Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T14:27:59.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ergativity and Object Movement Across Inuit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Michelle Yuan
Michelle Yuan*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0108, La Jolla, CA 92093, [myuan@ucsd.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the Inuit language is generally characterized as ergative, it has been observed that the ergative case patterning is relatively weaker in certain Eastern Canadian varieties, resulting in a more accusative appearance (e.g. Johns 2001, 2006, Carrier 2017). This article presents a systematic comparison of ergativity in three Inuit varieties, as a lens into the properties of case alignment and clause structure in Inuit more broadly. Building on the previous insight that ergativity in Inuit is tied to object movement to a structurally high position (Bittner 1994, Bittner & Hale 1996a,b, Woolford 2017), I demonstrate that the relative robustness of the ergative patterning across Inuit is tightly correlated with the permissibility of object movement—and not determined by the morphosyntactic properties of ERG subjects, which are uniform across Inuit. I additionally relate this correlation to another point of variation across Inuit concerning the status of object agreement as affixes vs. pronominal clitics (Yuan 2021). These connections offer testable predictions for the status of ergativity across the entire Inuit dialect continuum and yield crosslinguistic implications for the typology of case alignment, especially in how it interacts with the syntactic position of nominals.

Keywords

Inuitergativitycaseagreementobject shiftclitic doublingsyntactic variation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 510 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Printed with the permission of Michelle Yuan. © 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am deeply grateful to Susan Idlout, Selma Jararuse, Shirley Kunnuk, Dina Maggo, Jeanine Nowdluk, Jasmine Oolayou, Erin Pameolik, Johnny Qammaniq, Cornelia Tuglavina, Katie Winters, and especially Ragilee Attagootak for discussion of the Inuktitut and Labrador Inuttut data included here, and for sharing their language with me. For further comments and suggestions, I thank Karlos Arregi, Nico Baier, Julien Carrier, Justin Colley, Richard Compton, Amy Rose Deal, Ksenia Ershova, Sabine Iatridou, Alana Johns, David Pesetsky, Norvin Richards, Jerry Sadock, anonymous referees for Language, Language editors John Beavers and Lisa Travis, and audiences at MIT, UC San Diego, UC Santa Cruz, NELS 50, and LSA 2020. This research was financially supported by an SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship and an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, and logistically supported by the Nunavut Research Institute and the Nunatsiavut Research Centre. All errors are mine.

References

Abramovitz, Rafael. 2020. Successive-cyclic wh-movement feeds case competition in Koryak. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005213.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 1994. Functional heads and interpretation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/527.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008a. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5). 966–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00075.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008b. Minimalist analysis of ergativity. Sophia Linguistica 55. 123–42.Google Scholar
Allen, Shanley E. M. 2013. The acquisition of ergativity in Inuktitut. The acquisition of ergativity, ed. by Bavin, Edith L. and Stoll, Sabine, 71–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Hank, 519–81. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470996591.ch14.Google Scholar
Anderssen, Merete, Bentzen, Kristine; and Rodina, Yulia. 2011. Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of Norwegian object shift. Language Acquisition 19(1). 39–72. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2012.633844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2010. Object shift or object placement in general? Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 26–42. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/15/papers/lfg10andreasson.pdf.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3). 341–79. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In Coon et al. 2017, 111–34. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Kramer, Ruth. 2016. Clitics are pronouns: Reduce and interpret. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, and Washington, DC: Georgetown University, ms.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Kramer, Ruth. 2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns: Amharic objects (and beyond). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36. 1035–88. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9401-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Vinokurova, Nadya. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 593–642. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, Matthew. 2011. Studies in Inuktitut grammar. Buffalo: State University of New York, Buffalo dissertation. Online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/925618904.Google Scholar
Berge, Anna. 1997. Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vf4d6v2.Google Scholar
Berge, Anna. 2011. Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, Anna. 2016. Eskimo-Aleut. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.9.Google Scholar
Bergsland, Knut. 1997. Aleut grammar: Unangam Tunuganaan achixaasi. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1987. On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 53(2). 194–231. DOI: 10.1086/466053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1988. Canonical and noncanonical argument expressions. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope, and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-1412-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Ken. 1996a. Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4). 531–604. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178953.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Ken. 1996b. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 1–68. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178925.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the role of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2). 195–236. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178934.Google Scholar
Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Foris. DOI: 10.1515/9783110869156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branan, Kenyon, and Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2022. Ā-probing for the closest DP. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8198.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Algonquian languages have A-movement and A-agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3). 427–45. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Julien. 2012. L'expression de la transitivité en itivimiut. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal master's thesis. Online: http://archipel.uqam.ca/5064/1/M12622.pdf.Google Scholar
