Participle-Incorporation in Inuit

Home , Inuit languages

• This talk: Addresses this question through the investigation of an underdocu- mented, seemingly counterexemplary pattern of incorporation in Inuit—participle- incorporation (PI), (3).

Participle-incorporation in Inuit: Consequences for PI is used to form a type of existential involving -qaq ‘have,’ but is otherwise not ▷ polysynthesis and incorporation∗ permitted in other incorporation contexts. Michelle Yuan // [email protected] // PSST 2019, Princeton University (3) Participle-incorporation in Inuit nunasiuti-mik [aupak-tu]-qaq-tuq car-mod red-part-have-3s.S 1 Introduction ‘There is a red car.’

• Our point of departure: Noun incorporation (NI) in the Inuit languages is typologically unusual1—obligatory with a closed class of verbs, and otherwise impossible I argue that PI in Inuit is not counterexemplary or exceptional at all, and that with all other verbs, (1). the proper analysis of this construction oers new insights into incorporation—and polysynthesis—in Inuit. (1) Inuit: Obligatory NI a. sivalaar-tuq-tunga b. sivalaar-mik niri-junga • A rather simple proposal: Incorporation uniformly takes place between the cookie-consume-1s.S cookie-mod eat-1s.S verb and its complement. ‘I am eating a cookie.’ ‘I am eating a cookie.’ Modelled here as postsyntactic Merger between the verbal head and the cf. *sivalaar-mik tuq-tunga cf. *sivalaar-niri-junga ▷ head of its complement. Polysynthetic word-formation (which subsumes incorporation) involves re- • In contrast, cross-linguistically NI tends to be optional and permitted with a variety ▷ of verbs (Mithun, 1984; Baker et al., 2005, a.o.), e.g. Mohawk in (2). peated iterations of Merger, (5).

(2) Mohawk: ‘Classical’ noun-incorporation (4) NI in Inuit (5) Word-formation a. Wa’-k-hninu-’ ne ka-nakt-a’ ...... fact-1sS-buy-punc ne nS-bed-nsf vP ... XP ... ‘I bought the/a bed.’ DP v0 0 b. Wa’-ke-nakt-a-hninu-’ YP X 0 fact-1sS-bed-join-buy-punc NP D ZP Y0 ‘I bought the/a bed.’ (Baker, 1996) 0 ... Merger ... Z

• What is the grammatical mechanism behind obligatory NI (in Inuit)? See Merger Sadock (1980), Bok-Bennema and Groos (1988), Johns (2007, 2009), Compton and Pittman (2010) for varied discussion. ⋆ Analysis of PI: The nominal and participle are the subject and predicate of a ∗ I am grateful to Jasmine Oolayou, Jamesie Padluq, Johnny Qammaniq, and especially Ragilee Attagootak for Small Clause (PredP)—specically, pseudo-relative (Cinque, 1995, a.o.). sharing their language with me and for discussion of the data shown here. Thank you also to Karlos Arregi, Barbara Citko, Sabine Iatridou, David Pesetsky, Norvin Richards, Jerry Sadock, and audiences at UChicago for The verb -qaq ‘have’ takes as complement the entire Small Clause (PredP), helpful discussion and comments. This project was supported by a SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship and an NSF ▷ 0 Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant. All errors are mine. and ends up axed to the participle, the complement of Pred . 1A non-Inuit language with a remarkably similar incorporation prole is Nuu-chah-nulth, as discussed by Wojdak (2008), Yuan (2019).

1 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

• Broader lesson: Putatively “counterexamplary” data may oer key insights into a • The Inuit languages display an ergative-absolutive case patterning, as well as phenomenon. In this case, the existence of PI claries the syntactic conguration φ-agreement with erg and abs arguments.3 necessary for complex word-building in the postsyntactic component. (7) Ergative case pa erning Roadmap: a. Taiviti-up surak- tanga igalaaq Taiviti-erg window.abs §2 Inuit noun-incorporation break-3s.S/3s.O ‘David broke the window.’ §3 Participle-incorporation b. Miali ani-qqau- juq §4 A pseudo-relative analysis Miali.abs leave-rec.pst-3s.S ‘Miali left.’ §5 Polysynthesis, incorporation, and complementation • In addition, the Inuit languages are syntactically ergative, in that abs objects undergo movement to a structurally high position (e.g. Bittner, 1994; Bittner and Hale, 2 Inuit noun-incorporation 1996a,b; Manga, 1996). 2.1 Overview of Inuit morphosyntax 2.2 A postsyntactic analysis of NI • The Inuit languages (Eskimo-Aleut) are a dialect continuum spanning the North • In NI constructions, the leftmost morpheme in the verb complex is the object, adjacent American Arctic and Greenland. Uncited data represent Inuktitut, the dialect group to the verb, (8).4 spoken primarily in Nunavut, Canada.2 • The Inuit languages are polysynthetic and strictly adhere to the Mirror Principle, (8) Verb complex with noun incorporation with a rigid ordering of morphemes within the word (but exible sentence-level word Ulak ujami-liu-qqau-juq order). Ulak.abs necklace-make-rec.pst-3s.S ‘Ulak made a necklace/necklaces.’ Verb complexes are invariably composedof a initial root, followed by optional ▷ 0 suxes, and ending with φ-morphology, (6a-b). • Following Johns (2007, 2009), incorporating verbs are light verbs (v s; functional 5 Rule of thumb: Rightwards in a word up a syntactic tree. Thus, it is often elements), while non-incorporating verbs are lexical verbs (i.e. roots). ▷ → assumed that the Inuit languages are right-headed, (6c). Obligatory incorporation thus takes place to satisfy the axal property of v0, ▷ and polysynthetic word-formation arises because all functional heads are axal. (6) Anatomy of Inuit complex verb

a. √Root-(suxes)-agr c. AgrOP • In Yuan (2018, 2019), I demonstrate that incorporated nouns in obligatorily incorpo- b. niri-juma-lauq-tara rating languages (including Inuit) display a number of other typologically unusual 0 eat-want-pst-1s.S/3s.O AgrSP AgrO properties.

‘I did not want to eat it.’ 0 TP AgrS

0 ModP T 3In Yuan (2018), I argue that the grammatical status of the object-referencing portion of this φ-morphology

0 is a matter of microvariation across Inuit; in Inuktitut, the varieties shown here, it is object clitic doubling rather VP Mod than true φ-agreement. However, this distinction will be set aside here as it does not aect the present analysis. 4That the object is indeed incorporated is indicated by the occurrence of certain phonological processes, ... which take place between morphemes within a word but not across separate words. Here, the nal C of ujamik 2Unless cited, the data included in this talk were elicited in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in August 2016, July 2017, and ‘necklace’ is deleted. September 2017, as well as over Skype between October 2017-July 2018, and represent the North Ban, South 5As Johns notes, incorporating verbs as a class are semantically underspecied, with few s-selectional re- Ban, and Kivalliq varieties of Inuktitut. quirements. Beyond -tuq ‘consume,’ other such verbs include -u ‘be,’ -qaq ‘have,’ -liri ‘do/work on,’ etc.

2 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

• Specically, incorporated nouns remain syntactically active for: ⋆ Taking stock: 1. Case/φ-agreement: Incorporated nominals may be targeted by object φ- Incorporated nouns in Inuit are not structurally reduced, but rather display syn- ▷ morphology and trigger dependent erg case on the subject, on par with stan- tactic properties identical to independent nouns in the language (thus ruling out dalone abs objects. typical head movement/phrasal movement analyses). ...which further points towards an analysis of obligatory NI as due to morpho- (9) Incorporated objects behave like standalone objects ▷ logical requirements of certain verbs. a. Taiviti sivalaar-tu-ruma-juq abs 3s • NI in Inuit is postsyntactic, modeled here as a Merger operation taking place be- David. cookie-consume-want- .S 0 ‘David wants to eat the cookies.’ tween v and the head of its DP complement (Marantz, 1984, et seq.). b. Taiviti-up sivalaar-tu-ruma-jangit In (10)-(11), Merger then forces the DP to be overtly realized in situ, even though David-erg cookie-consume-want-3s.S/3p.O ▷ syntactic movement has taken place. ‘David wants to eat these cookies.’ (12) NI in Inuit (13) A-movement and NI 2. Syntactic movement: Incorporated nominals can take wide scope, again on par ...... with structurally high abs objects (Bittner, 1994; Bittner and Hale, 1996a,b)— vP ... despite surfacing inside the verb complex. TP ... DP v0 (10) Incorporated objects may take narrow or wide scope DP 0 0 a. Context: Ulak has a seafood allergy. NP D vP T 0 Ulak iqalu-tu-runna-nngit-tuq ... Merger DP v Ulak.abs sh-eat-modal-neg-3s.S ‘Ulak can’t/won’t eat (any) sh.’ ( / > ) ◇ ¬ ∃ Merger b. Context: Because there is Arctic char around, Ulak won’t touch salmon.6 Ula-up iqalu-tu-runna-nngit-tanga 3 Participle-incorporation Ulak-erg sh-consume-modal-neg-3s.S/3s.O ‘Ulak won’t eat a particular sh.’ ( > / ) • Unlike NI, in participle-incorporation (PI) constructions, it is a verbal participle that ∃ ◇ ¬ is incorporatedinto the verb. This can be seen by comparing possessive vs. existential ...and participate in passivization, which bears hallmarks of A-movement (e.g. uses of -qaq ‘have’, (14a) vs. (14b-c). ▷ subject φ-agreement, creation of new antecedents for binding). The standalone element (e.g. the pivot of the existential in (14b-c)) bears mod ▷ 7 (11) Incorporated nominals can undergo A-movement (“modalis”) case. a. Ulak ujami-liu-qqau-juq (14) Inuit participle-incorporation Ulak.abs necklace-make-rec.pst-3s.S a. aupak-tu-mik nunasiuti-qaq-tuq ‘Ulak made a necklace/necklaces.’ red-part-mod car-have-3s.S b. ujami -liuq-ta-u- juit Suusa-mut ‘(S)he has a red car.’ (Unavailable: ‘There is a red car.’) necklace-make-pass.part-be-3p.S Susan-allat ‘The necklaces are being made for Susan.’ b. nunasiuti-mik [aupak-tu]-qaq-tuq car-mod red-part-have-3s.S c. aasiva -tuq-ta-u-juq nulia- mi -nut ‘There is a red car.’ (Unavailable: ‘(S)he has a red car.’) spider-consume-pass.part-be-3s.S mate-poss.refl-allat ‘The spideri is being eaten by itsi mate.’ 7In Yuan (2018), I argue that mod (in these contexts) is assigned as a Last Resort in syntactic congurations where a nominal would be left unlicensed.

3 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

c. anguti-mik [sinik-tu]-qaq-tuq 4 A pseudo-relative analysis man-mod sleep-part-have-3s.S ‘There sleeps a man.’ Proposal: NI and PI are fed by a uniform syntactic conguration holding between • Two other relevant facts about this PI construction: the verb and the incorporated element—complementation. (i) The verb -qaq ‘have’ imposes a Deniteness Eect on the pivot (e.g. Milsark, • Normally, the complement of v0 is a DO, resulting in NI, (18). 1974). A similar eect is imposed on the possessee in possessive constructions. • To derive PI, I argue that the pivot and the participle form the subject and pred- (15) Deniteness eect in existentials icate of a Small Clause (PredP),9 and that the verb takes that entire constituent a. #Jaani-mik tikit-tu-qaq-tuq as its complement, (19). Jaani-mod arrive-part-have-3s.S Intended: ‘Jaani arrived.’ (18) NI in Inuit (19) PI in Inuit Only means: ‘Someone named Jaani arrived.’ vP vP b. *anaana-nga-nik [tikit-tu]-qaq-tuq 0 mother-poss.3s/3s-mod arrive-part-have-3s.S DP v qaq PredP v0 Intended: ‘(Someone’s) mother arrived.’ nunasiuti qaq (ii) The pivot takes narrow scope relative to elements such as matrix negation.8 DP 0 (16) Narrow scope under negation nunasiuti PartP Pred inung-mik qai-ju-qa- nngit -tuq aupak-tuq person-mod come-part-have-neg-3s.S ‘No one came.’ ( > ) • Under this view, there is nothing exceptional about the incorporation of ¬ ∃ a participle. Both the pivot and the participle are structurally low, within the scope of the → incorporating verb -qaq ‘have.’ Rather, the unusual appearance of these constructions comes from the em- ▷ bedding of a Small Clause rather than a nominal under the verb. ⋆ Crucially, the incorporation of participles is not otherwise attested, outside of this existential construction. We already saw in (14) that the possessive reading of -qaq ‘have’ is unavailable • Evidence for the Small Clause analysis: Striking parallels with pseudo-relatives ▷ if the incorporated element is participial. (PRs) (e.g. Cinque, 1995;Moulton and Grillo, 2015), i.e. Small Clauses that supercially This is further demonstrated in the examples in (17)—only nouns may normally resemble a relative clause and its head, (20). ▷ undergo incorporation. PRs are not true relative clauses—the gap in the embedded clause is not related (17) No participle-incorporation ▷ to the overt nominal by A-movement.¯ a. *[aupak-tu]-taa-ruma-junga Rather, it is assumed that the relative is a predicate, and the gap is related to the red-part-get-want-1s.S ▷ Intended: ‘I want to get something red.’ nominal by control. b. aupak-tu-mik pi -taa-ruma-junga (20) Pseudo-relative in Italian part mod red- - proform-get-want-1s.S Ho visto [ Gianni [ che __ correva ]] ‘I want to get something red.’ I.have seen Gianni that ran.impf • The puzzle: Why is PI permitted at all, in a language that otherwise only allows NI? ‘I saw Gianni running.’ (Moulton and Grillo, 2015) 8For some speakers, a wide scope reading is also available. 9Following Bowers (1993, 2001), den Dikken (2006).

4 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

(i) The participial morphology in PIs is morphologically identical to that in true rel- (23) abs subject gap in Inuit PRs ative clauses and complements of perception verbs. a. anguti-mik [sinik-tu]-qaq-tuq mod sleep-part-have-3s.S This is somewhat obscured in Inuktitut, but can be seen more clearly in related man- ▷ language Kalaallisut:10 ‘There sleeps a man.’ b. pani-mik anaana-mi-nik [iqi-ti-ju]-qa-lauq-tuq (21) Participial morphology in Kalaallisut daughter-mod mother-poss.refl-mod hug-ap-part-have-pst-3s.S a. [sinit-tu]-qar-puq ‘A daughteri hugged heri mother.’ (AP) sleep-part-have-3s.S c. igalaar-mik [surak-ta-u-ju]-qaq-tuq ‘There are (people) sleeping’ (Fortescue, 1984) window-mod break-pass.part-be-part-have-3s.S b. miiqqat [ sila-mi pinngar-tut ] ‘A window was broken.’ (pass.) children.abs outdoors-loc play-part.3p.S d. * sivalaar-mik [niri-juma-ja]-qaq-tuq ‘the children who are playing outdoors’ (Bittner, 1994) cookie-mod eat-want-tr.part-have-3s.S c. taku-aa aalla-lir-suq Intended: ‘There is a cookie that someone wants to eat.’ (*abs object) see-ind.3s.S/3s.O leave-incp-part.3s.S ‘He saw him leaving.’ (Fortescue, 1984) (iii) PRs must match the matrix clause in tense, (24). This also holds in Inuit PI constructions, (25). (ii) Cross-linguistically, PRs permit gaps only in the highest (subject) position, (22). (24) No tense mismatches in Italian PRs Following Cinque (1995), the PR predicate contains a null PRO in Spec-TP, whose ▷ antecedent is the DP subject of the Small Clause. *Vedo [ Maria [ che __ correva ]] I.see.pres Maria that run.impf (22) Subject gaps only in Italian PRs Intended: ‘I see Maria that was running.’ a. Ho visto [ Luigi [ che __ salutava Maria ]] (25) No tense mismatches in Inuit PI constructions I.have seen Luigi that greet.impf Maria a. anguti-mik [tiki-(qqau)-ju]-qa-qqau-juq ‘I saw Luigi greet Maria.’ man-mod arrive-(rec.pst)-part-have-rec.pst-3s.S b. *Ho visto [ Luigi [ che Maria salutava __ ]] ‘There arrived a man (earlier today).’ I.have seen Luigi that Maria greet.impf b. *anguti-mik [tiki-lauq-tu]-qa-qqau-juq Intended: ‘I saw Luigi that Maria greeted.’ man-mod arrive-pst-part-have-rec.pst-3s.S Intended: ‘There was (earlier today) a man who had arrived.’ • In Inuit PI constructions, the gap within the participle must be understood as an abs 11 subject (i.e. intransitive subject, antipassive subject, passivized subject, ...), (23a-c). • Finally, unsurprisingly, the pivot always scopes above participle-internal elements, abs object gaps are not possible, (23d). e.g. negation, (26a). This is in contrast to (16), repeated below in (26b), which showed the opposite patterning with matrix negation.

(26) Pivot scopes over participial-internal negation a. inung-mik [qai- nngit -tu]-qaq-tuq person-mod come-neg-part-have-3s.S 10In Inuktitut, the verbal morphology found in these contexts (“participial mood”) also happens to be the default ‘Someone didn’t come.’ ( > ) declarative mood morphology. However, in Kalaallisut, the participial and declarative moods are distinct, thus ∃ ¬ showing that a common morphology is used in PI constructions, true RCs, and perception verb complements. b. inung-mik [qai-ju]-qa- nngit -tuq 11erg subjects are not possible as PR-internal gaps, presumably because of an independent A-extraction¯ re- striction found across Inuit (and other syntactically ergative languages) (Creider, 1978; Johns, 1992; Murasugi, person-mod come-part-have-neg-3s.S 1997), and others. ‘No one came.’ ( > ) ¬ ∃

5 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

• Taking stock: Inuit PIs have a structure as in (27), in which the pivot and the par- It is then passivized (see in §3 for baselines). ▷ ticiple form a pseudo-relative Small Clause. The entire participle is the predicate of a Small Clause, which is embedded under ▷ the matrix verb -qaq ‘have.’ (27) Structure of PR in Inuktitut ... The pivot in Spec-PredP (identical to the pronounced controlled element) is ▷ deleted in accordance with standard Economy conditions on copy spell-out.12 Note moreover that in (30b) the incorporated object sivalaaq ‘cookie’ takes oblig- ▷ PredP ... atory wide scope above participle-internal negation despite surfacing within the verb complex.

(30) NI and PI in Inuit DP a. [ujami -liuq-ta-u-ju]-qaq-tuq anguti-miki 0 PartP Pred necklace-make-pass.part-be-part-have-3s.S ‘A necklace was made.’ TP Part0 tuq b. [ sivalaar -tuq-ta-u-nngit-tu]-qa-qqau-juq cookie-consume-pass.part-be-neg-part-have-rec.pst-3s.S DP 0 PROi VP T ‘A cookie wasn’t eaten.’ ( > ) ∃ ¬ tikit Consultant’s comment: “One was left over.” c. vP 5 Polysynthesis, incorporation, and complementation

• Back to incorporation: The present analysis of PI in Inuit involves a syntax that is PredP v0 structurally analogous to that of NI constructions, repeated below.

In both constructions, v0 takes some constituent as its complement, and under- ▷ goes incorporation with that constituent. DPi PartP Pred0 (28) NI in Inuit (29) PI in Inuit vP vP TP Part0

DP v0 DPi qaq PredP v0 0 nunasiuti vP T qaq 0 DPi v DP nunasiuti PartP Pred0

aupak-tuq

• Prediction: NI and PI are in principle stackable, so long as the relevant syntactic conguration is met. This is borne out in (30a-b), schematized in (30c).

In these sentences, the embedded verb within the participle is obligatorily in- 12 ▷ These data therefore suggest that the null element schematized as a controlled PRO in previous structures is corporating and takes a DO as complement. actually a deleted copy of the antecedent, along the lines of Hornstein (1999) and Polinsky and Potsdam (2002).

6 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

⋆ The ideathat complementationis a syntactic precursorto postsyntactic word- c. vP formation generalizes beyond incorporation contexts. LApplP v0 • As repeated in (31), each head may iteratively undergo Merger with the head of its DPio complement—eventually producing a complex (polysynthetic) word. 0 DPdo LAppl

(31) Word-formation in Inuit Merger ... • More relevantly, it sheds light on why PI is limited to existentials in Inuit. PI is possible XP ... when the participle is a complement, but not possible if the participle is a modier, YP X0 (33).

0 ZP Y (33) No PI with possessive ‘have’ ... Z0 a. aupak-tu-mik nunasiuti-qaq-tuq red-part-mod car-have-3s.S Merger ‘(S)he has a red car.’ b. #nunasiuti-mik [aupak-tu]-qaq-tuq • Correspondingly, non-complements are systematically forbidden from incorporat- car-mod red-part-have-3s.S ing into the verb complex. Intended: ‘(S)he has a red car.’ Can only mean: ‘There is a red car.’ The impossibility of subject incorporation seems trivial, but follows from the ▷ present analysis. • Prediction: If modiers cannot undergo incorporation into the verb due to their syntactic conguration, this should extend to non-participial modiers. This, too, is Less trivially, indirect objects of double object constructions (low applicatives) borne out. ▷ cannot undergo incorporation either, (32).13 Numerals cannot undergo incorporation, but must be stranded in NI, (34): This is on the surface surprising given a low applicative structure in (32c), in ▷ ▷ which the IO is more local to the verb than the DO (Pylkkänen, 2002, 2008). But (34) No incorporation of numerals the crucial factor is that the IO is the specier while the DO is the complement. a. marruu-nik nunasiuti-taa-ruma-junga two-mod car-get-want-1s.S (32) IOs in low applicatives never incorporate ‘I want to get two cars.’ a. Miali-up Diane ujami-liuq-taa b. *nunasiuti-nik marruu-taa-ruma-junga Miali-erg Diane.abs necklace-make-3s.S/3s.O car-mod two-get-want-1s.S ‘Miali made Diane a necklace.’ Intended: ‘I want to get two cars.’ b. *Miali-up ujami-mit Diane-liuq-taa And nominals that can in principle be incorporated can no longer do so when Miali-erg necklace-mod Diane-make-3s.S/3s.O ▷ serving as modiers (e.g. guulu ‘gold’), (35). Intended:‘MialimadeDianeanecklace.’ (Carrier,2016) (35) No incorporation of nominal modiers 13As evidence that these structures are low applicatives, Carrier (2016) and Yuan (2018) both show that they a. guulu-taa-ruma-junga pass several the standard diagnostics. For instance, unlike high applicatives in the language, these construc- gold-get-want-1s.S tions cannot be formed on ergative and stative verbs (Pylkkänen, 2008) and display Oehrle’s Eect (Oehrle, 1976; ‘I want to get some gold.’ Harley, 2002), in that the indirect object cannot encode a location.

7 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

b. guulu-mik ujami-taa-ruma-junga References gold-mod necklace-get-want-1s.S ‘I want to get a gold necklace.’ Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. c. *ujaming-mik guulu-taa-ruma-junga necklace-mod gold-get-want-1s.S Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. Intended: ‘I want to get a gold necklace.’ Baker, Mark, Roberto Aranovich, and Lucía A. Golluscio. 2005. Two types of syntactic noun incorporation: Noun incorporation in Mapudungun and its typological implications. Language 81:138– 176.

Barrie, Michael, and Eric Mathieu. 2016. Noun incorporation and phrasal movement. Natural Lan- In sum, the notion of complementation explains a number of facts about in- guage and Linguistic Theory 34:1–51. corporation, including the unusual appearance of PI in existential contexts (our em- pirical starting point). Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope, and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

• Syntactic structure can thus provide clues into postsyntactic conditions on word- Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996a. Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic formation. Inquiry 27:531–604. • Similarly, surface word-formation patterns can also be used to diagnose syntactic Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996b. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic structure—useful in the study of polysynthetic languages such as Inuit. Inquiry 27:1–68. • A remaining question: Why are speciers and adjuncts ignored, i.e. why do Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1994. What does adjacency do? Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working they not intervene (per Bobaljik (1994))? Papers in Linguistics 22:1–32. Bok-Bennema, Reineke, and Anneke Groos. 1988. Adjacency and incorporation. In Morphology and modularity, ed. Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, Riny Huybregts, and Mieke Trommelen, 33–56. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 6 Conclusion Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:591–656. Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, ed. Mark Baltin • This talk investigated incorporation and polysynthetic word-formation in Inuit from and Chris Collins, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell. the perspective of an apparent outlier—participle-incorporation, which is found only in one type of construction and otherwise not permitted. Carrier, Julien. 2016. The double object construction in Inuktitut. Talk given at MOTH 2016. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1995. Italian syntax and Universal Grammar, chapter The pseudo-relative and • ...and argued that this follows from the syntax of PI constructions, as well as the ACC-ing constructions after verbs of perception. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. syntactic conguration needed to form complex words. Compton, Richard, and Christine Pittman. 2010. Word-formation by phase in Inuit. Lingua 120:2167– 2192. Incorporation is postsyntactic and involves the (iterative) axation of v0 to ▷ 0 its immediately c-commanding head H —hence requires complementation be- Creider, Chet. 1978. The syntax of relative clauses in Inuktitut. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2:95–110. tween v0 and HP. den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and The notion that complementation feeds incorporation departs from analyses copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ▷ based on head movement (Baker, 1988; Baker et al., 2005) or phrasal movement to specier (Barrie and Mathieu, 2016). Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In Linguistic variation yearbook • More broadly: Phenomena that appear counterexemplary need not be. 2, ed. Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck, 29–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

8 Participle-incorporation in Inuit Yuan

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69–96.

Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23:57–87.

Johns, Alana. 2007. Restricting noun incorporation: root movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:535–576.

Johns, Alana. 2009. Additional facts about noun incorporation (in Inuktitut). Lingua 119:185–198.

Manga, Louise. 1996. An explanation for ergative versus accusative languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.

Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60:847–893.

Moulton, Keir, and Nino Grillo. 2015. Pseudo-relatives: Big and direct. Ms., Simon Fraser University and Universität Stuttgart.

Murasugi, Kumiko. 1997. Relative restrictions on relative clauses. In Proceedings of NELS 27, ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto, 273–286. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Doctoral Disser- tation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33:245–282.

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic. Language 56:300–319.

Wojdak, Rachel. 2008. The linearization of axes: Evidence from Nuu-chah-nulth. Dordrecht: Springer.

Yuan, Michelle. 2018. Dimensions of ergativity in Inuit: Theory and microvariation. Doctoral Dis- sertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Yuan, Michelle. 2019. Morphological conditions on copy spell-out: Insights from Inuktitut noun incorporation. Paper presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.