic/modal function is consistent with this. Compare

(32)

to

aullarumavuq aulla(q)-leave V[AgrJ THEME-(NP,)

-ruma- -vuq want 3sg,itr,ind > V Infl[AgrJ

ΤΗΕΜΕ-(ΝΡ,) 's/he wants to leave'

(33) tigujumavanga tigu- -juma-give want V[AgrJ AGENT-(NPe) THEME-(NPJ 's/he wants to give s.th. (to s.o.)'

-vanga 3sg/3sg,tr,ind > V Infl[AgrJ > AGENT-(NPe) > THEME-(NPJ

The antipassive is a different story. The antipassive affix -si- is restricted to V[AgrJ, its function being to effect a change to Agr.. Moreover, my field investigations showed that antipassives almost certainly require a complement noun phrase in the classical sense; consequently, this noun phrase must be subcategorized by -si-, not by the root.114 The obligatory complement noun phrase can be interpreted as a distinctive property of antipassive in general. Unlike passive, antipassive is not just a reduction of external argument positions. It clearly involves a shift, which also affects the argument structure in terms of semantic roles. As has been discussed at length, antipassive entails an exceptional pattern of case marking: the semantic role AGENT is preserved, not filtered by Agr. and assigned to NPtbe, while the obligatory THEME is realized as the internal, structural, and obligatory NPAj.

It has been argued by several scholars that antipassive is also to be found in instances like


(34) takuvanga vs. takuvuq taku- -vanga taku- -φ- -vuq see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind see ap 3sg,itr,ind 's/he sees it' 's/he sees'

The assumption of a 0-morph for antipassive seems to be very tempting. Doing so allows this group of verbal roots to be treated uniformly with other roots exhibiting the feature Agrc. If it turns out that these verbs equally require an NP complement, this would seem to be further evidence for a 0-morph in antipassive. In fact, the objectless sentences in (35)-<36) are ungrammatical, in contrast to (37M38):

(35) *Miki takuvuq

(36) *Miki sanavuq

(37) Miki takuvuq nanumik Miki -φ taku- -vuq nanu(q) -mik Mike abs see 3sg,itr,ind polar bear obj 'Mike sees a polar bear'

(38) Miki sanavuq qajamik Miki -0 sana- -vuq qaja(q) -mik Mike abs work 3sg,itr,ind kayak obj 'Mike makes/works at a qajaq'

Potentially all verbal forms that show a comparable "switch" from Agre to Agr, without overt antipassive marking would be candidates. Reflexivization is likewise accomplished by change from Agr. to Agrt. Interestingly enough, an objective noun phrase serves to emphasize the reflexivity:

(39) ingminik tuquttuq tuqu(q)- -tuq

self kill 3sg,itr,nom part 'he killed himself

(40) uvannik kapijunga uvanga -mik kapi- -junga me obj stab lsg,itr,nom part Ί stabbed myself

but it is by no means obligatory - except with the critical class of verbal roots: (41) ingminik takuvuq

taku- -vuq self see 3sgjtr,ind 's/he sees her/himself


as opposed to

(42) nanumik takuvuq nanu(q) -mik taku- -vuq polar bear obj see 3sg,itr,ind 's/he sees a polar bear'

At first glance this gives the impression of a great parallelism between antipassive and reflexive. But it must be kept in mind that (39) and (40) are reflexive anyway, without the semantic clarification of overt 'self; in contrast, takuvuq will never be interpreted reflexively without the explicit semantic addition of 'self. So if we look at taku-, taken as a prototypical example for the whole group, it is obvious that taku- exhibits different properties from the group that takes -si- for antipassive, such as kapi- 'stab'. But most important is the fact that antipassive is not just a re-arrangement of case assignment triggered by Infi. Antipassive is primarily a mutation of the default argument structure. All roots which take -si- are clearly agentive; they denote prototypical actions and controlled actions which require an animate if not human actor. Iriss', Ίά11\ 'stab', 'touch', *bite' ( but not 'chew'!)."5 This is not the case with the "ambiguous" verbs under consideration: most, if not all are verbs of perception, experiencer predicates - with the critical exception sana-'work', which semantically seems to share the features of the first group. Interestingly enough, the group of verbal nuclei classified above as result predicates, Cbreak', 'split', 'spill', etc.) provide the most convincing argument against a zero-antipassive analysis. As has been pointed out, all of them acquire a nonagentive reading when inflected for Agr..

(43) a. kaapi kuvijuq kaapi -φ kuvi- -juq coffee abs spill 3sg,itr,nom part 'the coffee spills'

This nonagentive reading clearly differs from antipassive, and consequently (43a) cannot be interpreted as an antipassive sentence. To emphasize the difference, moreover, an overt antipassive can easily be created:

(43) b. arnaq kaapimik kuvisijuq arnaq -0 kaapi -mik kuvi- -si- -juq woman abs coffee obj spill ap 3sg,itr,nom part 'the woman spills the coffee'

In the light of these data, antipassive seems to be primarily a semantically conditioned transformation, which might be called "actor/agent preservation" and a zero morph is no longer plausible. To once again consider the result


predicates (nuclei like kuvi-), it might be argued that Infl[AgrJ is inherent to the nucleus, while Infl[Agrc] introduces the argument and case position of AGENT:

(44) arnaup kaapi kuvijanga arna(q) -up kaapi -0 kuvi- -janga woman erg coffee abs spill 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 'the woman spills the coffee'

This clearly distinguishes the result class of nuclei from the taku- group, which can normally not be used agentively:

(45) nanumik takuvuq nanu(q) -mik taku- -vuq polar bear obj see 3sg,itr,ind 's/he sees a polar bear'

Further evidence comes from the fact that

(46) *Jaani takuvuq

was considered to be incomplete by all consultants. A straightforward interpretation holds that taku- and the other members of this group are basically V[Agre] in syntactic and semantic form but lack the semantic capacity to assign AGENT to NPe. Since the semantic role these roots can assign to the e-argument (which would be expected to bear ergative case) is not AGENT but EXPERIENCER, no exceptional role assignment is required in case of InflfAgrJ. Whereas in antipassive

(47) a. anaananga nutararmik kuniksijuq anaana -nga nutara(q) -mik kunik- -si mother poss,abs child obj kiss ap AGENT THEME 'the mother kisses the child'

the semantic role AGENT is assigned exceptionally - if not to say in contradiction to the default case system - this is not true of taku-, which lacks an AGENT:

(47) b. anaananga nutararmik takuvuq anaana -nga nutara(q) -mik taku- -vuq mother poss,abs child obj see 3sg,itr,ind EXPERIENCER THEME 'the mother sees the child'

- -m 3sg,itr,nom part


(48) anaanani nutaraq takuvanga anaana -ni nutara(q) -0 taku- -vanga mother poss,3erg child abs see 3sg/3sg,tr,ind EXPERIENCE!* THEME "ItSj (own) mother sees the child,'

which seems to be more "exceptional", since taku- is not likely to be able to assign AGENT to the NPe. Consequently, this group of verbs seems to be truly ambiguous: they exhibit syntactic as well as synthetic behavior which designates them as Agre but are semantically not agentive.

Thus, takuvuq does not seem to be an antipassive, because it displays a different pattern of role assignment. In a way, verbal nuclei like taku-resemble nuclei of motion like tikit- 'arrive', pisuk- 'walk' or aullaq- 'leave, be absent', which are primarily Agr, verbs, but of which it is sometimes claimed that they may take Agre inflection:

(49) Jaaniup illunga tildppanga Jaani -up illu -nga tiki(t)- -panga John erg house poss,4abs arrive 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 'John arrives at his house'

(50) Jaani tikippuq"6

Jaani -φ tiki(t)- -puq John abs arrive 3sg,itr,ind 'John arrives'

In the absence of crystal clear verification on this point, we will abide by the following safe formulation: antipassive is a semantic process focusing on the preservation of the semantic role AGENT. Consequently, only nuclei or complexes that are clearly agentive may undergo antipassivization. Verbal complexes which bear the feature Infi [Agr.] can be interpreted as antipassive if they are marked by the antipassive affix -si-.

Note that it is not -si- which assigns AGENT: it is not possible for -si- to be affixed to a nonagentive root and then provide the AGENT role, as, for instance, -tit- 'cause' does:

(51) anitittanga ani- -tit- -tanga V[AgrJ -aff->[Agre] Infl[Agre] go out cause 3sg/3sg,tr,nom part 's/he causes s.o. to go out'

(52) *anisijanga


But on the other hand -si- is not simply transparent to the semantic features of the root, as -juma-l-ruma- is. The AGENT role of -si- is necessarily coindexed with the AGENT role of the root

This interpretation of antipassive retreats into the security of empirical certainty and takes into account the semantic properties of -si- as well as the derived verbal roots. As a result, the characterization must include the feature [+AGENT].

Antipassive: +V[AgrJ; -j/-t; {NP^} a) V[Agre] +-si-: > Infl[AgrJ{NP^}

+AGENT > +AGENT

With the proposal that the NP-complement of the antipassive be differentiated from adjuncts and subordinate clauses, a syntactically relevant level of synthesis is distinguished from a purely syntactic level. Whereas Infi, itself being the terminal affix of a synthetic process, structures the purely syntactic level in the manner explained in detail above, this structure can apparently be influenced or modified on the argument level: part of a synthetic formation process may be (although not necessarily) a change in argument structure; these new argument features may percolate and in the end constitute a possibly deviant argument structure which may not exactly match the default structure stipulated by Infi. Infi itself exhibits many features characteristic of inflectional morphology, hence its name. On the other hand, it clearly has capacities that go far beyond a common morphological understanding of inflection - although inflectional properties as paradigmatic organization, obligatoriness, and the like are maintained. The reader is once again referred to topics as lexical underdetermination or the so-called subordinate moods.

But nevertheless Infi stipulates a fairly rigid sentence pattern along with strict case assignment. In the case of antipassive, an alien argument structure is imposed on a regular sentence pattern. This leads to a conflict between the structure with one external argument forced by Infl[Agra] and the semantic role AGENT assigned by antipassive to this external argument. The structural semantic role of the other external argument, THEME, must now be realized internally, since (1) the other external argument, which is designated to take over the semantic role AGENT, is not available and (2) an AGENT WITHOUT A THEME is not possible in Inuktitut. Or to put it in contemporary terms, since antipassive is argument preserving, the other external argument must appear in the form of a complement:

NP. - [NPcbj - rtAgrJ] AGENT THEME


(53) qimmiup nutaraq kiivanga qimmi(q) -up nutaraq -φ kii- -vanga dog erg child abs bite 3sg/3sg,tr,ind AGENT THEME 'the dog bites the child'

(54) qimmiq nutaramik kiisivuq qimmiq -φ nutara(q) -mik dog abs child obj AGENT THEME "the dog bites the child'

The argument frame of the antipassive kiisivuq would be:

(I) kii- (II) +V[AgrJ AGENT - NPe THEME - NP,

(III) kiisi-AGENT - NP, THEME - NP^

This argument frame shows that (a) the affix -si- assigns the semantic role AGENT to the external argument and (b) Infi determines the formal sentence structure insofar as it permits only one external argument. This external argument is typically assigned the semantic role THEME. It seems that, in the case of the antipassive, the semantic role assigned by the antipassive affix overrides the structural affiliation of the THEME argument to the absolutive case; it necessarily migrates to the position of an internal argument. The original argument structure, namely, AGENT - THEME, is fully preserved in the antipassive; it is merely realized in an atypical syntactic form. From this we may infer the following.

Antipassive is in a sense a "nominative-accusative" structure within Inuktitut. As far as I can discover, this is an isolated case, born of the conflict between the default argument structure and the syntactic structure stipulated by Infi, involving structural case and the argument Grame of the antipassive. The constituents of synthesis can have their own argument frames, which may then be modified in the course of the synthetic process as I have described it: application of (II) to (I) yields (III). Synthetic argument frames are syntactically relevant and can even be dominant. They thus open a potential domain of irregularity or of divergent forms which had not been discernible until now. The actual extent of this domain can be determined only when more detailed investigations focused specifically on synthesis and the interaction of synthesis and syntax have been undertaken.

kii- -si- -vuq bite ap 3sg,itr,ind

-si-+V[AgrJ; -j/-t; [NP,*,] AGENT - NPe > NP. THEME - NP, > M>


This sketch of synthetic-syntactic processes leaves many questions open, questions that necessarily arise out of the general discussions herein. What we can be certain of is the global insight that interaction exists between synthesis and syntax, that this interaction is essential, and that it marks out a domain that is not strictly rule governed. The next question is, of course, how exactly nuclei and affixes can and must be described in terms of a subcategorization frame; as can be seen from the brief discussion of -si-, -juma-1-ruma-, and -tit- given above, it is apparent that affixes do not behave uniformly with respect to features and feature percolation.

An even more difficult question is whether verbal nuclei and affixes should be considered to have "natural" semantic roles which are then freely assigned to structural cases. Or to put it the other way around: how rigidly connected are structural case and semantic role-grid? Can one assume that in

(55) nanusiuqtuq nanu(q) -siuq· -tuq polar bear follow 3sg,itr,nom part 'he hunts a polar bear'

the semantic role AGENT is assigned by the affix -siuq- to a possible external argument? Another question that presents itself is whether speakers prefer the antipassive to the form with double agreement, and whether such preference can be explained on semantic-stylistic grounds or should be seen instead as representing a process of fundamental language change.

Likewise, all questions related to the area of subordinate clauses leave gaps, which were only touched upon here. Subordination also begins as a synthetic process, one which perhaps becomes a syntactic phenomenon only through our translations. We should also remember the many other questions formulated in the text that had to be left unsolved. Answering these questions will require more intimate knowledge of the language.

If in the course of this investigation the impression has been created that this work was focused solely on Inuktitut, I would like to counter that a grammar of Inuktitut can be written only by speakers of the language. Everything else must remain in the realm of linguistic description. Therefore, it was my primary objective to examine linguistic descriptions, as well as the general explanations which are derived from them and of course the theories made possible by the form of these descriptions.

TAIMA.

Notes

1. Cf. Mithun 1988, 1986, 1984; Baker 1994.

2. A similar approach can be found in Sasse 1993, 1991, 1988. Sasse discusses Iroquoian languages, especially Cayuga. His main focus is on the distinction between the lexical categories noun and verb; he argues for a lack of the category "noun" with respect to classical grammatical definitions and the implications for sentence structure as a whole.

3. Cf. Nowak 1987a.

4. See Nowak 1987a, 1987b, 1991b, 1992a, 1992b, 1993c. A comprehensive history of the grammar writing in the Eastern Arctic and Greenland since 1721 is to appear in Schmitter, Peter, ed.: Geschichte der Sprachtheorie Vol.6.

5. See Nowak 1993a.

6. Iqaluit, the former Frobisher Bay, the "capital" of the Eastern Arctic, had 3,300 inhabitants in 1992.

7. See Hamum 1993: 17, 23.

8. This is even more true for the areas of the Northwest Territories inhabited by Indians and the languages spoken by them. The officially recognized languages Slave and Dogrib are each spoken by scarcely more than 2,000 people (2,310 / 2,110), while Chipewyan and Gwich'in are each spoken by only a few hundred people. Cree is spoken by only 200 people in the Northwest Territories but benefits from 70,000 Cree-speaking people in other parts of Canada. The Dene languages (North and South Slave, Dogrib, Chipewyan and Gwich'in) have either very few or no other speakers outside the Northwest Territories. See Hamum 1993.

9. See Bergsland-Rischel 1986 for Egede's and Top's early manuscripts.

10. For the history of the Labrador mission see Brice-Bennett 1981; Nowak forthc. (a).

11. See Nowak 1987a; see also Nowak 1992b.

12. Harper 1985; Peck 1911; Nowak forthc. (a).

13. Cf. Bergsland-Rischel 1986; Nowak 1987a, 1990, 1992b, forthc. (a).

14. Kleinschmidt basically relied on a German based representation of sounds.

15. See Holtved 1964.

16. The chart given below was presented by Mallon during the intensive course. He did not include it in his manuscripts of 1983 (1986) or 1991, most probably because of didactic considerations.

17. See 4.1 below.

18. Cf. Müller 1985a, b; Sasse 1991.

19. Ulis qualification refers to "mainstream" linguistics in western tradition and neglects e.g. Eastasian languages and linguistics.

20. See Bumaby 1985.

21. See Nowak 1993a.

280

22.

23,

24.

25.

26.

27. 28.

29,

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Notes

I am aware of the fact that in the upcoming discussion of a general characterization of polysynthetic languages, Inuit languages do not fit in important respects. Nevertheless, in my opinion Inuit languages are even more "synthetic" than prototypical polysynthetic languages. Cf. Mithun 1988, 1986, 1984. Sadock 1980,1986. See also note 1.

See chapter 4, section 3 (nominality), and chapter 6, section 4 (word classes). The discussion of lexical categories has gained some attention recently. It is interesting to note that with respect to syntactic theory the existence of the basic categories Ν and V is strongly defended, which cannot be a surprise (see, e.g.. Wunderlich 1994; Rauh 1993). It is equally important to note that an attempt to question these classical categories is based on research on Iroquoian languages (Sasse 1993, 1991, 1988).

Cf. the controversy between Sadock and Mithun (Sadock 1986; Mithun 1986).

See especially sections 6.2.3, 6.5, and 8.2.5. These sections also discuss whether there are verbal nuclei that can be both transitive and intransitive.

Evidence for this claim are to be found in Kleinschmidt 1851: 108 and Foitescue 1984: 313; see also Fortescue 1993, 1992a and b.

See Dorais 1988: 76-97.

For examples, see (26)-(27) and (26')-(27') below. There is quite a bit of variation as far as the naming of the relation is concerned. In calling the nonidentity relation the fourth person, I follow Mallon. Dorais 1988 uses "4th person" to designate the relation of identity. It probably would be a real advantage to introduce the unambiguous terminology that is used for instance for Algonquian languages, specifically "obviation".

Fortescue 1984 refers to this mood as the "contemporative".

As Harper 1974 points out, this matrix verb is veiy often just implied. Looking at larger contexts the assumption that a "matrix verb" is necessary is difficult to motivate.

See Nowak 1994b.

See Jensen-Johns 1989.

Obviously, this does not exclude the possibility that such a hierarchically "highest" noun or verb phrase may consist of more than one part, as in coordinations.

It is interesting to note that this sentence was not accepted readily - but not for reasons of grammatically. One would simply not say that. An Inuk would put it as follows: (a) sikituutaarniraqtuq

sikitu -u- -taaq- -niraq- -tuq snowmobile verbal, acquire mention s.th. 3sg,itr,nom part lie mentioned that he bought a snowmobile'

or (b) Jaani sikitumik muviniraqtuqlniuvirumajuq

Jaani -φ sikitu -mik niuvi(q)- -niraq- -tuq John abs snowmobile obj buy mention s.th. 3sg,itrjiom part

niuvi(q)- -ruma- -juq buy want 3sg,itr,nom part

'John says he bought/wants to buy a snowmobile'

In passive sentences noun phrases in dative or prepositional phrases are possible in subject position, as is an expletive es 'it'. But it can be argued that these are not real subjects, since dative noun phrases and prepositional phrases show no agreement with the verb. Some verbs require a complement in dative case, such as helfen help'.

Notes 281

36. Of course there is an exception to the role. It will be discussed below.

37. Roger Bacon, Greek Grammar, between 1270 and 1280; citation after Hovdhaugen 1990: 123.

38. See Nowak 1994a.

39. Bossong 1990 contrasts this development with a universal approach to language. I would rather view it as a necessary complement which must be seen as independent from a truely theoretical evaluation of the diversity of languages, i.e. a non-genetic typology.

40. "... que le veibe de lui-meme ne devrait point avoir d'autre usage que le de marquer la liaison que nous faisons dans not re esprit des deux teimes dime proposition" [...that the verb in and of itself could not have any other use than to mark the association that we make in our minds between two expressions] (Amauld [1685] 1865: 116).

41. Cf. Nowak 1994a; Hoinkes 1991; Beauz6e 1767; Giraid 1747.

42. Cf. Nowak 1994a.

43. Frobisher (1535-1594) had undertaken three voyages in search of the northwest passage during the years 1576 to 1578.

44. Cf. Davis 1880: 20ff; for a detailed discussion of the histoiy of grammar writing of Inuit languages see Nowak forthc. (a).

45. The pagination of the Atlas Danicus is irregular.

46. On the Greenlandic mission of the Moravians (Herrnhuter), see Nowak 1992a, b; 1993c; see also Nowak forthc. (a).

47. Bergsland-Rischel are referring here to the participle, the subordinate mood that expresses the simultaneity of different actions or events.

48. "Relation about the Greenlander's language, inflections and word changes, so far as has been understood with tolerable certainty after much protracted research until the year 1727, composed and written by the colony's minister Albert Top."

49. For example, Bergsland-Rischel write, "The Genindium, later called Modus infinitivus (Thalbitzer's contemporative)..." (1986: 23); today this "Genindium" is usually referred to as the "participle" or "verbal participle".

50. Beck's manuscript is without pagination.

51. See chapter 6, section 2.1.

52. It must be noted that Kleinschmidt views affixes also as "stems", taking a semantic point of view (p. 10, §11).

53. In classical grammar "casus rectus" signifies the "direct case", i.e., nominative, which is not dependent on the verb, "casus versus", the "reverse case" refers primarily to the relation between noun phrases, such as a genitive relation. Oblique cases are the cases depending on the verb or a preposition, such as accusative and dative, but also ablative.

54. Kleinschmidt's modal is corresponds to the objective (-mit) in my notation.

55. Kleinschmidt's casus obliquus include the case called "objective" by me; Kleinschmidt's "objective case" corresponds to the case today called "absolutive".

56. Cf. also Johns 1987a.

282 Notes

57. In 1896 Hugo Schuchardt published a treatise on the "passive character of the transitive in Caucasian languages". Besides moiphological considerations he also puts forward syntactic aspects, which are not discussed by later approaches in the tradition of taxonomic structuralism.

58. See also chapter 6 for a detailed discussion.

59. Kleinschmidt introduced the orthography utilizing accent marks. The spelling -v& corresponds to -vaa, which is equivalent to -vanga, 3sg/3sg,tr,ind 's/he Xes s.th./s.b.'

60. See also Walter 1981. Johns discusses the Nominalist Hypothesis from a syntactic point of view. Thorough examination of the Nominalist Hypothesis is offered in chapter 6, section 4.

61. "shier is an obvious misprint and must of course be "chief.

62. See chapter 6, section 2.1.

63. For a comprehensive survey see Dixon 1994.

64. Cf. Dixon 1987: 6, 1994: 18-22.

65. "John moved the stone" and "John moved" as opposed to "The stone moved" Lyons 1984*: 352.

66. Mallon, Amaquq (personal communication).

67. With respect to the topic under discussion I wish to state that I do not make a terminological difference between "cross reference" and "agreement". In using the term "agreement" I do not imply the obligatory presence of overt noun phrases or pronouns (cf. 3.2.3 above). But the discussion of ergativity to a large extent is about case marking, which can only be observed with overt noun phrases. In a strict understanding Jelinek's statement is true of Inuktitut as well: "Agreement is clearly absent in languages that have pronominal inflection and no independent pronouns that this inflection could agree with" Jelinek 1989: 121.

68. It must be noted that the Inuktitut sentence is as incomplete as its English or German counterparts (9a) and (9b). The example is given for several reasons: 1. examples including people seeing and seeing something are frequent in the discussion of Inuit languages 2. taku- may be inflected transitively as well as intransitively 3. There are a number of verbal roots which, if inflected intransitively, constitute complete verbal expressions, e.g., mikijuq - lie is small'. The fact that takuvuq is not a very felicitous expression in isolation will be discussed extensively below. It is of no importance in the present discussion.

69. Word order of (14c) is not very fortunate and therefore has been changed to standard order in (15). But word order has no essential effects on the interpretation of sentences; Inuktitut might be called a free word order language.

70. Cf. chapter 7.

71. See also Dixon 1994: 207-213; Du Bois 1987.

72. I introduce the terni "agentive sentence" here for illustrative reasons. It will be replaced by and is equivalent to "nominative-accusative sentence type".

73. Lyons 19844: 352-357.

Notes 283

74. The fact should not be overlooked that Lyons immediately makes note of the problems associated with this idea.

75. I have rewritten the following examples from Lyons in the orthography used throughout this book, in order to avoid confusion. In Lyons's orthography the examples repeated below are represented as (1) qimmi-p arna-q taku-b-a-a (2) qimmi-q arna-p taku-b-a-a (p.348). Lyons analyzes the final -q of arnaq and qimmiq as case-marking -q; a claim that is without any substance. Had Lyons known more than just these sentences, he could have realized this fact easily. While he interprets the -p correctly as ergative case, he gives no interpretations of the analysis of taku-b-a-a. Ute inflectional ending -vda, 3sg/3sg,tr,ind corresponds to -vanga, 3sg/3sg,tr,ind. This form was preferred throughout by my consultants. The ending -vaa is easily confused with the interrogative -va? 3sg,itr.

76. See section 6.S.

77. Dixon 1994 and 1979. Dixon makes use of an abundance of linguistic material. In 1979: 59-138 he also cites Woodbury 1975, 1977.

78. Cf. Dixon 1994: 111-27.

79. Dixon 1994: 143-60, 1979: 101.

80. Cf. Dixon 1994: 113-27, 134-37.

81. Dixon 1994: 117; 122-123.

82. Dixon 1994: 111-113, 1979: 101.

83. See Baker 1985, 1988; for discussion Grimshaw 1985.

84. Quoted in Plank 1979: 7.

85. See chapter 7, especially section 7.2.

86. Marantz 1984: 34-35; see also the tables on pages 41 and 51.

87. But see chapter 3, "Intra-clausal or morphological ergativity" pp.39-69 in Dixon 1994. It is perfectly clear that morphological ergativity cannot be reduced to case marking.

88. Cf. Luhtala 1990.

89. Cf. section 5.3; for a semantic interpretation of transitivity, see also Hopper-Thompson 1980.

90. See section 4.1 or Amauld [1685] 1865: 121.

91. Cf. Fanselow-Felix 1987: 45.

92. Drosdowski 1984: Duden Grammatik, 107. It is rather interesting to note that transitivity is not a major topic in standard grammars of German. Engel and Griesbach simply differentiate between obligatory and optional "supplements" ("Ergänzungen"); Engel 1988: 183; Griesbach 1986: llOff. Eisenberg 1989: 290ff. discusses verb valence rather thoroughly.

93. Fortescue 1984: 203, 204; Kleinschmidt 1851: 10ff.; Rischel 1971: 226.

94. Cf. section 3.2.1, as well as 8.2.3 and 8.2.5.

95. See 4.3.

96. See Kleinschmidt 1851: 11; Nowak 1987a: 62ff.

284

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110

Notes

For exceptions see section 6.2 below.

See Nowak 1993d.

One of the consultants interpreted tunivuq as 's/he gives himself/herself to somebody else' i.e., mames.

Recall that -vaal-paa and -vangai-panga are identical in meaning: 3sg/3sg,tr,ind. In Baffin Region Inuktitut -vangal-panga clearly is preferred. Johns took her data from Inuktitut how it is spoken in the Keewatin region.

The inflectional ending -tanga is roughly equivalent to -panga, although it should be noted that the -j/-t forms constitute a paradigm separate from the otherwise identical -v/-p forms. As will be discussed in the following sections, -j/-t indicates the so called nominal participle, while -v/-p indicates the genuine indicative.

For the full intransitive paradigms, see, e.g., Dorais 1988: 69-76.

The data presented in the following were checked in several different situations: first in 1988 by two consultants; in 1992 by three consultants; in addition to this in a lengthy discussion with four women, two of whom are teachers, the other two students at Arctic College; in conversations. The consultants included speakers of all Baffin Region dialects: Iglulik, Mittimatalik, Panniqtuuq, Kangiqhigaapik (Qyde River), Kimmirut (Lake Haibor), Kinggnait (Cape Dorset), and IqaluiL Their ages were, roughly speaking, between 20 and 40. The only one to be totally undecided was the young man from Cape Dorset.

See below, where possible influences/selectional restrictions of affixes are discussed. The above-quoted statements originate from the discussion with four participants. This discussion was set up in order to discuss the paradigms; the participants were especially interested in the topic and had volunteered to participate. They were interested in methodology, especially how to elicit data. Consequently, the discussion did not represent a typical interview situation, since the participants were fully aware of the object of investigation. The other consultants responded on two levels: a first set of sentences was explicitly aimed at the contrast between -vf-p and -j/-t, while the second part of the test was camouflaged, distributed within tests focusing on other topics.

fnnasuk- is composed of pi- -nasuk-; pi- is an empty root, while -nasuk- is given as 'strive to do s.th.' by Schneider (1985: 254). Examples (44)-(47) were discussed by my consultants, iqqavi(it) 'the engine, motor'; iqqaviliuppuk (Labrador): lie works it' can be found in Dorais 1983: 17; no further information on the composition of the word can be found.

See Nowak 1994b, Harper 1979: 88-96.

Harper 1979: 91. For a detailed analysis of (48) see below, 6.4, where (48) is repeated as (213).

I will return to this interpretation in 6.4.

This observation cannot be confirmed by the statements of my consultants, who repeatedly voiced the feeling that "younger people tend to use -juql-tuq in South Baffin"; it must be noted that all of them felt that these were the "ordinary" forms.

As noted in 6.1.2, however, the status of these subordinate moods needs further investigation. Their rede in speech is much more prominent than would be expected, and more often than not the matrix verb or sentence is just implied.

Notes 285

111. "... in gleiches veriiältnis mit dem projekt (tritt)'' Kleinachmidt 1851: 104.

112. See 7.2.7 below.

113. Cf. Sasse, 1993 and 1988. This aspect will not be discussed on a wider scale here, but only as far as there is a direct connection to ergativity.

114. For more on the affixes -qaq- and -gi-f-ri·, see section 6.2.3, below.

115. This is a purely descriptive statement and does not pay attention to the question whether there is a -0- antipassive morpheme or not.

116. Cf. Johns 1987a: 99ff.

117. See also note 99. The different spelling of names originates from dialect differences. Thus Miali is Southern Baffin (Cape Dorset/Kingngait) while Miuri is Northern Baffin (Mittimatalik).

118. See also section 6.5. Under "verbal nucleus" I understand a verbal root, like taku- 'see'; a stem may consist of a nucleus plus one or several affixes. A verbal complex is a complete form. See 3.2.1.

119. THEME is here intended as an undifferentiated cover term for semantic roles that are nonagentive; concretely, this amounts to GOAL or PATIENT roles.

120. ikajuq- "help' is transitive in (136); it belongs to the group of verbal nuclei which can be employed transitive as well as intransitive. Hence, Miki ikajuqluq "Mike helps' is correct too.

121. See 6.4 for detailed discussion.

122. Iqaluit, former Frobisher Bay, translates as 'many fish'; iqaluk 'fish1, -it pi; consequently, all locative, directional, etc., references to Iqaluit must be in plural. The same applies to other plural place names.

123. This example comes from the dialect that is spoken in Baker Lake/Keewatin and was introduced by Johns in a paper read at the 7th Inuit Studies Conference in Fairbanks, August 1990.

124. It must be emphasized that not all affixes behave like this. For example, there are affixes like -tsiaq- that act like an attribute with a nominal base (1) inutsiaq 'a fine person' but may be likewise attached to a verbal base (2) uqatsiaqtuq "he speaks well' (cf. Harper 1979: 77). Because of such affixes, it cannot be generally stated that affixes are heads.

125. For the moment I will disregard the fact that sentences may well consist of verbal complexes only.

126. Cf. Dorais 1988: 28-33. The translation given in (171d) and (171e) is Dorais's.

127. Cf. Dorais 1988: 28-29; the translations given are Dorais's.

128. In (186) arna-mut is case marked with the teiminalis/allative and bears the semantic role AGENT; the woman is the agent of 'touching the man'.

129. Again, the reader is reminded of the fact that arguments don't need to be expressed lexically.

130. See the discussion of Marantz's approach in 7.1.1.

286

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

Notes

See chapter 4.3.

This is especially true erf so-called relative sentences and coordinate structures; see 7.2.7 below.

The alternative interpretation will be examined closely below: the claim that verbal roots are nominalized by an affix and afterwards inflected.

See the debate on incorporation by Mithun 1984,1986 and Sadock 1986; Baker's theory of incorporation 1988 and the discussion by Grimshaw 1986, Grimshaw-Mester 1985; see also Jensen—Johns 1989.

Jacobson, p.c. at the Inuit Studies Conference 1988; see also Jacobson 1984.

It also should be kept in mind that there are no nonfinite verbal forms in Inuktitut and that the quotation form is 3sg. But of course surprising reactions indicating a low level of abstraction, reactions taking into account reality or the given situation, are always possible and pait of field woik.

"... die verbalstämme ... sind ... an sich weder beugbar, noch überhaupt anwendbar, sondern werden beides erst durch eine weitere Verlängerung, nämlich durch einen hinzutretenden aus mehreren theilen bestehenden ausbildungsfortsatz" [verbal stems can neither be inflected nor otherwise put to use, but require an addition, namely, a formative element consisting of several parts, before either is possible] (1851: 11; cf. 46-49).

Cf. Bok-Bennema 1991: 192ff, esp. p. 196.

Both examples originate with Mallon (Phonology and Morphology).

But compare also the discussion of -viniq, 6.2.1.1.

See also the next section on predicates.

Compare also Sadock 1980, 1986; Grafstein 1989 for Ojibwa.

Cf. Sasse 1988, 1993 for Iroquoian languages; Piggott 1989; Denny 1989; Grafstein 1989.

For a discussion of the "perceived", "intentional" tense affixes as opposed to "unperceived, unintentional" ones, see Nowak 1994b.

When I speak of "word syntax" I think of the basic interpretation of the term "syntax" as the combination and ordering of constituents. I do not imply that syntactic patterns are mirrored in any way in synthesis.

Cf. Fortescue 1992a, b and the examples given above; see Mithun 1984, 1986 on incorporation which opens up a new argument position.

"arfenip sarpiata umiap sujua agtorpa, wörtlich: wallfisch (besitzer des thäters, -subjectiv), sein schwänz (thäter, besitz des vorigen, - subjectives suffix: dta), boot (besitzer des thatziels, - subjectiv), sein vordertheil (thatziel, besitz des vorigen, -objectives suffix: β), er berührte es (- suffix α, er es), d.h. der schwänz des wallfisches berührte des bootes vordertheil" [arferup sarpiata umiap sujua agtorpa, literally: whale (possessor of the actor, - subjective), his flipper (actor, possession of the former, -subjective suffix: dta), boat (possessor of the goal of action, - subjective), its front (goal of action, possession of the foimer, - objective suffix: a) it touched it (-suffix a, it - it), i.e. the whale's flipper touched the front of the boat.](Kleinschmidt 1851: 14).