Carrier, Julien. 2017. The ergative-antipassive alternation in Inuktitut: Analyzed in a case of new-dialect formation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 62(4). 661–84. DOI: 10.1017/cnj.2017.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Julien. 2020. Ergativity on the move. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1807/106393.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clem, Emily. 2019. Amahuaca ergative as agreement with multiple heads. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37. 785–823. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9431-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colley, Justin. 2018. Object movement derives object preference. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 48. 149–62.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27(3). 391–444. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178944.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard. 2016. Mutually conditioned mood and object agreement in Inuit. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 46. 241–50.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard. 2019. Person complementarity and (pseudo) person case constraint effects: Evidence from Inuktitut. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 64(4). 592–616. DOI: 10.1017/cnj.2019.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compton, Richard, and Pittman, Christine. 2010. Word-formation by phase in Inuit. Lingua 120(9). 2167–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Baier, Nico; and Levin, Ted. 2021. Mayan agent focus and the ergative extraction constraint: Facts and fictions revisited. Language 97(2). 269–332. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2021.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane; and Travis, Lisa deMena (eds.) 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Pedro, Pedro Mateo; and Preminger, Omer. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14(2). 179–242. DOI: 10.1075/lv.14.2.01coo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Ergative case and the transitive subject: A view from Nez Perce. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 73–120. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-009-9081-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 47(3). 427–70. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2019. Raising to ergative: Remarks on applicatives of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 50(2). 388–415. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, and Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. From hell to polarity: ‘Aggressively non-D-linked’ wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1). 31–61. DOI: 10.1162/002438902317382170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déprez, Viviane M. 1989. On the typology of syntactic positions and the nature of chains: Move α to the specifier of functional projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13960.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1996. Semantic variables and object shift. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II, ed. by Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Epstein, Samuel, and Peter, Steve, 66–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15. 369–427. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005778326537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly, and Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3. 123–76. DOI: 10.1007/BF01249836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. DOI: 10.2307/412519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3). 351–97. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178681.Google Scholar
Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 1988. Tukilik: An Inuktitut grammar for all. Laval: Association Inuksiutiit Katimajiit Inc., Groupes d'études inuit et circumpolaires.Google Scholar
Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2010. The language of the Inuit: Syntax, semantics, and society in the Arctic. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, and Johns, Alana. 1995. The law of double consonants in Inuktitut. Linguistica Atlantica 17. 79–95. Online: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/la/article/view/22492.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4). 555–95. DOI: 10.1162/002438901753373005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ershova, Ksenia. 2019. Syntactic ergativity in West Circassian. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation. DOI: 10.6082/uchicago.1848.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1993. Eskimo word order variation and its contact-induced perturbation. Journal of Linguistics 29(2). 267–89. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700000335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2017. Polysynthesis in the Arctic/Sub-Arctic. The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis, ed. by Fortescue, Michael, Mithun, Marianne, and Evans, Nicholas, 217–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Jacobson, Steven; and Kaplan, Lawrence. 1994. Comparative Eskimo dictionary: With Aleut cognates. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Jacobson, Steven; and Kaplan, Lawrence. 2011. Comparative Eskimo dictionary: With Aleut cognates. 2nd edn. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Gulya, János. 1966. Eastern Ostyak cherstomathy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1997. The Misumalpan causative construction. Essays on language function and language type, ed. by Bybee, Joan L., Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 199–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2008. Definiteness in Inuktitut. Toronto: University of Toronto, ms. Online: http://peterhallman.com/Inuktitut.pdf.Google Scholar
Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1033–88. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, Boris. 2019. Head movement to specifier positions. Glossa 4(1):140. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.871.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Stockholm: University of Stockholm dissertation.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, and Platzack, Christer. 1995. On the role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna, and Hemmings, Charlotte. 2021. Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11(2). 299–341. DOI: 10.1075/jhl.20017.jan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1999. The decline of ergativity in Labrador Inuttut. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Papers from the Workshop on Structure & Constituency in Native American Languages) 17. 73–90.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2001. An inclination towards accusative. Linguistica Atlantica 23. 127–44. Online: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/la/article/view/22452.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2006. Ergativity and change in Inuktitut. Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. by Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane, and Ndayiragije, Juvenal, 293–311. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2010. Eskimo-Aleut languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10). 1041–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00239.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2017. Anaphoric arguments in Unangax and Eastern Canadian Inuktitut. Studies in Inuit linguistics: In honor of Michael Fortescue, ed. by Kaplan, Lawrence D. and Berge, Anna, 91–103. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2018. An agreement/case mismatch? Wa7 xweysás i nqwal'úttensa i ucwalmícwa: He loves the people's languages: Essays in honour of Henry Davis (University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics), ed. by Matthewson, Lisa, Guntly, Erin, Huijsmans, Marianne, and Rochemont, Michael, 155–68.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana, and Kučerová, Ivona, 2017. On the morphosyntactic reflexes of information structure in the ergative patterning of Inuit language. In Coon et al. 2017, 397–418. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9. 577–636. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1992. Object shift and weak pronominals in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49. 59–94.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1993. Scandinavian pronouns and object shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 52. 1–28.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2003. Four myths about object shift in Swedish—and the truth. Grammar in focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, ed. by Delsing, Lars-Olof, Falk, Cecilia, Josefsson, Gunlög, and Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann, 199–207. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 593–634. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Thomas, and Norman, William. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 347–70. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 55–101. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Theodore. 2015. Licensing without Case. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101451.Google Scholar
Maddox, Matthew. 2019. Cycles of agreement: Romance clitics in diachrony. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/2142/104875.Google Scholar
