AUTHOR: Nowak, Elka TITLE: Inuktitut SUBTITLE: Eine Grammatische Skizze SERIES: Languages of the World/Materials 470 PUBLISHER: Lincom Europa YEAR: 2008
Wolfgang Schulze, Institut fuer Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft, Universitaet Muenchen
INTRODUCTION The booklet (81 pages) is a grammatical sketch of the Eastern Eskimo variety Inuktitut spoken in the eastern Arctic regions of Canada. According to Nowak (p.6), other Eskimo varieties include Inupiaq (North Alaska), Inuktun (western Arctic regions of Canada), Inuttut (Labrador), and Kalaallisut (Greenland). This classification is not without problems. First of all, the term Inuktitut is also used to denote the whole world of Inuit languages, as opposed to Yupik and (extinct) Sirenik. All three language families represent a subbranch of what is conventionally called Eskimo-Aleut. If we take Inuktitut as a cover term to denote all non-Yupik and non-Sirenik languages of the Eskimo branch, the individual languages / dialects of Inuktitut show up as follows (from West to East): Qawiaraq (northwestern part of Alaska), Inupiatun (northern Alaska), Siglitun (northern Northwest Territories), Inuinnaqtun (Western Nunavut), Natsilingmiutut (central Nunavut), Kivallirmiutut (central Nunavut, south of Natsilingmiutut), Qikiqtaaluk Uannangani (northern part of Baffin Island), Qikiqtaaluk Ningiani (southern part of Baffin Island), Nunavimmiutut (northern part of Quebec), Nunatsiavummitut (northernmost part of Newfoundland), Avanersuaq (northwestern regions of Greenland), Kalaallisut (southwestern part of Greenland), and Tunumiit Oraasiat (eastern part of Greenland). In this sense, Novak's description concentrates on varieties of Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin Island), data being collected during field work in Iqaluit, Baffin Island (Nunavut). Qikiqtaaluk (Nigiani) is rather close to Kalaallisut (Western Greenlandic). The writing system of Qikiqtaaluk-Inuktitut (in the following, I simply use the term Inuktitut) is based on the syllabary invented (or adopted) by James Evens (1840) first for Objibwa, later on accommodated by him to Cree. The Inuktitut variant of this syllabary (titirausiq nutaaq or qaniujaaqpait) had been introduced by John Horden and Edwin A. Watkins towards the end of the 19th century. In addition, a Latin alphabet is in use (qaliujaaqpait, standardized by the Inuit Cultural Institute - Inuit Silattuqsarvingat ) that serves as a tool for the documentation of Inuktitut data in Nowak's description, too.
SUMMARY Nowak's presentation of Inuktitut comprises 81 pages, including a list of 41 references, a list of abbreviations used in the interlienar glosses, and brief excerpts from texts illustrating the discourse structure of Inuktitut (pp.76-77). In a short introductory section, the author furnishes the reader with some basic sociolinguistic data as well as with information about the history of research concerning the Inuit languages (pp. 5-12). The bulk of the book is devoted to Inuktitut morphosyntax and hence cannot replace a full-fledged grammar of the language. As Nowak points out in her preface (p.3), the description is strongly influenced by her theoretical thinking concerning polysynthesis in Inuktitut. The Eskimo languages are famous for operating on a very complex system of 'free' polysynthetic processes. By this is meant that the Inuktitut 'word' is not a stable lexical complex that would be linked to others to form sentences. Instead, the shape of most words constantly changes pending on their actual use and functional role in a discourse (p.13). Being a suffix-agglutinating language, synthesis starts at the right of a nominal or verbal nucleus, followed by derivational affixes and ending in what Nowak calls 'grammatical markers' (or 'inflectional endings'). Nowak maintains that derivation is strictly binary: Accordingly, the semantic scopus of a derivational suffix depends from its positional distance with respect to the nucleus: {X + a}; {[X+a]+b}, {[[X+a]+b]+c}, {[[[X+a]+b]+c]+d} etc. In addition, Inuktitut verb phrases (or: verbs) can be marked for incorporation, placing the incorporated element before the verbal nucleus (see below). Just as it is true for all Eskimo languages (and in contrast to Aleut), Inuktitut is both head and depending marking: It shows both (maximally bipersonal) agreement and case marking, compare (p. 31, gloss modified):
(1) Jaani-up Miali ikajuq-panga John-ERG Miali:ABS help-3:A>3:O:IND 'John helps Mary.'
As has been said above, Nowak's description of Inuktitut cannot be regarded as a comprehensive grammar of the language. In fact, the author only partially discusses the morphological paradigms, especially with respect to the personal agreement paradigm. Still, section 5 (pp. 18-35) presents the basics of Inuktitut morphology that help the reader to follow in detail the author's careful analyses of morphosyntactic and morphosemantic patterns given in the next sections. A brief section on ''morphology and synthesis'' (I translate the titles of the sections into English) precedes this presentation (pp. 13-17). The fact that the overwhelming part of Inuktitut morphology is related to the verbal complex means that verbal issues dominate the layout of the book. Accordingly, section 5 starts with the presentation of verbal complexes, addressing issues of (in)transitivity and mode, before turning to the noun phrase complex. Case marking in Inuktitut is basically ergative (S=O;A), encoding the Subjective (S) and the Objective (O) role by the Absolutive, whereas the Agentive (A) is marked by the ergative/genitive. The section ends with a brief consideration of personal pronouns. The extremely short section 6 (pp. 36-37) gives a classification of Inuktitut verbal nuclei., based on the corresponding argument structure. Nowak holds that the nuclei can be classified according to four types. (Admittedly, the resulting distribution is not fully transparent, at least for this reviewer.) The first class is set up by classical intransitive structures, such as
(2) aaniaq-tunga be=ill-1sg:S 'I am ill'. (p. 36)
The remaining classes are all transitive. Class III seems to differ from class II by allowing a resultative passive, whereas class II can be marked for some kind of semantic reflexivity, compare:
(3) kapi-junga stitch-1sg:S 'I stitch myself.' (p.36)
Class IV differs from class II, because it lacks the morpheme -si- in antipassivization, compare:
(4) aktu(q)-si-junga titirauti-mik touch-AP-1sg:S:NPART pencil-INSTR 'I touch the/a pencil.' (p. 36)
(5) illu-nik taku-vunga house-PL:INSTR see-1sg:S:IND 'I see (the) houses.' (p. 37)
Section 7 (pp. 38-60) represents the core chapter of the book. Nowak comprehensively illustrates the synthesis processes in Inuktitut. She shows that derivational suffixes can both support the referential or verbal value of their host and initiate word class motion. The author lists and illustrates in detail the individual derivational morpheme, before turning to highly interesting instances of reanalysis. Here, the combination of two categorially different suffixes leads to the creation of a new derivational segment. For instance, the terminal / allative case marker -mut can fuse with the derivational suffix -aq- ~ -uq- (indicating motion) to render the notion 'moving to, reaching', e.g.
(6) Ottawa-muaq-tunga Ottawa-TERM/go-1sg:S:IND 'I go to Ottawa.' (p.51)
The section ends with a discussion of diathesis in Inuktitut (argument manipulation according to Nowak). Inuktitut knows both passives and antipassives. Passives are marked for the masking of the Agentive role (sometimes overtly present in the periphery and marked by the terminal or ablative). Accordingly, the passive shows up morphologically only in the verb that is marked for an intransitive agreement pattern + passive morpheme. The antipassive (AP) does not allow the full masking of the Objective role, as is possible e.g. in some East Caucasian languages: The NP in Objective function is canonically placed in the periphery and marked by the instrumental (called 'object case' by Nowak). The Agentive role is then encoded by the Absolutive. Class IV verbs are labile with respect to transitive/AP marking: In this case, no derivational process applies, compare again examples (4) and (5). Reflexivity is marked for labile verb morphology: No derivational suffix occurs. But whereas class I verbs simply change their agreement pattern (transitive > intransitive, based on an accusative pattern, hence A > S), class IV verbs call for an open reflexive pronoun (immi- 'self'). The constructional pattern again is antipassive (see Bok- Bennema 1991):
(7) imminik taku-vunga self:INSTR see-1sg:S:IND 'I see myself.' (p. 37)
Causatives are, finally, restricted to intransitive nuclei. Transitive causatives call for incorporation.
The final section (section 8) first summarizes some basic issues of grammatical relations in Inuktitut: Nowak argues in favor of a semantic interpretation of the Ergative case [+AGENT], whereas the Absolutive case is marked for [-AGENT]. The antipassive, on the other hand, is said to have discourse related properties rather than a semantic value. Finally, the author briefly turns to the highly problematic case of incorporation in Inuktitut (see Baker 1988, 1996, Saddock 1991, Evans & Sasse 2002). Nowak does not go into all the details, but it is important to note that the author assumes that incorporated referential units allow external modification (generally marked by the Instrumental ('object case'):
(8) pingasut-nik qimmiq-qaq-tunga three-INSTR:PL dog-have-1sg:S:IND 'I have three dogs.' (p.74)
Here, the incorporated element qiimiq- cannot be internally modified or quantified. However, an alternative reading seems possible, too. Accordingly, the external element is referential by itself, and the incorporated element qimmiq- behaves as an adverbial modifiers. The sentence in (8) can then be rendered as 'I dog=have with respect to (the) three (ones).'
EVALUATION It goes without saying that Nowak's presentation of Inuktitut is a highly learned and rich contribution to our knowledge of this rarely described variety of Inuit. It is basically designed for use by students who have not yet come across a polysynthetic language operating on bipersonality and ergative case alignment. Still, obvious constraints with respect to the size of the book condition that Nowak's treatment of the language is fragmentary only. Unfortunately, some key issues are missing, for instance a full presentation and discussion of the personal agreement morphology that is crucial for the understanding of Eskimo morphosyntax. For instance, it is still a matter of debate whether the transitive patterns (both indicative and modal) result in all cases from the merger of two historically distinct morphemes (A and O), and whether the configuration of these morphemes reflects syntactic or honorific patterns (the sequence A-O seems not to be given for all persons, especially if a second person is present). In addition, the author neglects a more detailed discussion of the -vu- vs. -tu- formation of intransitive verbs, again a central point in the architecture of Inuit verbal morphosyntax. The same holds for the domain of antipassives: Nowak nicely shows that antipassivization is present in quite a number of constructional patterns. However, she does not make sufficiently clear (to me), what the prototypical properties of the antipassive are that would account for the broad distribution of this pattern. The data (and those stemming from other Eskimo languages) suggest that the antipassive is located at the very edge of a referentiality scale: It places the referent (or, with incorporation) its modifying/quantifying part into the periphery of referential accessibility, whereas incorporation does just the opposite: It bleaches the referential properties of the nominal unit and turns it into a verbal, adverb-like modifier.
The nature of the book is somewhat heterogeneous: On the one hand, it is a didactically oriented presentation that is full of contrastive references towards German (and sometimes English). This type of presentation may help a student to relate issues of Inuktitut to the understanding of their native grammar. However, it neglects a major issue in what is conventionally called Basic Linguistic Theory (Dixon 1997), namely the categorization and functional description of a language 'out of itself' (to the extent this is possible). On the other hand, the book frequently alludes to Nowak's view on theoretical issues that can undoubtedly be a matter of debate. In addition, the author does not make clear to the audience which general framework she wants to apply. Hence, both functional and formal (syntax) parameters show up in a way that do not always seem to be fully systematic.
In sum, Nowak has provided the linguistic community with a very interesting presentation of Inuktitut that is full of illuminating examples (followed by admittedly not always consistent interlinear glosses). Once readers have worked through the book and once they have adopted Nowak's terminology and analyses, they will surely profit from both the data and the many stimulating suggestions to interpret them. However, they will probably have to refer to more comprehensive presentations of Inuit languages in order to fully appreciate (and sometimes to verify) these suggestions. A reference to Nowak's major book (Nowak 1996) would be a first step. Others would have to follow.
REFERENCES Baker, Mark C. (1988) _Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing_. Chicago:. University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. (1996). _The Polysynthesis Parameter_. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bok-Bennema, Reineke 1991. _Case and agreement in Inuit_. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dixon, Robert M.W. (1997). _The rise and fall of languages_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Nicholas & Hans-Jürgen Sasse (eds.). (2002). _Problems of Polysynthesis_. Berlin : Akademie Verlag.
Nowak, Elke (1996). _Transforming the Images: Ergativity and Transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo)_. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Saddock, Jerrold M. (1991). _Autolexical Syntax_. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Wolfgang Schulze is the head of the Institute for General Linguistics and Language Typology of the Ludwig-Maximilian-University in Munich (Germany). He has specialized in (among other topics) cognitive linguistics, language typology, and historical linguistics (especially languages of the Caucasus, Oriental languages, languages of Siberia and Northern America). He has done extensive fieldwork on East Caucasian languages and ion Malagasy and has published three descriptive grammars (Udi, Tsakhur, Tolyshi).
|