Algonquian grammar myths Will Oxford University of Manitoba This paper seeks to clarify several misconceptions that occasion- ally arise with respect to direct-inverse marking, person hierar- chies, obviation, and transitivity in the Algonquian languages. The paper presents illustrative data from a variety of Algonquian languages and is intended to serve as a reference for some of the more complex principles of Algonquian morphosyntax. 1 Introduction The Algonquian languages are known for their complex and typologically unusual morphosyntax. Despite the existence of a comprehensive descriptive framework (especially Bloomfield 1962 and Goddard 1969), certain misconceptions about Algonquian morphosyntax have arisen both within and outside the Al- gonquianist literature. This paper seeks to clarify several of these “Algonquian grammar myths”, with the more general goal of highlighting what is known about these difficult aspects of Algonquian grammar. I have tried to limit the identification of “myths” to matters of descriptive fact. Many morphosyn- tactic phenomena in Algonquian are controversial, such as whether obviation can be understood as switch- reference (Muehlbauer, 2012), whether unspecified-actor forms are impersonal or passive (Dryer, 1996), whether transitive inanimate theme signs are derivational or inflectional (Piggott, 1989; Goddard, 2007), and whether transitive animate theme signs mark hierarchical alignment, object agreement, or viewpoint aspect (Wolfart, 1973; Rhodes, 1976; Bliss, Ritter, & Wiltschko, 2014). Regardless of one’s stance on these issues, it would be unfair to refer to opposing positions as myths. In other cases, however, it is clear that certain descriptive statements are inadequate. This paper focuses on such clear cases, though I acknowledge that my judgments may reflect my own biases, and I may well be labouring under some myths of my own. The paper begins by laying out some of the basic grammatical terminology that is used in Algonquian linguistics (§2). Ten Algonquian grammar myths are then discussed (§3). 2 Algonquian grammatical terminology Linguists who study Algonquian morphosyntax employ an elaborate and well-developed system of grammatical terminology. The system is essentially that of Bloomfield (1946, 1962), with some additions by Goddard (1969). This section introduces the terminology that will recur in this paper in the description of verb classes, verb inflection templates, and nominal features. Verb classes. Algonquian verb stems fall into four basic morphological classes, listed in Table 1. Morphologically intransitive stems (AI, II) mark the animacy of their actor argument while morphologically transitive stems (TA, TI) mark the animacy of their undergoer argument. (Since the notion of subjecthood is contentious in Algonquian linguistics, I use the terms “actor” and “undergoer” to refer to verbal arguments throughout this paper, adapted from Bloomfield’s (1946) use of “actor” and “goal”.) See Section 3.8 for examples and further discussion of the verb classes. Verb inflection templates. Nearly all Algonquian languages have a contrast between two formally distinct sets of verb inflection, known as . The inflection occurs canonically in main clauses and the inflection occurs canonically in subordinate clauses, although the details of the conditioning are subtle and vary extensively across the family. Both sets of inflection mark mostly the same contrasts, but they do so using quite different morphology. The basic verb inflection Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), Volume 39 © 2017 Will Oxford W O Table 1: Algonquian verb stem classes Class Argument structure AI animate intransitive animate actor II inanimate intransitive inanimate actor TA transitive animate actor + animate undergoer TI transitive inanimate actor + inanimate undergoer templates given for Ojibwe in (1) and (2) are representative of the patterns that are found in most of the languages, although many details vary, additional slots exist, and not all slots are overtly occupied in all forms. The labeling of the slots in these templates follows that in Bloomfield 1946 (prefix, stem, theme sign, mode sign) and Goddard 1969 (central suffix, peripheral suffix).1 (1) Ojibwe TA independent inflection template Example: niwaapamaaaassiwaanaapanek ‘we didn’t see them’ (Nichols, 1980: 290) Theme Central Mode Peripheral Prefix Stem Negative Sign Suffix Sign Suffix ni- waapam -aa -ssiw -aanaa -pan -ek 1- see - - -1 - -3 (2) Ojibwe TA conjunct inflection template Example: waapamaassiwankitwaapan ‘we didn’t see them’ (Nichols, 1980: 317) Theme Central Mode Stem Negative Sign Suffix Sign waapam -aa -ssiw -ankit + -waa -pan see - - -1:3 -3 - Some authors use numbers rather than names to refer to the inflectional slots, but such systems are entirely dependent on the precise number of slots that are distinguished in a particular linguist’s analysis of a particular language and thus do not lend themselves well to cross-family comparisons. Named slots seem preferable to numbered slots in that they allow us to, for example, compare the “central suffix” in Menominee and Delaware without needing to translate from one slot numbering system to another. Nominal features. Algonquian nominals may be first person (1), second person (2), animate third person (3), or inanimate third person (0). The use of “3” for animates and “0” for inanimates is conventional. Nominals may be singular () or plural (); Mi’gmaq and Maliseet-Passamaquody have developed a plural- dual contrast in some contexts. First-person plurals show a contrast between exclusive (1) and inclusive (21). Some transitive forms involve an unspecified or impersonal actor, which is notated as “X”. Third 1Abbreviations: 1!3 or 1:3 = first acts on third; 1>3 = first outranks third; 1 = exclusive first-person plural; 21 = inclusive first-person plural; 3 = animate third person; 0 = inanimate third person; 30, 00 = obviative third persons; 300 = further obviative; AI = animate intransitive; AI+O = transitivized AI; = animate; = direct; = dubitative; = exclusive; = indicative; II = inanimate intransitive; = inanimate; = inclusive; = inverse; = n-registration; = negative; = object; = obviative; PA = Proto-Algonquian; = plural; = possessor; = preterit; = proximate; SAP = speech-act participant; = subordinator; = subject; TA = transitive animate; TI = transitive inanimate; TI1 = TI Class 1; = theme sign; X = unspecified actor. 2 A persons are subject to an contrast that distinguishes more topical thirds (3, 0) from less topical thirds (30, 00); a second degree of obviation is sometimes posited (300). It is often useful to provide a label that identifies the arguments of a transitive form. In this paper a formula such as “1!3” indicates that 1 is acting on 3 (as in (1)–(2) above). This notation is revised from that of Goddard (e.g. 2007), who writes “1—3”. In certain contexts I use the compressed form “1:3”. I reserve the notation “1>3” for the description of hierarchies (= “1 outranks 3”). Most of the inflected nouns and verbs in this paper are given in plural form. This is simply for ex- pository convenience, as the morphology that indexes plurals is more reliably overt than that which indexes singulars and is thus easier for the reader to observe. In most instances a singular form could be substituted without affecting the point being made. In cases where number does play a crucial role in the inflectional pattern, both singular and plural forms will be presented (e.g. §3.2.3, §3.2.6, §3.5). 3 Myths The ten myths discussed in this paper fall into three groups. The first four myths involve the system of direct-inverse marking and the related person hierarchy: • Myth 1: All TA verb forms are either direct or inverse. • Myth 2: There is an “Algonquian person hierarchy” (in which second outranks first). • Myth 3: Direct and inverse forms are morphologically symmetrical. • Myth 4: All TA conjunct forms contain an overt theme sign. The next three myths involve obviation: • Myth 5: Plural and obviative suffixes are in competition. • Myth 6: Only animate nominals can be obviative. • Myth 7: There is “further obviative” inflection. And the final three myths are related to transitivity: • Myth 8: AI+O verbs are morphologically intransitive. • Myth 9: All TI verbs inflect with the TI theme sign. • Myth 10: The actor argument of a transitive verb must be animate. Direct-inverse marking, person hierarchies, obviation, and transitive-intransitive distinctions are some of the most complex and typologically unusual elements of Algonquian morphosyntax, so it is understandable that certain misconceptions have arisen regarding these topics. It should be noted that most of the myths contain a significant grain of truth, as they are rooted in generalizations that accurately describe the most canonical portions of the morphosyntactic system. In most instances, the problem is that these generalizations, which are accurate as a first approximation, have been incorrectly extended to describe the system as a whole. 3.1 Myth: All TA verb forms are either direct or inverse The inflection of certain transitive animate (TA) verb forms shows a pattern that can be described in terms of a person hierarchy. Consider first the Ojibwe 1$3 forms in (3) (Nichols, 1980). In both forms, central agreement indexes the first-person argument (ni-…-(i)naan ‘1’) and peripheral agreement indexes the third-person argument (-ik ‘3’), regardless of the thematic roles of the two arguments. 3 W O