Deriving Ergativity from Object Shift Across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut)∗ Michelle Yuan, UC San Diego // Myuan@Ucsd.Edu // LSA 2020, New Orleans, LA

Home , Inuit languages

Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut)∗ Michelle Yuan, UC San Diego // [email protected] // LSA 2020, New Orleans, LA

1 Introduction ⋆ Crucially, this approach takes variationin ergativity to be independent of any properties of erg case, whose assignment mechanism is uniform across Inuit. • Although the Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) languages are generally described as ergative, it ▷ has been simultaneously observed that the ergative patterning is more robust in some Thus, while most investigations of ergativity have focused on the erg-marked abs varieties than others (e.g. Johns, 2006; Carrier, 2017). subject, here we nd that object is equally central to understanding the phe- nomenon (see also Coon et al. 2014). • Today’s talk: An investigation of the source of this variation and what it reveals about ergativity more generally, by focusing on three Inuit varieties. Roadmap: §2 Overview of Inuit syntax Core insight: Variation in ergativity across Inuit (and Eskimo-Aleut) is systematically §3 Variation in ergativity and object shift tied to variation in object shift. §4 An intermediate patterning in Inuktitut • This follows from a theory with three components, illustrated in (1): §5 A congurational approach (i) Movement of the object to a position structurally higher than the transitive subject (syntactic ergativity). (ii) A modality of erg case assignment that explicitly references this movement 2 Overview of Inuit syntax step (dependent case). 2.1 Language background (iii) Variation across grammars in what kinds of objects may move and their morphological realization (cf. object shift and pronominal cliticization cross- • The Inuit languages (Eskimo-Aleut) are a continuum of dialects spoken across the linguistically). eastern North American Arctic and in Greenland. (1) Ergativity across Inuit (2) Inuit dialect map

Obj

Subjerg VP V0 ⟨Obj⟩

∗I am deeply grateful to Susan Idlout, Selma Jararuse, Shirley Kunnuk, Dina Maggo, Jeanine Nowdluk, Jas- mine Oolayou, Erin Pameolik, Johnny Qammaniq, Cornelia Tuglavina, Katie Winters, and especially Ragilee Attagootak for discussion of the Inuktitut and Labrador Inuttut data, and for sharing their language with me. Thank you also to Karlos Arregi, Nico Baier, Julien Carrier, Richard Compton, Amy Rose Deal, Ksenia Ershova, Sabine Iatridou, Alana Johns, David Pesetsky, Norvin Richards, Jerry Sadock, and audiences at NELS 50 for com- ments and suggestions. This research was nancially supported by the SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship, NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, and logistically supported by the Nunavut Research Institute and the Nunatsiavut Research Centre. All errors are mine.

1 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

• In this talk: A comparison of three Inuit languages—Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), ▷ The antipassive construction displays an abs-mod2 case patterning with S-only Labrador Inuttut, and Inuktitut. (As well as brief discussion of the distantly related φ-morphology. Aleut.) (5) Non-ergative (antipassive) construction in Kalaallisut ▷ Uncited Labrador Inuttut and Inuktitut data come from my own eldwork on the Juuna miiqqa-nik paari-nnip-puq language, conducted in Iqaluit, Nunavut in 2016–2018, and in Nain and Goose Juuna.abs child-pl.mod look.after-ap-ind.3s.S Bay, Labrador, in 2019. ‘Juuna is looking after the children.’ (Bittner and Hale, 1996a) 2.2 Overview of Inuit morphosyntax Variation in ergativity → Relative distributions of the ergative and antipassive con- • The Inuit languages are highly agglutinating, with relatively free word order (though structions (Johns, 2006, 2017; Carrier, 2017). with a SOV base word order) (Dorais, 2010). Verb complexes share the general schema in (3a). ▷ Assuming the Mirror Principle, morphemes moving from left-to-right corre- spond to higher in the syntactic tree, (3b-c).1 Useful heuristic: φ-morphology 3 Variation in ergativity and object movement is structurally high (see also Compton 2016). • Core observation (building on Bittner and Hale 1996a; Johns 2017; Woolford 2017): (3) Anatomy of Inuit verb Across Inuit, the occurrence of the ergative case patterning is tied to object shift. a. Verb-(...)-Mood-Agr.S(-Agr.O) ▷ Revealed by comparing Kalaallisut with Labrador Inuttut—in Labrador Inuttut, b. matui-saali-qqau-vi-uk both the ergative patterning and movement of the object are quite constrained. open-early-rec.pst-interr.2s.S-3s.O ▷ (This, in turn, will be further corroborated by Inuktitut in §4.) ‘Did you open it (e.g. the present) early?’ (Inuktitut) c. [Verb ]Adv ] Tns]Mood] AgrS ]AgrO ] 3.1 Syntactic ergativity in Kalaallisut

• All Inuit (and Eskimo-Aleut) languages display at least some degree of ergativity. The • The ergative and antipassive constructions in Kalaallisut track the semantic prop- 3 standardly cited ergative patterning is exemplied below in (4), with Kalaallisut. erties of the object (Bittner, 1994). abs ▷ Ergative (erg-abs) case patterning with S/O φ-morphology in transitive sen- ▷ Specic/wide scope object → object in ergative construction (on par with abs tences: intransitive subjects), (6a). ▷ Non-specic/narrow scope object → mod object in non-ergative construction, (4) Ergative case pa erning in Kalaallisut (6b). a. miiqqat piqqip-put child.pl.abs healthy-3p.S (6) Ergative vs. antipassive in Kalaallisut4 ‘The children are healthy.’ a. suli Juuna-p atuagaq ataasiq tigu-sima-nngi-laa b. Juuna-p miiqqat paari- vai still Juuna-erg book.abs one.abs get-perf-neg-3s.S/3s.O Juuna-erg child.pl.abs look.after-3s.S/3p.O ‘There is one (particular) book Juuna hasn’t received yet.’ ‘Juuna is looking after the children.’ (Bittner and Hale, 1996a,b) Available reading: ∃ > neg; *neg > ∃

• Moreover, in all Inuit languages, the ergative construction alternates with a non- 2mod = “modalis” case, also sometimes called instrumental, accusative, or oblique case (e.g. Fortescue, 1984; ergative construction, referred to as the antipassive construction. Spreng, 2012). This talk will not provide an analysis of mod case assignment. 3The relevant semantic eect is not very well-understood, and have been variably characterized as pertaining 1The order of morphemes is suggestive of a right-headed structure. In this talk, however, all trees are repre- to specicity (Manga, 1996), scope (Bittner, 1994; Wharram, 2003), deniteness (Fortescue, 1984), and topicality sented as left-headed purely for clarity of illustration. (Berge, 1997, 2011).

2 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

b. suli Juuna atuakka-mik ataatsi-mik tigu-si-sima-nngi-laq 3.2 Restricted ergative pattern in Labrador Inuttut still Juuna.abs book-mod one-mod get-ap-perf-neg-3s.S ‘Juuna hasn’t received (even) one book yet.’ • In contrast to the Kalaallisut pattern shown above, the ergative patterning in Labrador Available reading: neg > ∃; *∃ > neg (Bittner, 1994) Inuttut is quite reduced—transitive sentences appear in the antipassive by de- fault (Johns, 1999, 2001, 2017).

▷ Similarly, referential pronominal objects are obligatorily encoded with object φ- ▷ mod objects may be understood as specic/wide scope, in addition to the ex- morphology in ergative constructions; (null) antipassive objects are understood pected non-specic/narrow scope interpretation, (9a). as non-referential. (There are no 3rd person pronominal forms in Inuit.) ▷ Referential pronominal objects may similarly appear in the antipassive construction, (9b). (7) Pronominal objects in Kalaallisut a. (pro) (pro) pisiar-aa 160 kuruuni-nik (9) Specic/pronominal antipassive objects in Labrador Inu ut 3s.pron.erg 3s.pron.abs buy-3s.S/3s.O 160 kroner-pl.mod a. Context: Johnny received several candies for Christmas and ate them all, and ‘He bought it for 160 kroner.’ liked most of them. b. (pro) (pro) tuqut-si-vuq Jâni atautsi-tuina-mik uKumiaga-mik piutsa-sima-ngi-tuk 3s.pron.abs 3s.pron.mod kill-ap-3s.S Johnny.abs one-only-mod candy-mod like-perf-neg-3s.S ‘He killed something.’ (Fortescue, 1984) ‘Johnny didn’t like only one candy.’ Available reading: ∃ > neg • A standard assumption: Kalaallisut (as with other Inuit or Eskimo-Aleut languages) 5 b. Sâli aittosia-mik pisi-laut-tuk siagugiak Mary-mut (pro) is syntactically ergative (Dixon 1994; Bittner and Hale 1996a; Manning 1996). Sally.abs gift-mod buy-pst-3s.S later.on Mary-allat 3s.pron.mod âtsi-laut-tuk ▷ In ergative constructions, the object raises over the transitive subject to a struc- give-pst-3s.S turally high position (where it also triggers φ-morphology), (8a). ‘Sally bought a gift and later she gave it to Mary.’ ▷ In non-ergative transitive constructions, the object remains in situ, (8b). • However, the ergative pattern surfaces also when the object is pronominal, (8) a. Ergative b. Antipassive exponed as object φ-morphology, (10) (Johns, 2017).

DPobj (10) Ergative construction with pronominal object in Labrador Inu ut Context: Johnny lost his jacket... DPsubj VP DPsubj VP siagolittilugu pulesi-up nagvâ-laut-tanga tunu-a-ni ilinniavi-up 0 0 DP pst poss loc gen V ⟨DPobj⟩ V obj later police-erg nd- -3s.S/3s.O back- - school- ‘Later the police found it behindtheschool.’ (AlanaJohns,p.c.)

• If ergative constructions in Kalaallisut involve object movement, then let us extend → This, in turn, accords with the semantic contrast in (6): Because abs objects are this to Labrador Inuttut: pronouns may optionally move in Labrador Inuttut, (11), structurally high, they outscope sentential operators like negation. while DPs do not move.

4Bittner (1994) shows that transitive sentences with multiple quantiers behave in a parallel way, with abs erg abs mod ▷ I additionally posit that the object φ-morphology on the verb is the exponent of objects scoping over subjects in ergative constructions, and subjects scoping over objects in non- 6 ergative constructions. this pronoun, in that it postsyntactically cliticizes to the verbal complex. 5In addition to the semantic evidence shown here, the Inuit languages generally display an A-extraction¯ restriction on erg nominals that is common in other syntactically ergative languages (Creider, 1978). 6See also Johns 2017; Yuan to appear.

3 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

(11) Pronominal movement in Labrador Inu ut7 3.3 Parallels with Scandinavian object shift

0 • Despite the lack of clear syntactic evidence for movement in Eskimo-Aleut, it displays D obj striking parallels with languages with object shift, (Woolford, 2017).8

DPsubj VP • In particular, the variation shown above is highly reminiscent of variation among 0 V ⟨Dobj⟩ Scandinavian languages in the types of objects that can undergo this process (e.g. Holmberg, 1986; Vikner, 1994).

• Under this view, the object movement pattern shown here is reminiscent of a language ▷ In lcelandic, specic objects (including pronouns) undergo object shift, (14). like (Standard) French: (14) Icelandic: Object shi correlates with specicity ▷ Pronouns are optionally realized as structurally high clitics, while full nominals a. Hann les sjaldan lengstu bókina remain in situ, (12). He reads seldom longest the.book ‘He rarely reads the longest book.’ (12) French: High reduced pronouns vs. in situ full objects Reading: Given any group ofbooks, he rarely reads the one that is the longest.

a. Marie le voit b. Marie voit Jean b. Hann les lengstu bókina sjaldan ‘Marie sees him.’ ‘Marie sees Jean.’ He reads longest the.book seldom ‘He rarely reads the longest book.’ • Finally, the Labrador Inuttut data are highly reminiscent of the ergative/non-ergative Reading: There is a book longer than all the others that he rarely reads. alternation in Aleut, termed the Aleut Eect (Johns, 2017). (Diesing, 1996)

▷ The presence of a (3rd person) pronominal object in Aleut triggers an ergative ▷ In Mainland Scandinavian, only pronominal objects may do so, and there is vari- patterning with object φ-morphology; in other contexts, a bi-absolutive pattern ation in whether this is optional or obligatory, (15)-(16). arises, (13) (Bergsland, 1997; Sadock, 2000). (15) Swedish: Optional pronoun-only object shi ▷ Note: Unlike Labrador Inuttut, this ergative patterning seems to be obligatory, a. Varför läste Peter den aldrig? not optional. why read Peter it never ‘Why did Peter never read it?’ (13) The Aleut Eect b. Varför läste Peter aldrig den? a. Piitra-xˆ tayagu-ˆ xˆ / ting kidu-ku-xˆ why read Peter never it 1s pron pres 3s Peter-abs man-abs / . .abs help- - .S ‘Why did Peter never read it?’ (Vikner, 2017) ‘Peter is helping the man / me.’ (16) Danish: Obligatory pronoun-only object shi b. Piitra-m kidu-ku-u a. Studenten læste den ikke Peter-erg help-pres-3s.S/3s.O student read it not ‘Peter is helping him/her.’ (Bergsland, 1997) ‘The student didn’t read it.’ b. *Studenten læste ikke den → The existence of these surface commonalities, despite the two languages being geo- student read not it graphically and genetically distant, reveals a systematicity in the variation in ergativity, spanning the entire Eskimo-Aleut language family. Intended: ‘The student didn’t read it.’ (Thráinsson, 2008) 8Woolford’s (2017) analysis is specically on Kalaallisut and Aleut, butwe have seenabove thatthiscan extend 7Following Elbourne (2005), Stanton (2016), I assume that pronouns are bare D0s. to Labrador Inuttut based on its similarities with Aleut.

4 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

• As summarized in (17), both Inuit (and Aleut) and Scandinavian may be analyzed as 4.1 Pronominal doubling of abs objects displaying a parametrization in the types of objects that may undergo object shift. • Proposal: In Inuktitut, the object φ-morphology in ergative constructions is underly- ingly a pronominal D0, rather than the exponent of φ-agreement (Yuan, to appear), (17) Object shi cross-linguistically (adapted from Woolford 2017) (19). Full DPs/pronouns Pronouns only (19) Clitic doubling in Inuktitut Kalaallisut Labrador Inuttut Aleut a. kisu niri-guma-viuk Icelandic Swedish Danish abs interr 2s 3s (Optional) (Obligatory) what. eat-want- . .S/ .O ‘Which one/which of these do you want to eat?’ b. 0 D i In sum, Kalaallisut and Labrador Inuttut display variation in both ergativity and object movement. DPi • These languages moreover reveal a dependency between these phenomena—the • The presence of the pronoun in such constructions is semantically detectable in ergative case patterning surfaces only if object movement takes place. a cross-linguistically stable way (e.g. Suñer, 1988; Dobrovie-Sorin, 1990; Anagnos- topoulou, 2006; Baker and Kramer, 2018). ▷ Clitic-doubled nominals are D-linked, topicalized, specic, ..., (20a). ▷ Moreover, non-referential elements such as negative indenites may not be dou- 4 An intermediate ergative patterning in Inuktitut bled, (20b).

• Further evidence from Inuktitut: Inuktitut crucially displays an intermediate pat- (20) Romanian: Pronominal clitic doubling pa erns terning between Kalaallisut and Labrador Inuttut along both factors, (18). a. Pe care l-ai văzut pe which cl-2s.have seen (18) Ergativity and object movement across Inuit ‘Which one did you see?’ (doubling required)

Kalaallisut Inuktitut Labrador Inuttut b. Nu am văzut pe nimeni not 1s.have seen pe nobody Ergativity Robustly ergative Less ergative Weakly ergative ‘I didn’t see anyone.’ (no doubling) (Dobrovie-Sorin, 1990) Object movement Full nouns Pronouns Pronouns and pronouns doubling full nouns only • Crucially, this is also seen in Inuktitut.9 (rst row adapted from Johns 2001) ▷ In (19a) above, the simplex wh-word kisu ‘what’ is obligatorily understood as D-linked (‘which x’) in abs object position. ▷ This builds on previous impressions that the ergative patterning in Inuktitut abs 10 is somewhat weaker than in Kalaallisut, though not as reduced as in Labrador ▷ And (21) shows that negative denites (e.g. NPIs) may not serve as objects. Inuttut (e.g. Johns, 2006, 2017; Beach, 2011; Carrier, 2017; Murasugi, 2017); see (21) Inuktitut: NPIs unavailable as abs objects Appendix A for specics. a. Context: You are looking at a group photo, trying to identify people. ▷ It is moreover supported by strong cross-linguistic parallels with languages with *ilisa-ri-nngit-tara kina=luunniit object clitic doubling. recognize-tr-neg-1s.S/3s.O who.abs=or Intended: ‘I don’t recognize a single person.’ ⋆ Altogether, what we nd across Inuit is a gradient in both ergativityand avail- ability of object movement. 9See Yuan (2018, to appear) for the full range of data and generalizations motivating this proposal.

5 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

b. Context: Jaani is sick and has been drifting in and out of consciousness. ▷ Like Kalaallisut, the ergative construction surfaces with full abs objects, not just *Jaani iqauma-nngit-tuq [ niri-lau-mmangaagu kisu=luunniit ] pronouns. abs neg 3s pst dub 3s 3s abs Jaani. remember- - .S eat- - . .S/ .O what. =or ▷ Like Labrador Inuttut, the higher movement copy is necessarily pronominal, and Intended: ‘Jaani doesn’t remember if he ate a single thing (yesterday).’ moreover cliticizes to the verb complex. • Further support: In Inuktitut (though not in Kalaallisut), the ability to realize pro- (24) a. Kalaallisut b. Inuktitut c. Labrador nouns as bound morphemes (clitics) generalizes into the nominal domain. Inu ut DP 0 obj D obj (22) Pronominal cliticization in complex nominals DP VP DP VP 0 subj subj D obj 11 0 DP 0 DP DP VP a. kalaallit uagut b. ilisaiji-tigut V ⟨ obj⟩ V obj subj

1p pron 1p V0 D0 Kalaallit . teacher- ⟨ obj⟩ ‘we Kalaallit’ (Kalaallisut) ‘we teachers’ (Inuktitut) (Fortescue, 1984)

• A welcome consequence: Just as the Kalaallisut vs. Labrador Inuttut contrast par- The intermediatepattern in Inuktitut thus constitutes crucial evidence bridg- allels Scandinavian object shift, the relevant dierence between Labrador Inuttut and ing ergativity and object movement across Inuit. Inuktitut also becomes cross-linguistically familiar. • Next: An analysis of ergativity across Inuit that makes sense of this correlation. ▷ As summarized in (23), the data shown here are reminiscent of variation within e.g. Romance in the ability for pronominal clitics to double full nouns.

(23) Behaviour of object pronouns 5 A congurational approach Pronominal cliticization Pronominal clitic doubling • Desideratum: A theory of case assignment that derives the ergative patterning from French Romanian Labrador Inuttut Inuktitut object movement. ▷ Theories that rely on functional heads (e.g. inherent erg case assigned by v0) 4.2 Interim summary are insucient, as they cannot easily capture this correlation.

• Main takeaway: Object movement in Inuktitut has commonalities with both Kalaal- • Proposal: erg case is dependent, assigned based on the c-command relationship lisut and Labrador Inuttut, schematized throughout (24). between two nominals within a syntactic domain (“case competition”) (e.g. Yip et al., 10Note that this incompatibility holds only for abs objects in Inuktitut; abs subjects, for instance, may serve as 1987; Marantz, 1991). NPIs. This restriction is moreover absent in Kalaallisut—unsurprising given that abs objects in Kalaallisut are not doubled by pronouns. Since abs objects are posited to move out of the c-command domain of sentential negation, (25) a. Dependent acc b. Dependent erg Bittner (1994) proposes that they may reconstruct for NPI-licensing. However, this analysis cannot account for (21b) in Inuktitut, given that the NPI is contained within an embedded island and negation is in the higher clause. DP DPerg

DP (i) Kalaallisut: abs object NPIs are permi ed DPacc kina=luunniit taku-nngi-laa who.abs=or see-neg-3s.S/3s.O ‘He didn’t see anyone.’ (Fortescue, 1984) ▷ If correct, Inuit should pass standard diagnostics for dependent case, such as the 11This cliticization process is optional in the nominal domain, with Inuktitut speakers also permitting the vari- possibility of erg case on unaccusative subjects (e.g. Baker, 2015). ant in (22a). This optionality is reminiscent of the ergative (pronominal doubling) vs. non-ergative (no pronominal doubling) alternation seen at the sentence level. ▷ This is in fact borne out—see Yuan and Ershova (this session).

6 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

• Caveat: Because objects move to a position c-commanding the subject, this requires References that dependent erg case be assigned downward, not upward (Yuan and Ershova, this session). Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Hank van Riemsdijk, volume 1, 519–581. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ▷ Also, the relevant domain must be vP-external, if only raised objects are consid- ered in the case competition (Baker and Vinokurova, 2010; Baker, 2015). Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ⋆ Baker, Mark, and Ruth Kramer. 2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns: Amharic objects and beyond. Variation in ergativity across Inuit: Variation in the nature of the case competi- Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36:1035–1088. tor for dependent erg case assignment, i.e. the object that raises past the subject, (26). Baker, Mark, and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:593–642. ▷ In contrast, no variation in the properties of erg case throughout the language family. Beach, Matthew. 2011. Studies in Inuktitut grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York, Bualo, Bualo, NY.

(26) a. Kalaallisut b. Inuktitut c. Labrador Berge, Anna. 1997. Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. Inu ut 0 Doctoral Dissertation, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. DPabs D VP VP 0 DPerg DPerg D Berge, Anna. 2011. Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. Lincoln: 0 0 VP V ⟨DP⟩ V DPabs DPerg University of Nebraska Press. 0 0 V ⟨D ⟩ Bergsland, Knut. 1997. Aleut grammar: Unangam Tunuganaan Achixaasi. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center. --- = dependent case assignment; ← = movement Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope, and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

6 Conclusion Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996a. Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27:531–604. • Main observation: A systematic correlation between ergativity and object shift. Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996b. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic (27) Variation in the ergative construction Inquiry 27:1–68.

Kalaallisut Inuktitut Labrador Inuttut Carrier, Julien. 2017. The ergative-antipassive alternation in Inuktitut: Analyzed in a case of new- dialect formation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 62:661–684. Ergativity Robustly ergative Less ergative Weakly ergative Object movement Full nouns Pronouns Pronouns Compton, Richard. 2016. Mutually conditioned mood and object agreement in Inuit. In Proceedings doubling full nouns of NELS 46, ed. Christopher Hammerly and Brandon Prickett, 241–250. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

• Analysis: Ergative alignment in Inuit is determined by the position of the object— Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction which, in turn, conditions case morphology on the subject. asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14:179–242. ▷ erg case is a byproduct of object movement, but is orthogonal to ergative align- Creider, Chet. 1978. The syntax of relative clauses in Inuktitut. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2:95–110. ment in a deeper sense. Diesing, Molly. 1996. Semantic variables and object shift. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax ii, ed. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel Epstein, and Steve Peter, 66–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer. • Zooming out further: The connection between ergativity and object movement, while not immediately obvious in any individual Inuit language, was revealed by Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pointwise comparisons between similar grammars. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantication in Romanian. Lin- ▷ Case study in variation as a methodological tool in investigating syntax. guistic Inquiry 21:351–397.

7 Deriving ergativity from object shift across Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut) Yuan

Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2010. The language of the Inuit: Syntax, semantics, and society in the Arctic. Vikner, Sten. 1994. Scandinavian object shift and West Germanic scrambling. In Studies on scram- Montreal, QC & Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press. bling, ed. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 487–517. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vikner, Sten. 2017. Object shift in Scandinavian. In The wiley-blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 2784–2844. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd edition Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm. edition.

Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and Wharram, Douglas. 2003. On the interpretation of (un)certain indenites in Inuktitut and related English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm. languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Johns, Alana. 1999. The decline of ergativity in Labrador Inuttut. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics Woolford, Ellen. 2017. Mainland Scandinavian object shift and the puzzling ergative pattern in Aleut. 17:73–90. In Order and structure in syntax, ed. Laura Bailey and Michelle Sheehan, 117–134. Berlin: Language Science Press. Johns, Alana. 2001. An inclination towards accusative. Linguistica Atlantica 23:127–144. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendo. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63:217–250. Johns, Alana. 2006. Ergativity and change in Inuktitut. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 293–311. Springer. Yuan, Michelle. 2018. Dimensions of ergativity in Inuit: Theory and microvariation. Doctoral Dis- Johns, Alana. 2017. Anaphoric arguments in Unangax and Eastern Canadian Inuktitut. In Studies in sertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Inuit linguistics. In honor of Michael Fortescue, ed. Lawrence D. Kaplan and Anna Berge, 91–103. Yuan, Michelle. to appear. Diagnosing object agreement vs. clitic doubling: An Inuit case study. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center. Linguistic Inquiry . Manga, Louise. 1996. An explanation for ergative versus accusative languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON. A “Weaker” ergativity in Inuktitut Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. • The ergative vs. antipassive alternation in Inuktitut is distributionally between that Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL 91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Con- in Kalaallisut and Labrador Inuttut (e.g. Johns, 2006, 2017; Yuan, 2018). ference on Linguistics, ed. German Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. • The data in (28) are exactly as what we have seen for Labrador Inuttut. However, full DP abs objects are permitted in ergative constructions, like in Kalaallisut (§4). Murasugi, Kumiko. 2017. Linguistic eldwork and scientic methodology. In A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, ed. Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, and Coppe van Urk, 111–120. Cambridge, MA: (28) Inuktitut: Non-ergative constructions are semantically ambiguous MITWPL. a. marruuk angutiit niri-lauq-tut pingasu-nit sivalaar-nit abs abs pst 3p Sadock, Jerrold. 2000. Aleut number agreement. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the two. men. eat- - .S three-obl cookies-obl Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Andrew Simpson, 121–138. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics ‘Two men ate three cookies.’ (2>3, 3>2) Society. b. tuqu-nga-lik-suni=lu tagga takuna-liq-tugut (pro) die-perf-prog-ctmp.3s.S=also then look.for.long.time-prog-1p.S (3s.mod) Spreng, Bettina. 2012. Viewpoint aspect in Inuktitut: The syntax and semantics of antipassives. 12 Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ‘And now that [the caribou] is dead, we are looking at it.’ (Carrier, 2017)

Stanton, Juliet. 2016. Wholesale Late Merger in A-movement:¯ Evidence from preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 47:89–126. • The observation has additionally been corroborated sociolinguistically (Carrier, 2017) and experimentally (Murasugi, 2017). Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:391–434. 12The example in (28b) comes from Carrier’s (2017) corpus of naturally occurring data, and shows that null Thráinsson, H oskuldur. 2008. Object shift and scrambling. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syn- objects of antipassive constructions may encode anaphoric denite (referential) readings. This is not possible for tactic Theory, ed. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell. antipassive constructions in Kalaallisut (Jerry Sadock, p.c.).