THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF MODIFICATION IN INUKTITUT: ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS IN A POLYSYNTHETIC LANGUAGE by Richard James Compton A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Toronto © Copyright by Richard James Compton 2012 The Syntax and Semantics of Modification in Inuktitut: Adjectives and Adverbs in a Polysynthetic Language Richard James Compton Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Toronto 2012 Abstract This thesis explores the properties of adjectives and adverbs in Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut), with focus on the Inuktitut dialect group. While the literature on Eskimoan languages has claimed that they lack these categories, I present syntactic evidence for two classes of adjectives, one verb-like and another strictly attributive, as well as a class of adverbs. These categories are then employed to diagnose more general properties of the language including headedness, word-formation, adjunct licensing, and semantic composition. In the first half of Chapter 2 I demonstrate that verb-like adjectives can be differentiated from verbs insofar as only the former are compatible with a particular copular construction involving modals. Similarly, verb-like adjectives can combine with a negative marker that is incompatible with genuine verbs. This contrast is further corroborated by an inflectional distinction between verb-like adjectives and verbs in the Siglitun dialect. A second class of strictly-attributive adjectives is argued for on the basis of stacking, variable order, optionality, and compositionality. The second half of the chapter examines semantic restrictions on membership in the strictly-attributive class whereby only adjectives with subsective and privative denotations are attested. These restrictions are explained by the proposal that Inuit lacks a rule of Predicate Modification, ii with the result that only adjectives with semantic types capable of composing with nouns via Functional Application can compose directly with nominals. Furthermore, to explain why this restriction does not extend to verb-like adjectives it is proposed that when these modify nominals, they are adjoined DP appositives and compose via Potts’s (2005) rule of Conventional Implicature Application. In Chapter 3 I argue for a class of adverbs, presenting evidence including degree modification, variable ordering, speaker-oriented meanings, and the ability to modify additional categories. Finally, data from adverb ordering is used to compare syntactically oriented and semantically oriented approaches to adjunct licensing and verbal-complex formation. I present arguments in favour of a right-headed analysis of Inuit in which the relative position of adverbs inside polysynthetic verbal-complexes is primarily determined by semantics, supporting Ernst (2002), contra cartographic approaches such as Cinque (1999). iii Acknowledgements I am profoundly thankful to Saila Michael, a speaker of South Baffin Inuktitut, whose knowledge, patience, and insight made this thesis possible. Her thoughtful explanations and helpful comments have been invaluable to me. I would also like to express my thanks to Raigelee Alorut, who also generously provided me with data. All errors are of course my own. I would like to express my deep gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Alana Johns, who supported, encouraged, and inspired me throughout my graduate studies. It was her work with Inuktitut speakers that first sparked my interest in the Inuit language during my MA. This initial enthusiasm and curiosity was further fostered by a fieldwork trip she organized to Iqaluit in the summer between my MA and PhD and another trip to Baker Lake the following year. Her presence on these early trips gave me and other graduate students the confidence (and perhaps also the courage) to make later trips to the Arctic on our own. In addition to sharing her knowledge of syntax, morphology, and the structure of the Inuit language, she has provided me with a wealth of important feedback, identifying connections and possibilities that have enriched this and other work in so many ways. Perhaps more importantly, she has always been a kind and caring mentor. I feel very fortunate to have been her student. I have also benefited tremendously from the feedback and guidance of the other members of my supervising committee. From the early stages of preparing my proposal and throughout the development of the thesis, my appointments with Diane Massam have been so valuable. Her insightful critiques of my drafts have greatly improved the argumentation and discussion herein. Similarly, my conversations with Cristina Cuervo about such topics as lexical categories and Distributed Morphology have contributed to refining my perspective on these and other issues. While Michela Ippolito joined the committee at a later stage, her input in the area of semantics has also been instrumental. Somehow I suspect I would not have been brave enough to present my work to a room iv full of semanticists at SULA in Manchester without her assistance and advice. Thank you also to Simona Herdan, who served on my committee during her time in the department and whose early feedback was important in preparing my proposal. I would also like to express my gratitude to my external appraiser, Rose-Marie Déchaine, whose detailed and thoughtful examination report and additional comments have contributed greatly to the thesis and which constitute a virtual blueprint for future work on these topics. In addition, I would like to thank Elizabeth Cowper and Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, who served on my examination committee. Their comments, questions, and suggestions are greatly appreciated. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to be a graduate student in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Toronto. My interactions with faculty, staff, and other graduate students have been so warm, positive, and intellectually stimulating. In addition to those members of the faculty recognized above, I would like to thank Elan Dresher, who supervised my phonology Generals Paper, and Keren Rice, who served on both my Generals Paper committees. They have both contributed greatly to my phonological alter ego. I would also like to acknowledge the late Henry Rogers, whose Field Methods class on Khoekhoe during my MA was incredible and likely led, at least in part, to my love of data and fieldwork. My fellow graduate students, many of whom I consider friends, are also deserving of special thanks. While so very many of you have enriched my life since I moved to Toronto, I would like highlight my gratitude to Sarah Clarke, Derek Denis, Vanessa Hardy, Catherine Macdonald, Alexandra Motut, and Christine Pittman for their encouragement and merriment over the years. Thank you to my parents, Robert and Linda Compton, whose love and support has been constant. When I was born my grandparents gave my parents a small sum of money for my future education. My parents, and in particular my mother, conscientiously invested it in government bonds and guaranteed investment certificates until I was ready to start v university. Through carefully hunting for the highest interest rates (at a time when rates were particularly high) they had grown it enough to pay for two of my four years of undergrad at Queen’s, meaning that I only needed two years of loans. They also made sure I went to a French Immersion school when I was growing up in Ottawa, and later when we moved to a smaller community that didn’t have a French Immersion program, they ensured that I was able to attend a school in the neighbouring district. Those French classes led to Spanish classes in high school, which led to me applying to go on an exchange to Europe, which ended up morphing into a yearlong exchange to Japan in grade 12 to learn Japanese. In retrospect, it’s strange to think that their one decision to put me in French Immersion in Kindergarten led to my love of languages, which ultimately led me to Linguistics. I would also like to thank my extended family: Blakely, Derek, Heath, Joshua, Kaitlyn, Lisa, Marisol, and Margery Haughton; Daniela, Dennis, Kris, and Tyler Kennedy; my late uncle Allen; and my late grandparents. They have played an important role in my life and I cherish them. Finally, I would like to thank my partner, John Kennedy, for all his love and encouragement over the years. I thank him for putting up with me hunched over a computer or buried in a book on beautiful summer days, for tolerating the shifting pile of books and papers that is my desk, for reminding me to eat at regular intervals, for proofreading my hand-outs and abstracts for typos, for re-assuring me when I worried, and for believing in me when I doubted myself. He has given more than I could ever give him. My research was supported by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS), a grant from the Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP), the University of Toronto’s School of Graduate Studies Travel Grant, and a Canadian Graduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements  ................................................................................................................  iv   Table  of  Contents  ..................................................................................................................  vii   List  of  Tables  .............................................................................................................................  x   List  of  Figures  ...........................................................................................................................  xi   List  of  abbreviations  ............................................................................................................  xii   Chapter  1  Introduction  ..........................................................................................................  1   1.0 Lexical categories in Inuit ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Goals of the thesis ............................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Overview of Inuit .............................................................................................................. 8 1.2.1 Defining Inuit and Inuktitut ......................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 A primer on Inuit syntax ........................................................................................... 10 1.2.3 Orthographic and phonological considerations ......................................................... 14 1.3 Theoretical assumptions ................................................................................................ 15 1.4 Overview of chapters ..................................................................................................... 19 Chapter  2  Adjectives  and  Adjectival  Modification  .....................................................  22   2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Potential adjective classes in Inuit ................................................................................ 25 2.2.1 Stative intransitives as adjectives .............................................................................. 26 2.2.1.1 Attributive modification by stative intransitives ............................................................. 32 2.2.1.2 Compatibility of stative intransitives with comparatives and superlatives ..................... 33 2.2.1.3 Compatibility of stative intransitives with degree heads ................................................. 35 2.2.1.4 Compatibility of stative intransitives with modals .......................................................... 38 2.2.1.5 Compatibility of stative intransitives with the negation marker -it- ................................ 44 2.2.1.6 An inflectional difference in the Siglitun dialect ............................................................. 48 2.2.1.7 Class versus sub-class ...................................................................................................... 51 2.2.1.8 Summary of differences between verbs and stative intransitives .................................... 54 2.2.2 Nominal modifiers as adjectives ............................................................................... 56 2.2.2.1 Position of nominal modifiers ......................................................................................... 56 2.2.2.2 Incompatibility of nominal modifiers with degree heads and resultatives ...................... 57 2.2.2.3 Stacking and variable order of nominal modifiers .......................................................... 59 vii 2.2.2.4 Most noun-modifier combinations are compositional ..................................................... 62 2.2.2.5 Optionality ....................................................................................................................... 64 2.2.2.6 Summary of evidence for nominal modifiers being adjectives ....................................... 65 2.3 Class membership and restrictions on semantic types ............................................... 65 2.3.1 Meaning range of verb-like adjectives ...................................................................... 65 2.3.2 Meaning range of strictly-attributive adjectives ........................................................ 72 2.3.3 Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 78 2.3.3.1 Predicate Modification .................................................................................................... 78 2.3.3.2 Appositive modification by verb-like adjectives ............................................................. 85 2.3.3.2.1 Case-marking and case mismatches ........................................................................ 86 2.3.3.2.2 Comparison with noun-noun apposition in Inuktitut ............................................... 89 2.3.3.2.3 Ability of case-marked verb-like adjectives to stand as arguments ........................ 90 2.3.3.2.4 Discontinuity between nouns and verb-like adjective modifiers ............................. 91 2.3.3.2.5 Stranded modifiers bear case in noun-incorporation constructions ......................... 92 2.3.3.3 Apposition as CI-Application: Potts (2005) .................................................................... 95 2.3.3.4 Semantic composition of verb-like adjectives in Inuktitut ............................................ 100 2.3.3.5 Testing for CI semantics ................................................................................................ 103 2.3.3.6 Further evidence ............................................................................................................ 107 2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 108 Chapter  3  Adverbs  and  Adverbial  Modification  .......................................................  110   3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 110 3.1.1 Previous analyses of adverbial elements in Inuit and Yupik ................................... 113 3.1.1.1 Fortescue (1980) ............................................................................................................ 113 3.1.1.2 de Reuse (1994) ............................................................................................................. 119 3.1.1.3 Cook & Johns (2009) ..................................................................................................... 123 3.1.1.4 Compton & Pittman (2010) ........................................................................................... 127 3.1.2 Outline of the rest of the chapter ............................................................................. 128 3.2 Potential adverb classes ............................................................................................... 129 3.2.1 Evidence for a class of adverbs within the verbal complex .................................... 129 3.2.1.1 Function ......................................................................................................................... 129 3.2.1.2 Stacking and variable order ........................................................................................... 131 3.2.1.3 Optionality ..................................................................................................................... 136 3.2.1.4 Degree modifiers ........................................................................................................... 139 3.2.1.5 Overlap with adjectives ................................................................................................. 141 3.2.1.6 Modifying additional categories .................................................................................... 143 3.2.1.7 Speaker-oriented meanings ............................................................................................ 145 viii 3.2.1.8 Summary of evidence .................................................................................................... 148 3.2.2 Derived adverbials ................................................................................................... 149 3.2.2.1 Function ......................................................................................................................... 149 3.2.2.2 Stacking and variable order ........................................................................................... 151 3.2.2.3 Optionality ..................................................................................................................... 151 3.2.2.4 Degree words ................................................................................................................. 153 3.2.2.5 Relationship with verb-like adjectives .......................................................................... 153 3.2.2.6 Evidence against adverb status ...................................................................................... 154 3.2.2.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 158 3.2.3 Particles ................................................................................................................... 158 3.2.3.1 Categorial heterogeneity ................................................................................................ 159 3.2.3.2 Residual adverbs in the class of “particles” ................................................................... 166 3.2.3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 170 3.3 Comparing two approaches to adverb positioning ................................................... 170 3.3.1 Adverbs as functional heads .................................................................................... 171 3.3.2 Adverbs as adjoined phrases ................................................................................... 180 3.3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 191 3.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 192 Chapter  4  Conclusion  .........................................................................................................  195   4.1 Overview of major findings ......................................................................................... 195 4.2 Empirical implications: a new inventory of categories for Inuit ............................. 196 4.3 Theoretical implications .............................................................................................. 198 4.3.1 Lexical categories in Universal Grammar and Distributed Morphology ................ 198 4.3.2 Parametric variation in semantics ............................................................................ 199 4.3.3 Adverbs are adjoined phrases .................................................................................. 199 4.3.4 Right-headedness .................................................................................................... 200 4.3.5 Word-formation ....................................................................................................... 200 Bibliography  .........................................................................................................................  202   ix List of Tables Table 1: Previous inventories of Inuit categories ............................................................... 2 Table 2: Non-possessed case forms .................................................................................. 12 Table 3: Verbal moods ...................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Forms of the declarative marker in Siglitun ....................................................... 49 Table 5: Revised inventory of Inuit categories ............................................................... 197 x