Johns employs the term "relative" instead of "ergative".

Notes 287

149. Sentences (237) and (238) are Johns's examples 1987a: 99-100. They differ in spelling; my consultants all rejected the use of siqumit- with pencils. In Baffin Island dialects siqumit- has the meaning of 'shatter'.

150. Dixon 1987: 5-7 elaborates on the genesis of the label "ergative veito" in nominative-accusative languages and states: "It is potentially quite confusing to use labels nominative, accusative, absolutive, and ergative - which are properly descriptions of the way basic syntactic functions S, A and Ο are realised - also as indicators of lexical orientation'' (p.6).

151. The reader is here reminded of the affix -tit- 'to cause to do X'. See section 6.2.3.3.

152. See also Jensen-Johns 1989.

153. See section 6.2.3.2.

154. For an analysis of passive and antipassive, see Jensen-Johns 1991: 219ff.

155. See 7.3 below.

156. The following data were checked by a wide range of consultants: first by Mallon in consultation with Seporah Ungalaq, in a round table discussion with teachers and students from Arctic College, by the consultants I regularly worked with.

157. This example caused considerable excitement, ukkuaq was rejected by all Baffin speakers, who instead offered matua and paa (North Baffin); ukkuaq was interpreted as 'flop of a tent', but its similarity with ukuaq, 'sister-in-law' caused quite a bit of laughter. ukkuiq- was accepted, but again matuiq- was suggested instead. However, the sentence matua matuiqtuq 'the door opens' was considered weird, because matu-iq- is an incorporated form; consequently matu-jaq- was given too.

158. See Bittner 1987, 1988; Johns 1987a; Jensen-Johns 1989; Johnson 198$ Marantz 1984. Marantz 1984 will be considered at length in chapter 7.

159. But this will not account for the variation in examples (256}-(260). The coexistence of kaapi kuvijuq and arnaq kaapimik kuvisijuq is not easy to grasp if a 0-antipassive is assumed.

160. See section 5.3.

161. See section 5.4.

162. All example sentences here are taken from Marantz, unless otherwise indicated. However, their numbers have been changed for the sake of clarity, and Marantz's interlinear analysis has been omitted in cases where it is not relevant for the ongoing discussion.

163. Marantz's orthography is rather unorthodox; correct are: Greenlandic: angut 'man', meeraq 'child'; Inuktitut: angut 'man', nutaraq 'child', surusiq '(male) child'. The form "takutaupuq" is not in accordance with the moiphophonemic structure of Greenlandic or Inuktitut, it should be takujaujuq or takujauvuq, see 3.2.2.

164. See the detailed discussion of these affixes in 6.2.3 and 6.5.

165. For sentence (4.53), Marantz cites Woodbuiy 1977 as his source; for sentence (4.55) no source is given.

166. "But the verb in (6.22) [here repeated as (4)] is clearly the passive of (6.11a) [= tuni-'give* (agent, goal)]" 1984: 210.

288 Notes

167. (6.9) b. anguti-up titirauti-mik nutaraq tuni-vaa man-ERG pencil-COM child-ABS give-IND3sg3sg The man gave the child a pencil.'

Sentence (5) corresponds to sentence (6.25).

168. For an analysis of -si-, see Jensen-Johns 1989 and 7.2.5, 8.2.5 below.

169. See also Bittner 1988: 156-157.

170. Bok-Bennema investigates primarily Greenlandic, but also several variants of Inuktitut and Yup'ik. As an overall name for all variants she chooses the term "Inuit". Like Marantz, she relies mostly on data taken from other sources, such as Foitescue and Johns. She also uses material from Bourquin 1891 and Kleinschmidt 1851. She partly "modernizes" these data in spelling -q- instead of -K-; moreover she seems not be aware of the fact that Bourquin's data should be handled with some care. Bok-Bennema's access to primary sources is obviously quite limited; a mere handfull of sentences are ascribed to a consultant

171. Cf. Bok-Bennema 1991: 182, sentence structure represented in (76). It is remarkable that Bok-Bennema, arguing from a fairly different position and using tests arranged in a different framework, arrives at a very similar conclusion to the one I will present in 7.2 below. The solution she suggests closely resembles Bittner's proposal.

172. See also the definitions under (78) on page 183; structures (81a-c) on pages 187-88; see also p. 154.

173. Here Bok-Bennema is not veiy careful with her data: it is -gi- and not -gig-; and a morpheme -vaq, which she probably inherited from Johns 1987a: 105ff., I could not trace down in either Greenlandic or Inuktitut. Fortescue speaks of a "marker" -να- or -va(r)- 1984: 289. This marker is a left over if the final part of the transitive inflection is separated off and interpreted as identical to the possessive system. It is not a morpheme on its own. The hoped for symmetry of -juql-tuq and -jaql-taq on the one hand to -vuql-puq and *-vaql-paq does not exist to my knowledge. So although Bok-Bennema's reproduction of data is fairly reliable, mistakes of this kind can be discerned every now and then; it is probably inevitable if the data are taken mainly from secondary sources. Since her book is widely accepted within the GB framework, this process will most likely go on and leave its imprint on the understanding of Inuit languages.

174. Her argumentation is a bit confusing, but she clearly refers to the possessive paradigm in the absolutive case, not the ergative case. This detracts from her argument aiming at an ergative split based on transitivity. Cf. Fortescue 206-207.

175. For a detailed discussion of split systems, see Dixon 1994: 70-110.

176. Speas's 1991 discussion is very interesting in this regard. See especially 409ff.

177. Cf. Bok-Bennema 1991: 52, who also points out that agreement is not just a formal relation marking without synthetic capacities of its own.

178. See, for example. Wunderlich's hierarchy discussed in 3.2.4.

179. Compare 3.2.1.

180. See Mithun 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989; Baker 1985, 1988; Sadock 1980, 1986.

181. See also Jensen-Johns 1989.

182. Keenan-Comrie 1977: 83; Woodbury 1975 was not available to me.

Notes 289

183. The reader is referred to the in-depth discussion in section 6.2.1.

184. See Smith 1984:293,296f. Examples are taken from Smith 1984 or were rephrased after the fashion of Smith. If the data are directly quoted, the Labrador Inuttut orthography is retained.

185. This sentence is suggested as replacement of (11) in footnote 8.

186. The diagram (21) represents example (4).

187. All the data discussed here have been examined not only by several single consultants. Relativization and coordination phenomena were in addition discussed in a group of translator/interpreter trainees at Arctic College, not in the form of a questionnaire. The situation was quite embarrassing, since the Inuit made it very clear that they regarded constructions of this type as typically qallunat (i.e., typical for whites).

188. This finding seems to have significant consequences. First, it reveals the biased view of the data - and the possibility of their being manufactured. Second, it clearly emphasizes the importance of synthesis and especially inflection. The key status usually accorded syntactic configurations must be reconsidered.

189. Harper 1974: 22 emphasizes the special importance of the participial, but conditional and causalis are in fact equally important. See also Woodbury 1977: 309; Bergsland 1994 depicts a comparable situation for Aleut

190. Johns 1987a: 178 discusses anaphoric «»reference extensively. The morpheme -mani she gives instead of -gamiuk was not known to any of my consultants and must be peculiar to the Baker Lake dialect.

191. See Dorais 1988: 28-29, 30; Harper 1974: 52-54. Both of them point to the terminalis as the "instrumental" case.

192. Cf. Hale 1983; Jelinek 1984, 1989; Grafstein 1989.

193. For a discussion of phonological variations, the reader is referred to Rischel 1974 and to Foitescue 1992a, 1992b, 1993 for a discussion of morphological variation.

194. See, e.g., Spencer 1991: 177ff., esp. 186-187; Williams 1981b; Jensen-Johns 1989.

195. See also 8.2.5.

196. For all other forms, see Dorais 1988.

197. One exception is the multiple possessive construction, in which the different "owners" all may appear in the ergative case.

Jaaniup illungata ukkuanga Jaani -up illu -ngata ukkua(q) -nga John erg house erg door abs 'John's house's door'

198. See example (25) above.

199. See 7.2.7 above.

200. See 6.2.3 above.

201. Cf. Bok-Bennema 1991: 275.

202. See the discussion in chapter 6.5.

203. See the discussion of these roots in chapter 6.1.

References

Adelung, Johann Christoph 1970 [1806] Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachkunde. Fortgesetzt und bearbeitet von

Johann Severin Vater. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms. Anderson, Stephen

1976 "On the notion subject in ergative languages", in: Chartes Li (ed.), 1-23. Arnauld, Antoine

1865 [1685] La logique ou l'art de penser, contenant, outre les regies communes, plusieurs observations nouvelles, propres a former le jugement. Logique de Port Royal. Edition classique prec6dee d'une introduction. Paris: Jacques Lecoffre.

Baker, Marie 1985 "The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation", Linguistic inquiry 16:

373-416. 1988 Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. 1994 The polysynthesis parameter. [MS]

Bamum, Francis SJ. [1901] Grammatical fundamentals of the Innuit language as spoken by the Eskimo of

the western coast of Alaska. Boston/London: The Athenaeum Press. 1970 Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms.

Basse, Bjame-Jensen, Kirsten (eds.) 1979 Eskimo languages. Their present day condition. Aarhus: Arcona.

Beauzee, Nicolas 1767 Grammaire generale ou exposition raisonnee des elements nicessaires du

langage: Pour servir de fondement ä l'itude de toutes les langues. Paris. Beck,Johann

1755 Eine grammaticalische Einleitung zur Erlernung der grönländischen Sprache, nebst derer Nomina et verb. Flexion und unterschiedenen grönländischen mit Fleiß zusammengetragen zum Gebrauch. [MS, Archiv der Briideranität Hermhut].

Bergsland, Knut 1955 A grammatical outline of the Eskimo language of West Greenland. Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Oslo. IDC Micro-Edition N-459. 1994 "Two types of Aleut complementation compared with Eskimo." Acta

Linguistica Hafmensta 27/1: 67-77. Bergsland, Knut-Vischel, J0rgen (eds.)

1986 Pioneers of Eskimo grammar. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague Vol. 21.

Besten, Hans den 1985 "Some remarks on the ergative hypothesis", in: Werner Abraham (ed.),

Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 53-74. Bittner, Maria

1987 "On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions", International Journal of American Linguistics 53/2: 194-231.

1988 Canonical and non-canonical argument expressions. [PhD dissertation, Dep. of Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin.]

Bobe, Louis 1952 Hans Egede. Colonizer and missionary of Greenland. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde

and Bagger.

292 References

Bok-Bennema, Reineke 1991 Case and agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Poris.

Bossong, Georg 1990 Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie in der Romania. Tübingen: Narr.

Bourquin, Theodor 1891 Grammatik der Eskimosprache wie sie im Bereich der

Missionsniederlassungen der Brüdergemeine an der Labradorküste gesprochen wird. London: Moravian Mission Agency / Gnadau: Unitätsbuchhandlung.

Β rekle, Herbert E.-Edeltraut Dobnig-Jülch-Hans Jürgen Höller-Helmut Weiß (eds.) 1992- Bio-Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Sprachwissenschaft des 18.

Jahrhunderts. 8 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Β rice-Bennett, Carol

1981 Two opinions: Inuit and Moravian missionaries in Labrador 1804-1860. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's.

Bumaby, Barbara 1985 Promoting native writing systems. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education. BursiU-Hall, G.L.-Ebbesen, Sten-Koemer, Konrad (eds.)

1990 De ortu grammatica. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bybee, Joan

1985 Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 1992 Current Morphology. London/New York: Routledge.

Cole, Peter-Sadock, Jerrold 1977 Grammatical relations. (Syntax and Semantics 8.) New Yoik: Academic Press.

Comrie, Bernard 1978 "Ergativity", in: Winfried P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the

phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas Press, 329-394. 1981 Language universal and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Covington, Michael 1984 Syntactic theory in the high middle ages. Modistic models of sentence

structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cranz, David

1770 Historie von Grönland enthaltend die Beschreibung des Landes und der Einwohner und insbesondere die Geschichte der dortigen Mission der evangelischen Brüder zu Neu-Herrnhut und Lichtenfels. Barby: Unitätsbuchhandlung.

Creider, Chet 1978 "The syntax of relative clauses in Inuktitut", Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2.

David, Christian 1733 Ein Manuskript vom bruder Christian David, wie er sich bemüht hat, die

grönländische Sprache zu verbessern, nebst dazwischen kommenden Betrachtungen über biblische Gespräche. Ms. December 14th, 1733. Royal Library Copenhagen (Archiv der Brüderuni tat Hermhut).

Davis, John 1880 The Voyages of John Davis The Navigator. Edited with an Introduction and

Notes by Albert Hastings Markham, Captain R.N., F.R.G.S. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society.

References 293

DeLancey, Scott 1981 "An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns", Language 57/3:

626-657. Denny, J. Peter

1989 "The nature of polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo", in: Donna B. Gerdts- Karin Michelson (eds.), 230-258.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1979 "Ergativity", Language 55: 59-138. 1987 Studies in Ergativity. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dorais, Louis-Jacques 1978 Iglulingmiut Uqausingit. [The language of Igloolik, N.W.T.] Qu6bec:

Universite Laval. 1980 The Inuit Language in Southern Labrador from 1694-1785. National Museum

of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 66. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.

1983 An analytical lexicon of modern Inuktitut in Quebec-Labrador. Quebec: Les Presses d'Universite Laval.

1988 Tukilik. An inuktitut Grammar for all. Quebec: Inuksiutiit Katimajiit. Drosdowski, Günter-Gerhard Augst-Henmann Gelhaus-Helmut Gipper-Max Mangold-Horst Sitta-Hans Wellmann-Christian Winkler (eds.)

1984 Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Duden Vol. 4. Mannheim-Wien-Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut Dudenverlag.

Dorais, Louis-Jacques-Robbe, Pierre 1986 Tunumiit Oraasiat. [The East-Greenlandic Inuit language.] Quäiec: Centre

d'etudes nordiques de l'universitl Laval. Du Bois, J.

1987 "The discourse basis of ergativity". Language 63, 805-855.

Egede, Paul 1736 Grönländische Grammatica. Ms 8.10.1736. Archiv der Bniiderunität Hermhut. 1750 Dictionarium Grönlandico-Danico-Latinum. Hafniae. Royal Library

Copenhagen. 1760 Grammatica Grönlandico-Danico-Latina edita α Paulo Egede. Havniae. Royal

Library Copenhagen. Eisenberg, Peter

19892 Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart: Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Engel, Ulrich 1988 Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Groos.

Fabricius, Otho 1791 Fors^g til en forbedret Grjntandsk Grammatica [An attempt to improve the

grammar of Greenlandic.] Ki0benhavn. Royal Library Copenhagen. Fanselow, Gisbert-Sascha Felix

1987 Sprachtheorie. Vols. 1-2. Tübingen: Francke. Fortescue, Michael

1979 "The relationship of derivation to external syntax in West Greenlandic", Proceedings of the 5th Scandinavian conference of linguistics 23-28.

1980 "Affix ordering in West Greenlandic derivational processes". International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 259-278.

1984 West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.

294 References

1992a "The development of moiphophonemic complexity in Eskimo languages". Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 5-27.

1992b "Morphophonemic complexity and typological stability in a polysynthetic language family". International Journal of American Linguistics 58: 242-248.

1993 "The acquisition of West Greenlandic", in: Dan Slobin( ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition. 3 vols. Hillsdale/London: Lawrence Erlbaum, Vol. Ill: 111-219.

Freytag, A. 1846 [1839] Grammatik und Hülfsbuch zur Erlernung der der Eskimosprache. MS Archiv

der Briiderunität Hermhut. Frobisher, Martin

1867 The three Voyages of Martin Frobisher in Search cf α Passage to Cathaia and India by the Νorth-West. AD. 1576-1578. Reprinted from the first Edition of Hakluyt's Voyages, with sections from Manuscript Documents in the British Museum and State Paper Office. By Rear-Admiral Richard Collenson, C.B. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society.

Gerdts, Donna-Karin Michelson 1989 Theoretical perspectives on native American languages. Albany: State

University of New Yoric Press. Gesner, Conrad

1555 Mithridates. De differentiis linguarum tum veterum tum quae hodie apud diversas nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt. Zürich: Tiguri excudebat Froschovems.

Girard, Gabriel 1747 Les vrais principes dela langue fran$oise ou la parole riduite en methode,

conformiment aux lois de I'usage en seize discours. Paris. Givon, Talmy

1980 "The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements". Studies in Language 4/3: 333-377.

1976 "Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement", in: Chailes Li (ed.), 149-188. Grafstein, Ann

1989 "Disjoint reference in a 'free word order' language", in: Donna B. Gerdts-Karin Michelson (eds.), 163-175.

Griesbach, Heinz 1986 Neue deutsche Grammatik. Berlin/München: Langenscheidt

Grimshaw, Jane 1986 " A Morphosyntactic Explanation for the Mirror Principle", Linguistic Inquiry

17/4: 745-749. Grimshaw, Jane-R.A. Mester

1985 "Complex Verb Formation in Eskimo", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 1-19.

Guilfoyle, Eithne-Henrietta Hung-Lisa Travis 1992 "Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages".

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10/3: 375-414.

Hale, Ken 1983 "Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages". Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5—47. Hammerich, L.L

1951 "The cases of Eskimo", International Journal of American Linguistics 17: 18-22.

References 295

Hamp, Eric (ed.) 1976 Papers on Eskimo and Aleut Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Η am um, Betty 1993 Eight official languages: meeting the challenge. First annual report of the

languages commissioner of the Northwest Territories for the year 1992-1993. Submitted to the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, November 1993, YeUowknife.

Harper, Kenn 1974 Some aspects of the Grammar of the dialects of Cumberland Peninsula and

North Baffin Island. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Mercury Series, Ethnology Division.

1979 Suffixes of the Eskimo dialects of Cumberland Peninsula and North Baffin Island. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 54.

1985 "The early development of Inuktitut syllabic orthography". Etudes!InuitlStudies 9/1: 141-162.

Hinz, Reverend J. 1946 Grammar and vocabulary of the Eskimo Language. Published by the Society

for propagating the Gospel. The Moravian Church. Bethlehem, Penn. Hoekstra, Teun

1984 Transitivity. Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.

Hoinkes, Ulrich 1991 Philosophie und Grammatik der französischen Aufklärung. Untersuchungen

zur Geschichte der Sprachtheorie und französischen Grammatikographie im 18. Jahrhundert. Münster Nodus.

Holtved, Erik (ed.) 1964 Kleinschmidts Briefe an Hieodor Bourquin. Meddelelser om Grönland 140/3.

Hopper, Paul-Sandra Thompson 1982 Studies in transitivity. Syntax and Semantics 15. New York: Academic Press. 1980 "Transitivity in grammar and discourse". Language 56/2: 251-299.

Hovdhaugen, Even 1990 "Una et eadem: some observations on Roger Bacon's Greek Grammar", in:

Bursill-Hall-Ebbesen-Koemer (eds.), 17-31. Jacobson, Steven

1984 Central Yup'ik Dictionary. Alaska Native Language Center, Fairbanks. Jelinek, Eloise

1984 "Empty categories, case and configurationality". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39-76.

1989 "The Case split and Pronominal Arguments in Choctaw", in: Maracz, Laszl6-Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality. The Typology of Asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris, 117-141.

Jellinek, Max Hermann 1968 [1913] Von den Anßngen bis auf Adelung. Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen

Grammatik Vol. 1. Heidelberg: Winter. Jensen, John

1990 Morphology. Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Jensen, John-Alana Johns 1989 "The morphosyntax of Eskimo causatives", in: Donna B. Gerdts-Karin

Michelson (eds.), 209-229.

296 References

Johns, Alan a 1984a "Grammatical relations and case-assignment in Eskimo", Cahiers linguistiques

d'Ottawa 12: 49-87. 1984b "Dative 'movement' in Eskimo", Proceedings on the parasessions on lexical

semantics. The Chicago Linguistic Society, 162-172. 1987a Transitivity and grammatical relations in Inuktitut. PhD Dissertation,

University of Ottawa. 1987b "Inter-referential predication in Eskimo", Proceedings of the 17th annual

meeting cfNELS, GLSA. University of Massachusetts, Amherst [No indication of pages.]

1992 "Deriving ergativity". Linguistic Inquiry 23/1: 57-87. 1993 "Symmetry in Labrador Inuttut", in: Jonathan Bobaljik-Colin Phillips (eds.),

Papers on case and agreement I. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 43-57.

Johnson, Marion 1980 Ergativity in Inuktitut in Montague grammar and in relational grammar.

Blocmington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.

Keenan, Edward L. 1976 "Towards a universal definition of 'subject"', in: Charles Li (ed.), 305-333. 1984 "Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction". Linguistics 22:

197-223. 1987 Universal Grammar. Fifteen essays. London: Croom Helm.

Keenan, Edward-Bernard Comrie 1977 "Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar", Linguistic Inquiry 8/1:

63-100. 1979 "Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy". Language 55/2: 333-335.

Kleinschmidt, Samuel 1851 Grammatik der grönländischen spräche mit theilweisem einschluss des

Labradordialects. Berlin: Reimer. [1991] Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms.

Königseer, Christof Michael 1777 Verbesserte grönländische Grammatica. MS 1.8.1777. Archiv der Briideranität

Hermhut. Kölbling, Friedrich

1831 Die Mission der evangelischen Brüder in Grönland und Labrador. 2 vols. Gnadau: Unitätsbuchhandlung.

Li, Charles (ed.) 1976 Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.

Li, Charles-Sandra Thompson 1976 "Subject and topic: a new typology of language", in: Charles Li (ed.),

459—489. Lowe, Ronald

1985 Sig lit Inuvialuit Uqausiita Ilisarviksait. [A Basic Siglit Inuvialuit Eskimo Grammar.] Inuvik: Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement

Luhtala, Anneli 1990 "On the concept of transitivity in Greek and Latin grammars", in: Gualtiero

Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar III. University of Bologna: Editrice CLUEB Bologna, 19-56.

Lyons, John 19846 [1968] Einführung in die moderne Linguistik. München: Beck.

References 297

MacLean, Edna Ahgeak 1986 North Slope Inupiaq Grammar. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.

Mallon, S.T. 1986a [1983a] Lessons in Inuktitut. MS Eastern Arctic Teacher Education Program, Iqaluit 1986a [1983b] Drills in Inuktitut MS Iqaluit.

Phonology and Morphology. MS Iqaluit [No indication of year.] Syntax. MS Iqaluit. Introductory Inuktitut. Victoria: Linguistic Programs. Introductory Inuktitut. Reference Grammar. Victoria: Linguistic Programs.

1987 1991a 1991b

Marantz, Alec 1984

Mey, Jacob 1971-1973

Mithun, Marianne

On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge/Mass: ΜΓΤ Press.

"The cyclic character of Eskimo reflexivization", Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 13/14: 1-31.

1984 "The evolution of noun incorporation", Language 60: 847-893. 1986 "On the nature of noun incorporation". Language 62: 32-37. 1988 "System defining structural properties in polysynthetic languages", Zeitschrift

für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41/4: 442-452. "The acquisition of polysynthesis", Journal of Child Language 16: 285-312. 1989

Müller, Beat 1985a 1985b

Der Satz. Definition und sprachtheoretischer Status. Tübingen: Niemeyer. "Geschichte der Satzdefinition. Ein kritischer Abriß", Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 13/1: 18-42.

Nichols, Johanna-Anthony Woodbury 1985

Nowak, Elke 1987a

1987b

1990

1991a

1991b

1992a

1992b

Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samuel Kleinschmidts 'Grammatik der grönländischen Sprache'. Hildesheim: Olms. "Towards a Greenlandic point of view: a re-discovery of Kleinschmidt's 'Grammatik der grönländischen Sprachem, in: Pirkko Lilius-Miija Saari (eds.) The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 289-299. "Zum Verhältnis von Sprachtheorie und Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft", in: Hans-Josef Niederehe (ed.). History and Historiography of Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 759-774. Ergativität und Transitivität. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik von Inuktitut. MS Habilitationsschrift Universität Stuttgart. "Grammatiken des Grönländischen. Ihre Entwicklung von 1721 bis heute", in: Norbert Boretzky-Wemer Enninger-Benedikt Jeßing-Thomas Stolz (eds.), Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien. Beiträge zum 8. Bochum-Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien. Bochum: Universitätsveiiag Brockmeyer, 298-319. "Johann Beck", in: Heibert Β rekle et al. (eds.), Bio-bibliographisches Handbuch zur Sprachwissenschaft des 18. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Niemeyer, vol. 1, 195-199. "How to 'improve' a language: the case of 18th century descriptions of Greenlandic", in: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.). Diversions of Galway. Papers on the History of Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 157-167.

298 References

1993a "Bilingualismus in einer multikulturellen Gesellschaft. Zur Situation von Inuktitut (Eskimo) in der Ostarictis", Zeitschrift för Kanada-Studien 23/1: 141-155.

1993b "Through the looking glass: syntactic structures of Inuktitut and ergativity." Etudes!!nuit! Studies 17/1: 103-116.

1993c "Christian David. Mit Exkurs: Die Hermhuter Briidergemeine", in: Herbert Β rekle et al. (eds.), vol. 2, 206-210.

1993d Syntaktische Phänomene als Grundlage des Sprachvergleichs: Relativsätze. MS.

1994a "From the unity of grammar to the diversity of languages. Language typology around 1800", Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 1: 2-18.

1994b "Tempus und Temporalität in Inuktitut", in: Rolf Thieroff-Joachim Ballweg (eds.). Tense systems in European languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 295-310.

forthc. (a) "A mission for grammar writing. Early approaches to Inuit (Eskimo) languages", to appear in: Peter Schmitter, (ed.), Geschichte der Sprachtheorie vol.6. Tübingen: Narr.

forthc. (b) "Indigenous grammar as a desideratum", in: Hannes Kniffka (ed.). Indigenous grammar in a culture-contrastive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Olearius, Adam [1656] Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung Der Muscowitischen und Persischen Reyse.

Schleswig. Gedruckt in der Fürstlichen Druckerey durch Johan Holwein. 1971 Reprint, edited by Dieter Lohmeier. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Padley, G.A. 1988 Grammatical Theory in western Europe 1500-1700: trend in vernacular

grammar II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Payne, T.E.

1982 Role and reference related subject properties in Yupik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Linguistics 6: 75-106.

Peck, Reverend E. 1911 Eskimo Grammar. Ottawa: Geographic Board of Canada.

Perlmutter, David 1980 "Relational grammar", in: Syntax and Semantics 13: 195-230. 1982 "Syntactic representation, syntactic levels and the notion of subject", in:

Jacobson-Pullum (eds.). The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Reidel, 283-340.

Piggott, Glyne 1989 "Argument structure and morphology of the Ojibwa verb", in: Donna B.

Gerdts-Karin Michelson (eds.), 176-208. Plank, Frans

1981 Morphologische (fr-)Regularitäten. Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Narr.

Plank, Frans (ed.) 1979 Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic

Press. 1985 Relational typology. Berlin: Mouton.

Rasmussen, Christian 1974 [1887] Gitfnlandsk sproglxre [Greenlandic grammar.] Köbenhavn: Akademisk Foiiag.

Ramer, Alexis Manaster 1994 The origin of the term 'ergative'. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung

47/3: 211-214.

References 299

Rauh, Gisa 1993 Grammatische Kategorien. Theorie des Lexikons. Arbeiten des SFB 282.

Wuppertal: Bergische Universität Reed, Irene et al.

1977 Yup'ik Eskimo Grammar. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Resen, Peder Hansen

1677 Atlas Danicus. Tomus VI! continens descriptionem Gothlandiae, Islandiae et Grjnlandiae. Royal Library Copenhagen.

Rischel, J0rgen 1974 Topics in West Greenlandic Phonology. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 1972 "Derivation as a syntactic process in Greenlandic", in: Ferenc Kiefer (ed.).

Derivational Processes. Proceedings of the KVAL Sea-borne Spring Seminar held on board MS Bore April 9-10, 1972, Stockholm - Turku, 60-73.

1971 "Some characteristics of noun phrases in West Greenlandic", Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 13: 213-245.

Sadock, Jerrold 1980 "Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: a case of syntactic word formation".

Language 56/2: 300-319. 1986 "Some notes on noun incorporation". Language 56/2: 19-31.

Sasse, Hans Jürgen 1988 "Der Irokesische Sprachtyp", Zeitschriftßr Sprachwissenschaft 7/2:173-213. 1991 "Predication and sentence constitution in universal perspective", in: Dieter

Zaefferer (ed.). Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics. Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 12: 75-95.

1993 "Das Nomen - eine universale Kategorie?" Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 3: 187-221.

Schmitter, Peter (ed.) to appear Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, vol.6. Tübingen: Narr.

Schneider, Lucien 1985 U lirnaisigutiit. An I nuktitut- English Dictionary of Northern Quebec, Labrador

and Eastern Arctic Dialects. Quebec: Les Presses de lTJniversiti Laval. Schuchardt, Hugo

1920 "Sprachursprung", Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 3: 448-462.

1896 "Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen", Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. 133. Bd., 1. Abhandlung, 1-91.

Schultze, A. 1894 Grammar and vocabulary of the Eskimo language of Northwest Alaska

(Kuskokwim Dialect). Bethlehem,Penn.: The Moravian Church. Schultz-Lorentzen

1967 [1927] "Dictionary of the West-Greenland Eskimo-Language. Eskimo-English", Meddelelser om Grönland 69.

1967 [1945] "A grammar of the West-Greenland language", Meddelelser om Grönland 129/3.

Silverstein, M. 1976 "Hierarchy features and ergativity", in: Robert Dixon (ed.), Grammatical

Categories in Australian Languages. New Yersey: Humanities Press, 112-171. Smith, Lawrence

1981 "Passive as a two cycle process in Inuktitut", EtudesllnuitlStudies spec.no. 5: 101-113.

300 References

1984 "On the non-ergativity and intrensitivity of relative clauses in Labrador Inuttut", Syntax and Semantics 16: 289-316.

Spalding, Alex 1979 Learning how to speak Inuktitut. London: University of Western Ontario.

Speas, Margret 1991 "Functional Heads and Inflectional Morphemes", The Linguistic Review 8:

389-417. Spencer, Andrew

1991 Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Steinitz, Renate

1985 "Zur Struktur und Funktionsweise des Lexikons in der Grammatik", Linguistische Studien A 127. Berlin: Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft, Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1—41.

1993 "Lexikalische Kategorie und syntaktische Funktion", Wuppertaler Arbeitspapiere zur Sprachwissenschaft 9, Kategorisierung I: 79-107.

Swadesh, Morris 1946 "South Greenlandic (Eskimo)", in: Harry Hoijer (ed.). Linguistic Structures of

Native America. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, 30-54.

1948 "South Greenlandic Paradigms", International Journal of American Linguistics 14: 29-36.

Thalbitzer, William [1911] "Eskimo", in: Franz Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages.

Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington. Bulletin 40.

1969 Photomechanic reprint: Oosterhout N.B. - The Netherlands: Anthropological Publications, vol. I, 957-1069.

1921-1923 "The Aleutian Language compared with Greenlandic. A manuscript by Rasmus Rask, dating from 1820, now in the Royal Library in Copenhagen." Journal of American Linguistics 2: 40-57.

1930 "The Absolutive and Relative in Eskimo", in: Aage Brusendorff-C.A. Bedelsen (eds.), A Grammatical Miscellany offered to Otto Jespersen on his 70th Birthday. London: Allen & Unwin, 319-329.

Van Valin, Robert D. 1990 "Semantic parameters of split ergativity". Language 66/2: 221-260.

Veniaminov, Ioann 1846 [1834] Opyt Grammatiki Aleutsko Lis'evskago Jazyka [Tentative grammar of the

Aleut language of the Fox Islands.] Unalaska April 18th, 1934; published Sankt Petersburg 1846.

1944 The Aleut Language. Translated into English by Richard Henry Geoghegan, edited by Fredericka I. Martin. Washington: United States Department of the Interior.

Walter, Heribert 1981 Studien zur Nomen-Verb Distinktion aus typologischer Sicht. München: Fink.

Washington, J. 1850 Eskimaux and English Vocabulary. London: Department of Interior.

Wescoat-Zaenen 1986 Lexical functional grammar. MS Stanford University.

Wilkins, Wendy (ed.) 1988 Thematic Relations (Syntax and Semantics 21). New York: Academic Press.

References 301

Williams, Edwin 1981a "Argument structure and morphology". The Linguistic Review 1: 81-114. 1981b "On the notion lexically related' and "head of a word1", Linguistic Inquiry 12:

245-274. Woodbury, Anthony

1975 Ergativity of grammatical processes. A study of Greenlandic Eskimo. M.A. Essay. Dep. of Linguistics. University of Chicago.

1977 "Greenlandic Eskimo, ergativity and relational grammar", Syntax and Semantics 8: 307-336.

1985 "Noun phrase, nominal sentence and clause in Central Alaskan Yup'ik Eskimo", in: Johanna Nichols-Anthony Woodbury (eds.), 61-88.

Wunderlich, Dieter 1985 "Über die Argumente des Verbs", Linguistische Berichte 97: 183-227. 1993 "Funktionale Kategorien im Lexikon", in: F. Beckmann-G. Heyer (eds.),

Theorie und Praxis des Lexikons. Berlin: de Gruyter, 54-73. 1994 Lexical categories. MS.

Index of names

Adelung, J. C. 54 Amakallak, M. S Amaquq, N. 5, 74 Amauld, A. 52, 57, 97

Bacon, R. 51,57 Baker, M. 2, 90, 139, 156, 207, 220, 229 Beauz6e, N. 52 Beck, J. 14, 55, 56, 152 Bergsland, Κ. 15,229,230 Bergsland-Rischel 6, 14, 16-18, 54, 55 Bittner, Μ. I l l , 151, 186, 188, 189, 196,

202, 204-207, 214, 230, 231, 233, 235, 243

Bok-Bennema, R. 159, 172, 202, 206-209, 217, 230, 231, 235, 236, 270

Bossong, G. 51 Bourquin, T. 15, 206 Bumaby, B. 23 Bybee, J. 165, 166

Carstairs-McCaithy, A. 165 Creider, C. 120, 121, 213, 222, 224, 226,

227

David, C. 54,55 Davis, J. 13, 54 Denny, J. P. 166 Dixon, R. M. W. 73, 74, 80, 86-89, 92,

94, 106, 130, 178, 193, 209, 210, 218, 222

Dorais, L 15,18,35-38,54,74,75,105, 106,108, 111, 118, 124, 126, 144, 145, 149, 157, 234, 257

Dorais—Robbe 15 Drosdowski, G. 98 Du Bois, J. 80 Duden (see Drosdowski) 98

Egede, H. 13, 14, 54, 55 Egede, P. 55,58 Eisenberg, P. 98 Engel, U. 98

Fabricius, O. 14, 55 Fanselow-Felix 97 Foitescue, M. 15, 30, 37, 99, 105, 123,

141, 156, 159, 169, 196, 206, 208, 242, 246

Frobisher, M. 12, 54, 105, 139

Gesner, C. 54 Girard, G. 52 Grafstein, A. 165, 166, 244 Griesbach, Η. 98 Grimshaw, J. 90, 156 Grimshaw-Mester 156 Guilfoyle, E. 231

Hale, K. 244 Hammerich, L. 65-69, 71 Hamum, B. 12 Harper, K. 15, 37, 38, 110-113,123, 140,

159, 166, 229, 234, 262, 263 Hoinkes, U. 52 Holtved, E. 6, 17, 19 Hopper-Thompson 96 Horden, J. 15 Hovdhaugen, E. 51

Jacobson, S. 156, 157 Jelinek, E. 76,244 Jellinek, Μ. H. 53 Jensen, J. 166 Jensen-Johns 38, 138, 150, 156, 179,

181, 186-188, 200, 207, 217, 221, 255 Johns, A. 64, 67, 105,106,118-121,128,

134, 138, 139, 144, 151, 152, 154-160, 169, 173-176, 178-181, 185-189, 201, 206-209, 214, 229-231, 233, 244

Johnson, M. 186,209-211

Keenan, E. L. 212 Keenan-Comrie 92, 210, 212-214, 221,

222, 226, 230 Kleinschmidt, S. 4, 6, 8, 14, 16-19, 30,

38, 55, 58-60, 62-64, 66, 68, 71, 99, 101, 105, 117, 118, 120, 123,130, 134, 135, 157, 159, 171, 1%, 206, 245

Königseer, C. M. 14, 55, 56

Lowe, R. 38, 80, 105, 144, 159 Luhtala, A. 95,96 Lyons, J. 73, 74, 81-86

Mallon, S. T. 5, 8, 18, 37, 38, 40, 74, 105, 106, 110, 118, 120,126, 127, 140, 144, 164, 171, 183

Marantz, A. 92-94, 151, 186, 192-198, 200-202, 206, 207, 213, 226, 231, 233

Mey.J. 215

304 Index of names

Mike, S. 5 Mithun, M. 2, 24, 27, 156, 169, 220 Müller, Β. 22

Nowak, Ε. 6, 11, 14-16, 24, 38, 51-54, 101, 102, 111, 167, 239, 263

Ο lean us, Α. 14, 54

Paniaq, Μ. 5 Peck, Ε. 15 Piggott, G. 165, 166 Pitseolak, A. 5 Plank, F. 86,91

Rasmussen, C. 14 Rauh, G. 27 Resen, P. 14,54 Rischel, J. 99-101, 151, 214, 215, 230,

246

Sadock, J. 24, 27, 156, 165, 172, 220 Sammons, S. 5 Sasse, Η. J. 3, 22, 27, 125, 166 Saussure, F. 90, 172, 243

Schneider, L. I l l Schuchardt, H. 65,91 Schultz-Lorentzen 65, 68, 69 Smith, L. 120, 121, 123, 222-227 Speas, M. 216 Spencer, A. 156, 165, 255 Such, C. 54 Stach, Μ. 54 Swadesh, Μ. 201

Thalbitzer, W. 55,65 Top, A. 14, 54, 55, 101, 222

Ungalaq, S. 183

Veniaminov, I. 15

Walter, H. 67 Watkins, E. A. 15 Williams, E. 255 Woodbury, A. 86, 151, 174, 196, 197,

201, 213, 222, 224, 229, 230, 233 Wunderiich, D. 27,46,218

Index of subjects

ablative case 31, 32, 45, 53, 59, 60, 96, 135, 144, 180, 181, 186, 188, 199, 200, 234, 255, 256, 265

absolutive case, absolute case 32, 44, 45, 48, 49, 62, 66, 68, 76, 77, 80, 82-85, 93, 97, 122, 125, 134, 136, 144, 145, 147,148, 150, 151, 160,162, 170, 171, 174-176, 178, 181, 186, 187, 193, 194, 196, 200, 201, 205-210, 211, 213, 215, 218-220, 232-235, 245, 248, 252, 256, 265, 266, 268, 276

Acc-type see also nominative-accusative languages 204

accusative case 45,46, 59, 78, 80, 81, 83, 93, 96-99, 178, 185, 191, 193, 205, 209, 235, 236

action verb 96 active (voice) 56, 65, 68, 71, 78, 79, 82,

85, 99, 140, 148, 201,268 actor 4, 48, 63, 68, 72, 74,79, 80, 82, 88,

171,269, 272 actoiless, agentless 48,63, 66, 69, 74,79,

230 adjunct 43, 45, 75, 97, 142, 188, 248,

263, 267, 275 AGENT (semantic role) 4, 45-49, 66-69,

71, 77-89, 93, 94, 96, 132, 134-136, 140, 146-148, 150, 151, 174-181, 184-190, 192-194, 198-201, 207, 208, 213, 218-222, 226, 230, 233-235, 241, 250, 256, 259, 265-267, 269, 270, 272-277

agentive languages, agentive sentence pattern, agentive structure 73, 81, 82, 86, 88, 192, 213, 231, 237

agentive veibs, agentive affixes, agentivity 48, 68, 73, 74, 78, 80-84, 115, 117, 128, 131,132, 135, 177,178, 210, 217, 218, 235, 238, 241, 272-274

allative case see also tenminalis case 150 anaphoric binding, coreference 207, 214,

229 animacy, animate 82, 83, 86, 128, 165,

209, 272 antipassive, antipassivization 9, 25, 28,

86, 115, 116, 127-129, 131, 132, 143, 181, 185-191, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 207, 209, 211, 213, 214, 219, 220, 230,

234-236, 241, 247, 249, 250, 255, 256, 267-277

argument shift 78, 146, 268 Australian languages 73, 237

Basque 73

casus obliquus 59, 60, 62 casus rectus 59, 60, 62, 97 casus versus 59, 60, 62, 63, 171, 245 Caucasian languages 65, 73 causalis mood, causative mood, causality,

see also mood 36, 38, 39, 70, 102,167 causative veibs, causative affixes 25, 136,

150, 178, 179, 181,199, 221, 234, 236, 247, 266, 269

Cayuga 3, 153 Central Arctic Eskimo 193,195, 196,198 Chipewyan 12 comitative case see also objective case

144, 195, 198 c o n d i t i o n a l mood , c o n d i t i o n a l i s ,

conditionality, see also mood 36, 229, 262

configuration, configurational 227, 229, 244, 245, 247, 248, 263, 268

conscious par t ic ipat ion, perceived participation, intentional, (aspect) 96, 111, 112, 115, 167,246

contemporative see also participial mood 37, 55, 262

control 88, 89, 96, 99,130, 132, 146, 272 coordination (syntactic) 37, 87, 88, 214,

221, 226, 228, 232, 261, 263 core grammar 57 Cree 12

D-Nom-type 204 d-structure 202-208, 214 deep structure 86 Dene languages 12 detransitivization, detransitive 132, 134,

141, 186, 207,211,222 direct object 4, 9, 46-48, 56, 76, 78, 79,

82, 83, 86, 89, 93, 94, 96, 98, 143-148, 150, 151, 176-179, 181, 185, 187-193, 200, 201, 207, 209-215, 219, 222, 223, 230-237, 241

Dogrib 12

306 Index of subjects

Dyirbal 192, 195, 209, 213, 222, 226, 230, 237, 238

East Greenlandic 13, 15 Eastern Eskimo 11, 12 English 4, 5, 12, 18, 19, 23, 25, 31, 37,

38, 40-43, 45, 46, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 86-88, 96, 100, 115, 118, 124, 150, 154, 156, 165, 167, 169, 175-177, 231, 241

epistemic affix 25, 29, 112, 131, 247 Erg-type 204 ergates 4, 80, 81 ergative 2, 4, 13, 32, 45, 46, 48, 49, 65,

69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79-81, 83, 84, 86-89, 92-94, 119, 134-136, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 160, 169-172, 174-176, 178, 186, 187, 191-198, 200, 201, 204, 206-209, 211, 213, 216, 219-222, 224-226, 231-235, 238, 241-243, 245, 248, 256, 260, 265-267, 269, 273

ergativity 2-4, 6-9, 22, 23, 48, 56, 60, 64, 73, 74, 76, 80, 83, 86, 90-92, 94, 95, 124, 125, 131, 146, 151, 153, 176, 178, 189, 191-193, 200-202, 206, 207, 209-211, 213-215, 218, 222, 230-232, 237, 238, 240-244

ergative language (system) 4, 73, 81, 83, 86-89, 92-94, 151, 153, 169, 178, 191-193, 206, 208, 231, 269

- morphological ergativity 9, 26, 59, 67, 94, 129, 193-195, 201, 206, 208, 219, 242, 247, 263

- syntactic ergativity 151,192, 193, 201, 207, 218, 238

"ergative" verbs (in nominative-accusative languages) 73, 74, 76, 178, 241

Ergative Parameter 92-94, 192-194, 201, 207, 233, 238, 242

Eskimo 8, 11, 12, 15, 37, 64, 174, 193, 211,213,222

event predicate 174, 181, 182, 185, 186, 196

external argument 92, 95, 97, 135, 148, 170, 171, 176, 177, 186-190, 192, 206, 235, 237, 245, 248, 266, 270, 275-277

fourth person 37, 229, 245, 258, 259

genitive case 59, 60, 66, 96, 172, 210, 211

Georgian 209

German 4, 9, 16, 19, 23, 25, 27, 31, 37-43, 45, 46, 53, 60, 74, 76-78, 80, 86, 95, 98, 115, 118, 131, 132, 146, 150, 154, 155, 162, 165, 168, 169, 175-177, 192, 212, 241

-gi-f-ri- 127, 139, 140, 245, 251 GOAL (semantic role) 45, 46, 62, 82, 84,

96, 98, 132, 148, 150, 171, 175, 176, 188, 198-200, 256, 267

Greenlandic 4, 8, 11-17, 19, 54-56, 58, 59,61, 63-65, 68, 69, 71,75,101, 111, 123, 141, 159, 188, 189, 193-198, 200, 201, 206, 208, 213, 236

Gwich'in 12

head 27, 28, 43, 91, 92, 95-97, 101, 120, 122-124, 136, 139, 140, 154, 156-159, 163, 164, 171, 192, 209, 216, 217, 222-224, 249, 250, 254, 255, 261, 264

- syntactic head 156, 217 hierarchy 43, 46, 79, 81, 82, 89, 91, 92,

97, 165, 170, 204, 206, 210, 212, 213, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 234, 240-242, 264

- hierarchical ordering 82,205, 218,231, 232

- hierarchical relations 80, 92, 240

imperative mood see also mood 32, 36, 39, 42, 70, 257, 258, 262, 263

inanimacy, inanimate 83, 86, 165 incorporation 27, 90, 99, 140, 156, 169,

172, 207, 214, 220, 230 indicative mood see also mood 33-37,

39, 42, 69, 70, 105,107-109, 113, 117, 119, 121, 124-126, 157-159, 194, 197, 217, 257, 261-263

indirect object 43, 46, 96, 192 Indo-European languages 4,9,21-23,35,

42, 63, 68, 73, 76, 78, 80, 81, 86, 90, 94, 99, 152, 176, 187, 190, 219, 232, 242, 246, 251, 259, 263

ingminik 130, 195, 196, 217, 219, 271 internal argument 232, 235, 245, 248,

250, 276 interrogative mood see also mood 32, 36,

39, 42, 70, 84, 257, 258, 261-263 Inuinaqtun 12 Inuit languages 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 24,

27, 30, 48, 54, 55, 64, 65, 67, 76, 78, 86, 145, 206, 207, 209, 216, 238

Inupiaq 12, 18

Index of subjects 307

Inuttut 12, 15, 18, 222, 223, 226 Inuvialuktun 12, 80 inventory see also lexicon 156, 167, 248,

250 Iroquoian languages 3, 27, 153, 166

-j/-t 105, 109-111, 113, 115, 116, 160, 249, 250, 275, 276

-jaq/-taq 117, 118, 124, 157, 160, 208, 222

-jau-btau- 85, 115, 116, 118, 134, 135, 180, 181, 188, 195-197, 219, 251, 268-270

137-139 -juaq 28, 164, 268 -juma- 112, 211, 269, 270, 275, 277 -juql-tuq 35, 69, 107, 108, 112, 117-125,

143, 157, 160, 208, 222, 228, 249, 257

Kalaallisut see also West Greenlandic 7, 8, 11-13, 16, 18, 19, 64, 67, 73, 94, 151, 172, 189, 195-197, 201, 202, 204, 222, 238

1-unit 243 -laanga- 112 -laaq- 38, 39,41, 112, 114, 115 -lauq- 29, 37, 40-42, 112, 115, 116, 164,

260 level (of representation, interpretation) 81,

131, 141, 153, 165, 204, 225, 231, 233, 234, 246, 252

- hierarchical level see also hierarchical ordering, hierarchical relations 43, 91, 248

- morphological level 94, 155, 169, 267 - syntactic level 45, 71, 87, 90. 92, 154,

173, 193, 215, 245, 265, 275 - semantic level 92 lexical argument 248 lexical case 97,232,246,267 lexical category, lexical class see also

word class 27, 117, 124, 125, 140, 153-156, 165-167, 168, 191, 206, 240, 247, 248, 267

lexical entry, lexeme, item 27, 90, 91, 95, 98-100, 103, 106, 152, 154, 156, 163, 167, 173, 174, 207, 243, 244, 247, 267, 268

lexicalist approach, lexicalist position 156, 207

lexicon see also inventory 43, 71, 90, 95, 100, 101, 152, 153, 156, 167, 244, 248

-liuq- 120, 164, 260 -llir- 189 locative case 31, 32, 45, 46, 139, 144,

149, 234, 235, 256, 265 logical subject 93, 192-194, 222, 223 - log Sub 192

matrix verb, matrix clause 43, 45, 49, 95, 121, 144, 166, 224, 225, 228, 241, 258, 259,266

-mimql-viniq 112 mirror image 81, 86, 151, 187, 237 mirror principle 90, 207 miss ion , miss ionar ies , miss ionary

grammars see also Moravian mission 6, 13, 14-17, 22, 54, 55

modalis case see also objective case 60, 144,236

mood (in general) 26, 32, 55, 59, 98, 107, 108, 157-160, 168, 173, 208, 227, 244, 247, 252, 253

- matrix mood see also indicative, nominal participle, imperative, optative, interrogative 36-40, 42, 100-103, 122, 123, 167, 217, 223, 229, 242, 257, 262-264

- subordinate mood see also causalis mood, conditional mood, participial mood (verbal participle) 36, 37, 54, 102, 122, 123, 217, 227, 229, 248, 257-259, 263, 275

Moravian mission 14, 54, 55 -muaq- 249,254,255

-najaq- 112,262 -ngnguaq- 30, 112, 114 -niaq- 109,112,114,167 -niq- 112, 167 -niraq- 29, 45, 112, 114, 245, 247 -nnig- 189 nominal complex 31, 247, 248 nominal inflection 25, 26, 28, 39, 124,

140 nominal nucleus 26, 27, 30, 99, 252 nominal participle (mood) see also mood

33-37, 40, 56, 69, 105, 107, 108, 112, 113, 117, 118, 120,121, 123, 125, 126, 138, 139, 143, 152-154, 157, 158, 197, 217, 222, 224, 257

Nominalist Hypothesis 8, 64, 65, 67, 79, 121, 125, 152, 197, 240

nominalizing affix 112,125,138,139,225

308 Index of subjects

nominative case 46, 59, 60, 78, 80-82, 97,204

- nominative-accusative type see also Acc-type 73, 87-89, 92-94, 177, 178, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196-198, 206, 209, 220, 221, 231, 241, 276

nonagentive 45, 48, 74, 83, 84, 86, 94, 101, 132, 147, 177, 178,187, 241, 272, 274

nonconfigurationality 244 Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy 210,

212, 213, 221, 222, 225, 230, 242

objective case 31, 32, 45, 53, 59-63, 92, 123, 124, 133, 134, 142, 147, 148, 150, 161, 171, 186, 189-191, 195, 1%, 199, 200, 209, 219, 223, 236, 243, 256, 265, 266, 271, 277

oblique case 32, 59, 86, 93, 99, 135, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 175, 180, 186, 188, 192, 195, 199, 200, 224, 231-235, 245, 248, 250, 265-267

obviation, obviative 37, 166, 168, 264 Ojibwa 165 optative mood see also imperative mood,

mood 53,70,262 orthography 8, 16-18, 66, 84, 194, 223

participle, participial mood, verbal participle see also mood 39,40, 54,55, 70, 102, 122, 223, 227, 229, 258, 260, 262, 263

particle 24, 99, 155, 221, 246, 247, 249, 252, 259

parts of speech 52, 53, 55, 63 passive 3, 25, 46, 56, 65, 68, 78, 85, 91,

96, 99, 115-118, 132, 134, 135, 146, 150, 167, 175, 177, 180, 181, 185-191, 194-201, 206, 207, 210, 213, 219, 220, 222, 230, 234, 247, 249, 265, 267-270

passivization 96, 98, 180, 199, 214 PATIENT (semantic role) 82, 86, 93, 94,

96, 99, 132, 135, 174-181, 186-188, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200,210, 221, 235, 256

pivot 87-89, 222 polysynthesic, polysynthesis see also

synthesis, synthetic 2, 23, 24, 58, 71, 100, 103, 125, 131, 132, 152-154, 156, 166, 169, 191, 207, 217, 232, 242, 243, 247, 251, 264, 267

possessive 26, 31, 62, 65, 66, 99, 118,

152-154, 157, 159-162, 168-173, 208, 216, 220, 222, 223,226, 245, 252, 256, 260,266

predicative 115, 119, 120, 154-156, 158, 173, 178, 233, 261

prepositional object 96 PRO 207,248 project (Klebschmidt) 59-63, 123 projection 154, 158, 165, 167, 168, 244,

248, 262 pronoun, pronominal 31, 41, 53, 55, 66,

67, 75, 76, 130, 150, 195, 196, 209, 217, 219

proposition 52, 92, 111, 192

-qaq- 29, 30, 102, 127, 139, 163, 229, 245, 258

-qattaq- 110 -qqau- 112,167 -qu- 137, 138, 207

-rasugi-t-gasugi- 30, 112 rationalist grammar 51, 239 referential expression, referential predicate

153, 154, 158, 173, 174, 211, 226, 233, 264

reflexive 35, 84, 104, 126, 129, 130, 132, 147, 174, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188, 195-197, 217-219, 230, 232, 241, 250, 271, 272

relative case see also ergative case 174, 215, 223

relative clause, relative construction 120-124, 169, 210, 212, 213, 214, 221-229, 230, 232, 241, 266

result predicate, resultative 116, 175, 176, 180, 182, 185, 187

S-Nom-type 202 s-structure 202,204-206,214 secondary case see objective case 144 semantic characterization, semantic

interpretation, semantic structure 30, 62, 65, 78, 80, 90, 96, 104, 107, 111, 165, 209, 266, 268

semantic core universals 86, 88, 106 shallow structure 86 -si- 28-30, 115-117, 128, 129, 132-135,

137-139, 142, 143, 146, 180, 184-190, 197, 198, 200, 211, 227, 234, 235, 245, 250, 255-257, 270, 272-277

similiaris case 31, 32, 45, 256, 265 South Pacific languages 73

index of subjects 309

split 204,205,207,209,231 -(ss)i- 189 standard 4, 8, 13, 16-18, 23, 98 state predicate, stative 96, 174 status of inflection 101, 125, 156, 184,

216 structural case, syntactic case 32, 97, 99,

144, 147,190, 1%, 200, 209, 232, 236, 245, 261, 267, 276, 277

subcategorization frame 30, 93, 97, 98, 131, 173, 176, 192, 231, 232, 234, 235, 249, 277

subordination (syntactic) 36, 37, 40, 87, 88, 122, 166, 168, 227, 228, 231, 232, 242, 247, 248, 261, 263, 264, 277

-suq 208 surface structure 87, 89, 92 -suri-/-sugi- 112 -suuq 164 syllabic writing 15, 18 synthesis see also polysynthesis 24, 26,

58, 101, 152, 154, 156, 166-169, 218, 227, 242-244, 247, 248, 251-255, 260, 261, 264, 268, 270, 275-277

synthetic see also polysynthetic 24, 27, 28, 30, 40, 42, 67, 99, 102, 115, 120, 131, 141, 154, 156, 166-169, 173, 188, 207, 211, 217, 220, 221, 243-245, 247-253, 255, 259-261, 263, 267-269, 274-277

t ense a f f i x e s see also consc ious participation and unintentional events 111, 167

terminalis case 31, 32, 45, 60, 135, 136, 144, 150, 179-181, 186, 188, 199, 234, 256, 265, 266

THEME (semantic role) 4, 45,46, 49, 93, 94, 96, 132, 136, 146, 147, 150, 151, 175-178, 181, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 193, 194, 198-200, 208, 221, 235, 255, 256, 265, 266, 269, 270, 273-276

-lit- 116, 132, 135-137, 139, 141, 142, 178, 179, 181, 221, 245, 250, 266, 274, 277

Tongan 153 -tsiaq- 140, 251

-u- 45, 113, 118, 167 unaccusative 86, 177-179, 185,187, 189,

191, 203, 209 unintentional event, unperceived 112,

113, 167 universal grammar 9, 22, 51-53, 57, 239

-v/-p 105, 109, 111, 113, 160 -va-l-va(r)- 208 verbal complex (matrix and subordinate)

9, 28, 36, 39-42, 70, 101, 107, 122, 126, 131, 132, 139, 141, 167, 168, 172, 173, 190, 220, 229, 237, 242, 247, 248, 255, 257, 258, 263-265, 268, 269

verbal inflection 25-27, 32, 40, 56, 58, 61, 66, 67, 101, 152, 155, 211, 216

veibalizing affix 102, 113, 118, 120, 255 vialis case 31, 32, 45, 60, 144, 148, 256,

265 -vik 164 voice 55, 165 -vuqhpuq 35,69,106-108,112,117,118,

121, 125, 157, 160, 208, 257

West Greenlandic see also Kalaallisut 8, 13, 15-17, 123, 159

Western Eskimo see Yup'ik 11 word class see also lexical category 26,

27, 30, 31, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 79. 91, 99-101, 152, 155, 166, 243

word formation 24-27,58, 67,71,90,91, 100, 107, 132, 141, 156, 167, 168, 219, 247, 248, 251

word list 13, 14, 16, 54 word syntax 90, 168

Yup'ik, Central Alaskan Yup'ik 11, 18, 26, 206