Plural person and associativity (in Inuktitut)
Michelle Yuan, MIT ([email protected])
Manitoba Workshop on Person, Sept. 23, 2017
Introduction
Broad question: How is plural person represented in the grammar?
• There is an intuition in much literature that plural person
encodes associativity, which is distinct from plurality
(Jespersen, 1924; Sonnaert, 2017, et seq.)
This talk: A novel argument for associativity in plural person, based
on evidence from Inuktitut1
• In Inuktitut, 1st/2nd person plural pronouns display
morphological and structural parallels with associative plurals
1Inuktitut (Eskimo-Aleut) is a group of Inuit dialects spoken around Nunavut,
Canada. The data presented here were elicited in 2016 and 2017 in Iqaluit, NU,
and mainly represent the varieties spoken on Baffin Island.
1
Introduction
Main proposal: Associative plurals and participant plural pronouns
are both built from two subcomponents: a singular individual and
an associative morpheme
• Following Vassilieva and Larson (2005), this morpheme is
represented here as ‘∆’
• ∆ is an unsaturated element whose reference may be filled in
contextually or linguistically
(1) a. Taiviti-kkut (Taiviti-ASSOC) = Taiviti + ∆
b. uvagut (1P) = 1S + ∆
2
Introduction
I then extend this proposal to Adnominal Pronoun
Constructions,2 i.e. we linguists constructions
• Inuktitut APCs contain an overt associative morpheme (∆)
• Not sure why . . . but a possible connection to plural person in
various Romance languages?
2Terminology from Höhn (2017)
3
Roadmap
Main content:
2. Associative plurals in Inuktitut
3. Plural Pronoun Constructions
4. “Extended” associatives
Speculations and half-formed thoughts:
5. Adnominal Pronoun Constructions in Inuktitut
6. Plural person in Romance
4
Associative plurals in Inuktitut
Associative plurals denote a group containing a salient/named
individual (often a proper name/kinship term)
(2) teyze-im-leraunt-1S-PL
‘my aunt and her associates’
(Turkish, Görgülü 2011)
(3) MereMary
maaand
‘Mary and co.’
(Maori, Vassilieva 2005)
• See Corbett and Mithun (1996), Moravcsik (2003), Vassilieva
(2005), Nakanishi and Ritter (2008), Forbes (2013, a.o.). . .
5
Associative plurals in Inuktitut
Associative plurals in Inuktitut:
(4) a. Taiviti-kkutTaiviti-ASSOC.PL
‘David and co.’
b. ataata-kkutfather-ASSOC.PL
‘father and co.’
Number morphology (in dialects that have not neutralized DU/PL)
indicates the number of individuals denoted:
(5) Taiviti-kkukDavid-ASSOC.DU
‘David and one other person’
Thus, associative plurals have three subparts: (i) an individual, (ii)
an associative morpheme (-kku), (iii) and number morphology
(-k/-t)6
Associative plurals in Inuktitut
Foreshadowing the rest of the talk. . .
• The associative morpheme is ‘∆’; thus, suitable paraphrase of
Taiviti-kkut = ‘David and others’
• Evidence for this analysis comes from Plural Pronoun
Constructions
• . . . This, in turn, provides support for an associative-based
analysis of plural person
7
Plural Pronoun Constructions
Plural Pronoun Constructions (PPCs): A plural pronoun isinterpreted as singular in the presence of a comitative phrase (e.g.Dyla, 1988; Ionin and Matushansky, 2003; Vassilieva and Larson,2005)
(6) a. Mywe
swith
PetejPeter-INSTR
pojdëmgo-FUT
domojhome
‘I + Peter will go home.’
b. Vyyou.PL
swith
PetejPeter-INSTR
pojdëtego-FUT
domojhome
‘You(sg) + Peter will go home.’
c. Onithey
swith
PetejPeter-INSTR
pojdutgo-FUT
domojhome
‘He + Peter will go home.’ (Russian, V&L 2005)
8
Plural Pronoun Constructions
Inuktitut also has PPCs
• The “comitative” equivalent is a nominal marked with =lu ‘also’
(7) a. [ Kelsey=luKelsey=also
(uvagut)(1P)
] niqi-liuq-tugutfood-make-INTR.1P
‘I + Kelsey are cooking.’ (not: ‘we + Kelsey’)
b. [ Kelsey=luKelsey=also
(ilitsi)(2P)
] niqi-liuq-tusifood-make-INTR.2P
‘You(sg) + Kelsey are cooking.’ (not: ‘you(pl) + Kelsey’)
Unlike Russian, Inuktitut lacks 3rd person pronouns; 3P
demonstratives cannot participate in PPCs
9
Plural Pronoun Constructions
Crucially, any analysis of plural pronouns must explain how they
can be interpreted as singular in PPCs
• Vassilieva and Larson (2005): Plural pronouns are
decomposable into a singular pronoun and an unsaturated
element, ∆
• While ∆ is often saturated contextually, in PPCs they are
saturated by the comitative argument
(8) a. We = I + ∆
b. We with Peter = I + ∆ (where ∆=Peter)
(9) a. You(pl) = You(sg) + ∆
b. You(pl) with Peter = You(sg) + ∆ (where ∆=Peter)
10
Plural Pronoun Constructions
V&L (cont’d): In many languages, this decomposition ismorphologically transparent
(10) Vietnamese (Nguen 1996)
a. tao ‘1S’ vs. chúng tao ‘1P’
b. mày ‘2S vs. chúng mày ‘2P’
c. nó ‘3S’ vs. chúng nó ‘3P’
11
Plural Pronoun Constructions
Semi-transparency in Inuktitut 1P
• The 1P form uvagut is historically 1S + *-kut (Fortescue et al.,
1994; Corbett and Mithun, 1996)
• Crucially, *-kut→ associative morpheme -kkut3
(11) uvanga ‘1S’ vs. uvagut ‘1P’
In contrast, the 2P form ilitsi is opaque
• However, its ability to participate in PPCs suggests that it
nonetheless has the same underlying composition as 1P
(12) igvit ‘2S’ vs. ilitsi ‘2P’
3Another language that has an overt associative morpheme in its plural pronouns
is Japanese (Nakanishi and Ritter, 2008). 12
Plural Pronoun Constructions
Like associative plurals, number morphology is separate from theassociative portion of the pronoun, and indicates the total numberof individuals in the group
(13) a. Taiviti-kku-k ‘David and one other person’
b. Taiviti-kku-t ‘David and co.’
(14) a. uva-gu-k ‘1D’
b. uva-gu-t ‘1P’
• Morphological evidence showing that the ‘plurality’ of plural
person is really associativity
13
Extended associatives
Inuktitut also exhibits a structural parallel between its associative
plurals and plural pronouns
• Inuktitut also has so-called extended associatives4
• Structurally identical to PPCs, except the plural noun is an
associative plural, rather than a plural pronoun
(15) Eva-kkutEva-ASSOC.PL
[ pani-nga=ludaughter-POSS.3S=also
]
‘Eva + her daughter’
4According to Vassilieva (2005), these are very rare cross-linguistically; many
languages that have associative plurals (and even ones that have both associative
plurals and PPCs) lack extended associatives.
14
Extended associatives
Like in PPCs (in Inuktitut and cross-linguistically), the singularinterpretation of the plural nominal is lost in the absence of acomitative
(16) Mywe
iand
PetjaPeter.NOM
znajemknow.PL
nemeckijGerman
‘We + Peter know German. (not: ‘I + Peter’) (Russian, V&L 2005)
(17) a. KelseyKelsey
ammaand
uvagut1P
‘We + Kelsey’ (not: ‘I + Kelsey’)
b. ?JacobJacob
ammaand
Kelsey-kkutKelsey-ASSOC.PL
‘Kelsey and co. and Jacob’ (not: ‘Kelsey + Jacob’) (Inuktitut)
15
Extended associatives
Like PPCs (in Inuktitut and cross-linguistically), the plural nominalmust be higher along a person-animacy hierarchy than thecomitative phrase
(18) Russian (1 > 2 > 3)
a. mywe
swith
toboj/nimyou/him
‘me with you/him’ (1 > 2, 1 > 3)
b. vyyou(pl)
swith
nim/*mnojhim/*me
‘you with him,’ *‘you with me’ (2 > 3, *2 > 1)
c. *onithey
swith
toboj/mnojyou/me
*‘he with you,’ *‘he with me’ (*3 > 2, *3 > 1)
16
Extended associatives
In Inuktitut, the hierarchy is not about person, but seems to becoarser: pronoun > proper name > non-P.N. human
(19) a. [ John=luJohn=also
//
*igvi=lu2S=also
] uvagut1P
‘I + John,’ *‘I + you’ (pronoun > P.N, *1 > 2)
b. *[ uvanga=lu1S=also
] ilitsi2P
*‘you(sg) + I’ (*2 > 1)
(20) Eva-kkutEva-ASSOC.PL
[ pani-nga=ludaughter-POSS.3S=also
//
*uvanga=lu1S=also
//
*John=luJohn=also
]
‘Eva + her daughters,’ *‘Eva + me’ *‘Eva + John’
(P.N. > non-P.N., *P.N.>pronoun, *P.N.>P.N.)
17
Extended associatives
Interim conclusion: A unified analysis of associative plurals and
plural pronouns
(1) a. Taiviti-kkut (Taiviti-ASSOC) = Taiviti + ∆
b. uvagut (1P) = 1S + ∆
. . . Plural pronouns encode associativity
18
Adnominal pronoun constructions
Adnominal pronoun constructions are generally thought to
involve a pronominal D0 and an NP complement (e.g. Postal, 1966;
Elbourne, 2005; Höhn, 2017)
• Three types of APCs in Inuktitut (we are interested in (21c)):5
(21) a. uvagut1P
ilisaiji-u-jugutteacher-be-PTCP.1P.S
‘we teachers’ (lit. ‘we who are teachers’)
b. uvagut ilisaijiit
1P teachers.PL
‘we teachers’
c. ilisaiji-tigut
teacher-1P
‘we teachers’
5An interesting point of cross-dialectal variation: West Greenlandic only has the
constructions in (a-b) (Fortescue, 1984); the construction in (c) appears to be
unattested (Yining Nie, p.c.).19
Adnominal pronoun constructions
The morpheme encoding plural person is identical to the verbalobject agreement morpheme6
(22) a. taku-qqau-jaatigutsee-REC.PST-3S.S/1P.O‘She saw us.’
b. ilisaiji-tigutteacher-1P
‘we teachers’
6In Yuan (in prep.), I argue that this is because object agreement morphology in
Inuktitut is pronominal clitic doubling, not canonical φ-agreement. If both
adnominal plural person morphology and object agreement morphology are
pronominal D0s, this morphological identity is expected.
20
Adnominal pronoun constructions
We might expect this pattern to extend straightforwardly to
2P—however, the 2P APC requires an overt morpheme -gut
• Recall that -gut seems to be the associative plural morpheme
(cf. Taiviti-kkut ‘David and co.,’ uvagut 1P)
(23) a. taku-qqau-jaasisee-REC.PST-3S.S/2P.O‘She saw you(pl).’
b. ilisaiji-si-gutteacher-2P-ASSOC
‘you(pl) teachers’
For simplicity, I assume that the 1P construction always contains a
separate associative morpheme, but it is deleted as haplology, i.e.
ilisaiji-tigut-gut→ ilisaiji-tigut21
Adnominal pronoun constructions
An open question: Assuming a uniform semantics for the
associative morpheme in all its occurrences, this is ∆. What is it
contributing?
• Recall that plural person already contains a ∆
(24) Kelsey=lu ilitsi = 2S +∆ (where ∆=Kelsey)
‘you(sg) + Kelsey’
(25) a. ilisaiji-si-gutteacher-2P-ASSOC
‘you (pl) teachers’
b. [ [ [ teachers ] 2S+∆ ] ∆ ] ?
22
Plural person in Romance
A cross-linguistic parallel? Various Romance languages form plural
person with a piece meaning ‘others’
(26) a. Spanish: nosotros ‘we’ / vosotros ‘you(pl)’
b. Catalan: nosaltres ‘we’ / vosaltres ‘you(pl)’
c. Galician: nosoutros ‘we’ / vosoutros ‘you(pl)’
d. Quebec French: nous (autres) ‘we’ / vous (autres) ‘you(pl)’ /
eux/elles (autres) ‘they’
23
Plural pronoun in Romance
While there has been research on the historical development of
these forms, there has been almost no research on what exactly
‘others’ contributes linguistically, if anything7
• And while we might have been tempted to treat this as an
idiosyncratic/trivial fact about Romance...
The fact that Inuktitut (genetically unrelated) requires a comparable
morpheme (albeit limited to APCs) is probably not a coincidence
7Though see Tremblay 2014 on Quebec French
24
Conclusion
The ‘plural’ component of plural person is associativity
• Evidence from Inuktitut: Associative plurals and plural
pronouns share a common morphosyntax
• Both types of nouns are composed of a singular referent and
an associative morpheme, ∆, which may be saturated
contextually or by an overt phrase in the syntax
• Evidence from Plural Pronoun Constructions and extended
associatives
25
Conclusion
The associative morpheme is also obligatorily present in
Adnominal Pronoun Constructions
• It is unclear what exactly this morpheme is doing
• Nonetheless, its presence in Inuktitut sheds some light on the
morphological appearance of plural person in Romance
languages
26
Thanks to...
• Ragilee Attagootak, Susan Idlout, Jeanine Nowdluk, Jasmine
Oolayou, Jonah Oolayou, Shirley Kunuk, and Susan Tigullaraq
for sharing their language with me
• Rajesh Bhatt, Sabine Iatridou, Alana Johns, David Pesetsky,
Norvin Richards, Roger Schwarzschild, and audiences at MIT’s
Syntax Square and the Inuktitut Language and Linguistics
Workshop for helpful discussion and comments
• I am partially supported by a SSHRC doctoral fellowship and
an NSF dissertation improvement grant
27
References
Corbett, Grenville, and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems: Evidence from Yup’ik.
Journal of Linguistics 32:1–17.
Dyla, Stefan. 1988. Quasi-comitative coordination in Polish. Linguistics 26:383–414.
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forbes, Clarissa. 2013. Associative plurality in the Gitksan nominal domain. In Proceedings of the 2013 Canadian Linguistics
Association. University of Victoria.
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.
Fortescue, Michael, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan. 1994. Comparative Eskimo dictionary: With Aleut cognates,
volume 9. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.
Görgülü, Emrah. 2011. Plural marking in Turkish: Additive or associative? Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the
University of Victoria 21:70–80.
Höhn, Georg F. K. 2017. Non-possessive person in the nominal domain. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. 2003. DPs with a twist: A unified analysis of Russian comitatives. In Formal approaches
to Slavic linguistics 11: The Amherst meeting, ed. Wayles Browne, Ji-Yung Kim, Barbara H. Partee, and Robert A.
Rothstein, 255–274. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
Moravcsik, Edith. 2003. A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Studies in Language 27:469–503.
Nakanishi, Kimiko, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2008. Plurality in languages without a count-mass distinction. Paper presented at
the Mass/Count Workshop, University of Toronto.
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called ’pronouns’ in English. Monograph series in language and linguistics 19:177–206.
Sonnaert, Jolijn. 2017. Limitations on person lexicalisation. Paper presented at the Manitoba Workshop on Person.
Tremblay, Mireille. 2014. Les pronoms de français: Pluralité et individuation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Canadian
Linguistics Association.
Vassilieva, Masha. 2005. Associative and pronominal plurality. Doctoral Dissertation, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook,
NY.
Vassilieva, Masha, and Richard Larson. 2005. The semantics of the Plural Pronoun Construction. Natural Language
Semantics 13:101–124. 28