Manga, Louise. 1996. An explanation for ergative versus accusative languages. Ottawa: University of Ottawa dissertation.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8. 234–53.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 69–109. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2011. Aleut case matters. Pragmatics and autolexical grammar: In honor of Jerry Sadock, ed. by Yuasa, Etsuyo, Bagchi, Tista, and Beals, Katharine, 193–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2). 273–303. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. On prosody and focus in object shift. Syntax 14(3). 230–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00152.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110278576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murasugi, Kumiko. 1992. Crossing and nested paths—NP movement in accusative and ergative languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12894.Google Scholar
Murasugi, Kumiko. 1997. Relative restrictions on relative clauses. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 27. 273–86. Online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nels/vol27/iss1/21/.Google Scholar
Murasugi, Kumiko. 2017. Linguistic fieldwork and scientific methodology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (A Pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky) 80. 111–20.Google Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2017. Cliticization feeds agreement: A view from Quechua. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35. 751–800. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-016-9351-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple Agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 939–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Karen Margrethe. 1993. Letledsreglen og lighedsreglen: Novation, ekspansion og resistens. Jyske studier tilegnede Magda Nyberg og Bent Jul Nielsen, ed. by Pedersen, Inge Lise and Pedersen, Karen Margrethe, 199–218. Copenhagen: Reitzels.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric and ter Meulen, Alice G. B., 98–130. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2017a. Antipassive. In Coon et al. 2017, 308–31. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2017b. Syntactic ergativity. The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom051.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. 17th Annual Round Table (Monograph series on language and linguistics 19), ed. by Dineen, Francis P., 177–206. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Online: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555459/GURT_1966.pdf.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1994. Contrasting extraction types. Journal of Linguistics 30(1). 159–86. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700016212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea, and Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4). 565–99. DOI: 10.1162/002438905774464368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14502.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian, and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Yvan, Pigott, Paul; and Wharram, Douglas. 2012. Schneider's law revisited: The syllable-level remnant of an older metrical rule. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings from Phonology in the 21st Century: In honour of Glyne Piggott) 22(1). Online: https://www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/files/mcgwpl/rose2012.pdf.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic. Language 56(2). 300–319. DOI: 10.2307/413758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 2000. Aleut number agreement. Berkeley Linguistics Society (Special session on syntax and semantics of Indigenous languages of the Americas) 26(2). 121–38. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v26i2.1166.Google Scholar
Schneider, Lucien. 1972. Inuktut tuorutit: Grammaire purement esquimaude. Québec: Ministère des Richesses Naturelles.Google Scholar
Sherkina-Lieber, Marina. 2004. Focus fronting in wh-questions in Inuktitut. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23. Online: https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6204.Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2002. Pronoun movement and attraction. Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL) 18. Online: http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/18/Sichel.html.Google Scholar
Spreng, Bettina. 2012. Viewpoint aspect in Inuktitut: The syntax and semantics of antipassives. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1807/32898.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2016. Wholesale late merger in Ā-movement: Evidence from preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1). 89–126. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6. 391–434. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Tromsø: University of Tromsø, ms.Google Scholar
Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12677.Google Scholar
Höskuldur, Thráinsson. 2008. Object shift and scrambling. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470756416.ch6.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1988. Pronouns and determiners: A DP analysis of Spanish nominals. Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, ms.Google Scholar
Tyler, Matthew. 2019. Differential object marking by A'-status. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 49. 231–40.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1). 79–124. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178889.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756056.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1994. Scandinavian object shift and West Germanic scrambling. Studies on scrambling, ed. by Corver, Norbert and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 487–517. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110857214.487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1997. The interpretation of object shift, optimality theory, and minimalism. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60. 1–24.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2001. The interpretation of object shift and optimality theory. Competition in syntax, ed. by Müller, Gereon and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 321–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110829068.321.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2006. Object shift. The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 392–436. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470996591.ch46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2017. Object shift in Scandinavian. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 2784–2844. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, and Arka, I. Wayan. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: An argument structure based theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 387–442. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005920831550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharram, Douglas. 2003. On the interpretation of (un)certain indefinites in Inuktitut and related languages. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony. 1981. Study of the Chevak dialect of Central Yupik Eskimo. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8gg2b1fg.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 257–87. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 111–30. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2015. Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3). 489–531. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2017. Mainland Scandinavian object shift and the puzzling ergative pattern in Aleut. Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure, ed. by Bailey, Laura R. and Sheehan, Michelle, 117–34. Berlin: Language Science. Online: https://langsci-press.org/catalog/view/159/1118/964-1.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan; and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2). 217–50. DOI: 10.2307/415655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Michelle. 2018. Dimensions of ergativity in Inuit: Theory and microvariation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/122054.Google Scholar
Yuan, Michelle. 2020. Dependent case and clitic dissimilation in Yimas. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 937–85. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-019-09458-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Michelle. 2021. Diagnosing object agreement vs. clitic doubling: An Inuit case study. Linguistic Inquiry 52(1). 153–79. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaicz, Gabor. 1988. Mordva. The Uralic languages, ed. by Abondolo, Daniel, 184–218. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar