Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:35:10.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for a DP-projection in West Greenlandic Inuit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Kathleen Manlove
Kathleen Manlove*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence for a DP-projection in West Greenlandic Inuit Abstract The goal of this paper is to argue in favor of a DP-layer in West Greenlandic Inuit noun phrases and in doing so contribute to the argument that the absence of overt D-elements is not directly indicative of the absence of a DP-layer. Inuit is a polysynthetic, ergative language with no overt articles; for this reason it has been argued that a D-head is unnecessary. Others have argued contrastively that a functional projection KP (Case) is necessary (often assuming DP). This paper differs from both camps in the sense that it considers syntactic features specific to D. I present three primary arguments in support of a D-head in West Greenlandic: (i) the D-head acts as the locus of agreement features in possessive DPs, (ii) the D-head is the locus of the syntactic/semantic feature of definiteness; and (iii) a DP-layer is needed to provide a landing site for movement in DP-internal word order variations.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article a pour but de soutenir l’idée selon laquelle il existe une couche SD dans la structure nominale de l’inuktitut groenlandais de l’ouest et de ce fait, nous contribuons à à la littérature qui propose que l’absence de déterminants visibles n’indique pas forcément l’absence du SD. L’inuktitut est une langue polysynthétique et ergative sans déterminants visibles; pour cette raison, certains chercheurs ont proposé que la catégorie D n’est pas nécessaire. D’autres ont soutenu qu’une projection SK (Cas) est obligatoire (souvent prenant pour acquis la présence d’un SD). Cet article se distingue de ces deux camps dans la mesure où nous nous intéressons aux propriétés qui sont propres à D. Nous présentons trois arguments pour appuyer la présence de D en groenlandais de l’ouest: (i) la tête D porte les traits d’accord dans les SD possessifs, (ii) la tête D porte le trait syntaxique/sémantique de la définitude, et (iii) une couche SD est nécessaire afin de fournir une position pour le déplacement dans les variations de l’ordre des mots à l’intérieur du SD.

Keywords

West GreenlandicDP hypothesisminimalist syntaxdefinitenesspossessive structuregroenlandais de l’ouesthypothèse du SDsyntaxe minimalistedéfinitudestructure possessive
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 327 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch. 2004. Topic and Focus within D. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004., ed. Cornips, Leonie and Doetjes, Jenny, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative approaches to ergati vity. Language and Linguistics Compass 2:966–995.Google Scholar
Allen, Shanley E. M. 1988. Noun incorporation in Eskimo: Postpositions and case marking. Cahiers Linguistiques de McGill 5(2): 1–39.Google Scholar
Anderson, Mona. 1983-84. Prenominai genitive NPs. The Linguistic Review 3:1–24.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berge, Anna. 2011. Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Bergsland, Knut. 1955. A grammatical outline of the Eskimo language of West Greenland. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 1991. DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus 3:101–126.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 2001. The DP Hypothesis: Identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 536–561. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Biskup, Petr. 2006. Scrambling in Czech: Syntax, semantics, and information structure. Ms., University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Biskup, Petr. 2009. Phase Model and adverbials. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1987. Semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive. International Journal of American Linguistics 53:194–231.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1995. Quantification in Eskimo: A challenge for compositional semantics. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. Bach, Emmon. Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H., 59–80. Dordrecht:Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 2005. Future discourse in a tenseless language. Journal of Semantics 22:339–387.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria and Hale, Ken. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27:1–68.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1988. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In Yearbook of morphology, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marie, Jaap, 45–65. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1996. The construct in review. In Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, ed Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Shlonsky, Ur, 36–61. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Brugè, Laura. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in the extended nomina projection. In Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 1, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo, 15–53. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in Minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31:319–355.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case-deletion. Syntax 4:147–163.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step-by-step: Essays on minimalis syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David Uriagereka, Juan, and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond volume 3, ed. Belletti, Adriana, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, ed. Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P., and Zubizarreta, Maria L., 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2000. Greenberg’s Universal 20 and the Semitic DP. Universit of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 10:45–61.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36:315–332.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard. 2004. On quantifiers and bare nouns in Inuktitut. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23:1–45.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard. 2009. Phasal words and inverse morpheme order in Inuktitut. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard and Pittman, Christine. 2010. Word-formation by phase in Inuit. Lingua 120:2167–2192.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth and Wechsler, Stephe. 2012. The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30:699–740.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert and van Koppen, Marjo. 2009. Let’s focus on noun phrase ellipsis. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 48:3–26.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 1996. Language in Inuit society. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.Google Scholar
Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2003. Inuit Uqausigatigiit: Inuit languages and dialects. 2nd ed. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.Google Scholar
Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2010. The language of the Inuit: Syntax, semantics, and society of the Arctic. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1983. A comparative manual of affixes for the Inuit dialects of Greenland, Canada and Alaska. Copenhagen: Meddelelser om Grönland.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1990. From the writings of the Greenlanders: Kalaallit atuakkiaanit. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1995. The historical source and typological position of ergativity in Eskimo languages. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 19:61–75.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Jacobsen, Steven, and Lawrence Kaplan, . 2010. Comparative Eskimo dictionary with Aleut cognates. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Frampton, John and Gutmann, Sam. 2006. How sentences grow in the mind: Agreement and selection in an efficient minimalist syntax. In Agreement systems, ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 121–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1996. Is there a FocusP and TopicP in noun phrase structure? University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6:105–128.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Midori. 2011. The structure of multiple tenses in Inuktitut. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40:67–80.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X’-Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Carolyn. 1984. Some aspects of word formation in a polysynthetic language. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 104–115. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23:57–87.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2007. Restricting noun incorporation: Root movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:535–576.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2009. Additional facts about noun incorporation (in Inuktitut). Lingua 119:185–198.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Lawrence D. 1990. The language of the Alaskan Inuit. In Arctic languages: An awakening, ed. Collis, Dirmid, 131–158. Paris: Unesco. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000861/086162e.pdf.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2010. The Amharic definite marker and the syntax-morphology interface. Syntax 13:196–240.Google Scholar
Langr, Kathleen. 2013. Evidence for a DP projection in Inuit. Ms., University of Washington.Google Scholar
Langr, Kathleen. 2014. Possessive structures as evidence for DP in West Greenlandic. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Bakst, S., Leung, H., Lutzross, A., Manker, J., O’Hagan, Z., Pusey, O., Rolle, N., and Sardinha, K., 273–288. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement and syntax in logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, Mark. 2012. Towards an analysis of concord (in Icelandic). In Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Choi, Jaehoon, Hogue, E. Alan, Punske, Jeffrey, Tat, Deniz, Schertz, Jessamyn, and Trueman, Alex, 205–213. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David and orrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, ed. Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy K., 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3:279-–316.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2010. Failure to agree is not a failure: Phi-Agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2009., ed. Van Craenenboeck, Jeroen, 241–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 25: Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. Rothstein, Susan and Anderson, Stephen, 37–62. San Diego & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56:300–319.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1984. Autolexical syntax. Ms., University of Chicago. Cited in Bittner 1987.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 2003. A grammar of Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic Inuttut). Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Language 40:37–52.Google Scholar
Sommer, David, Berthelsen, Chr., and Holm, Erling, eds. 2005a. Aataarsuup irnikasia [Aataarsuaq’s kid son]. (Bittner, M., Trans.) In Kalaallisut Ilinniutit, 27–32. Ministeriet for Grönland. [Original work published in 1972.]Google Scholar
Sommer, David, Berthelsen, Chr., and Holm, Erling, eds. 2005b. Piniartup uqluttuaa [A hunter’s story]. (Bittner, M., Trans.) In Kalaallisut Ilinniutit, 62–64. Ministeriet for Grönland. [Original work published in 1972.]Google Scholar
Sommer, David, Berthelsen, Chr., and Holm, Erling, eds. 2007a. Paakujuk [Sooty]. (Bittner, M., Trans.) In Kalaallisut Ilinniutit 2, 11–21. Ministeriet for Grönland. [Original work published in 1976.]Google Scholar
Sommer, David, Berthelsen, Chr., and Holm, Erling, eds. 2007b. Silliarnamik uqaluttuaq [The tale of Silliarnaq]. (M.\Bittner, , Trans.) In Kalaallisut Ilinniutit 1, 54–60. Ministeriet for Grönland. [Original work published in 1976.]Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Thomasma, Kenneth. 2007. Naya Nuki: Niviarsiaraq qimaasuq [Naya Nuki: Shoshoni girl who ran] (Bittner, M., Trans.). Jackson, WY: Grandview. [Original work published in 1983.]Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37:229–270.Google Scholar
Wharram, Douglas. 2003. On the interpretation of (un)certain indefinites in Inuktitut and related languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Andrea. 2014. Nominalization instead of modification. In Cross-linguistic investigations of nominalization patterns, ed. Paul, Ileana, 51–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wintner, Shuly. 2000. Definiteness in the Hebrew noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 36:319–363.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C 1975. Ergativity of grammatical processes: A study of Greenlandic Eskimo. Master’s thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C 1984. Eskimo and Aleut languages. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5: Arctic, ed. Damas, David, 49–63. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar