Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Michelle Yuan
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2023) 54 (2): 413–428.
Published: 21 March 2023
Abstract
View articletitled, Case as an Anaphor Agreement Effect: Evidence from Inuktitut
View
PDF
for article titled, Case as an Anaphor Agreement Effect: Evidence from Inuktitut
The anaphor agreement effect (AAE) is the crosslinguistic inability for anaphors to covary with φ-agreement ( Rizzi 1990 , Woolford 1999 ); languages use various strategies that conspire to circumvent this effect. In this squib, I identify and confirm a prediction arising from two previous observations by Woolford (1999) concerning the scope of the AAE, based on new evidence from Inuktitut (Eastern Canadian Inuit). I propose that anaphors in Inuktitut are lexically specified as projecting additional syntactic structure, spelled out as oblique case morphology; because φ-Agree in Inuktitut may only target ERG and ABS arguments, encountering an anaphor inevitably leads to failed Agree in the sense of Preminger 2011 , 2014 . I moreover argue that this exact AAE pattern is previously unattested, yet is predicted to arise given the range of existing strategies. Finally, this squib provides evidence against previous detransitivization-based approaches to reflexivity in Inuktitut (e.g., Bok-Bennema 1991 ).
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2021) 52 (1): 153–179.
Published: 01 January 2021
Abstract
View articletitled, Diagnosing Object Agreement vs. Clitic Doubling: An Inuit Case Study
View
PDF
for article titled, Diagnosing Object Agreement vs. Clitic Doubling: An Inuit Case Study
Much recent literature has focused on whether the verbal agreement morphology cross-referencing objects is true φ-agreement or clitic doubling. I address this question on the basis of comparative data from related Inuit languages, Inuktitut and Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), and argue that both possibilities are attested in Inuit. Evidence for this claim comes from diverging syntactic and semantic properties of the object DPs encoded by this cross-referencing morphology. I demonstrate that object DPs in Inuktitut display various properties mirroring the behavior of clitic-doubled objects crosslinguistically, while their counterparts in Kalaallisut display none of these properties, indicating genuine φ-agreement rather than clitic doubling. Crucially, this distinction cannot be detected morphologically, as the relevant cross-referencing morphemes are uniform across Inuit. Therefore, this article cautions against the reliability of canonical morphological diagnostics for (agreement) affixes vs. clitics.