SULA 6 – University of Manchester
May 5-7, 2011
Explaining the lack of intersective strictly-attributive adjectives in Inuit
Richard Compton, University of Toronto, Canada
1. Introduction
1.1.
§
§
§
§
1
Strictly-attributive adjectives
Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut language family) has a closed class of suffixal strictly-attributive
adjectives. Syntactically, they can only be used attributively, never predicatively.1
(1)
gavama-taasaar-nut
government-new-ALLAT.PL
‘by new government[s]’
(Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, 2006, p. 1433)
(2)
qarisauja-ralaa-kulu-tuqa-nnguaq
computer-small-adorable-old-pretend
‘old adorable small pretend computer’ (e.g. in a toy store)
This class of adjectives lacks members with intersective denotations. Instead, only subsective
and privative meanings are observed.
According to Partee (2007), intersective, subsective, and private adjectives satisfy the
following meaning postulate for any noun (p. 151):
(3)
⟦carnivorous N⟧ = ⟦carnivorous⟧ ∩ ⟦N⟧
(INTERSECTIVE)
(4)
⟦skillful N⟧ ⊆ ⟦N⟧
(SUBSECTIVE)
(5)
⟦counterfeit N⟧ ∩ ⟦N⟧ = ∅
(PRIVATIVE)
Examples of subsective and privative strictly-attributive adjectives in Inuit:
(6)
iglu-tsiavaq
house-good
‘a well-built house’
(SUBSECTIVE)
(7)
nanu-ralaa-t
polar.bear-small-ABS.PL
‘little polar bears’
(SUBSECTIVE)
Unless otherwise indicated, examples are from the South Baffin dialect of Inuktitut and were elicited by the author,
except for those from Spalding (1998)’s dictionary, which are from the Aivilik dialect of Inuktitut. Abbreviations
include: ABS=absolutive; ALLAT=allative; BECAUSE=becausative mood; DEC=declarative mood; DIST.FUT=distant
future tense; DIST.PAST=distant past tense; ERG=ergative; OBL=oblique/instrumental case; PL=plural;
POSS=possessive; REC.PAST=recent past; SG=singular. Transcription conforms to a broad IPA except that <ng> = [ŋ],
<nng> = [ŋŋ], <g> = [ɣ], <jj> = [dʤ] and <r>=[ʁ]. Thank you to Saila Michaels (my language consultant), Alana
Johns, Diane Massam, Cristina Cuervo, Simona Herdan, and Michela Ippolito.
§
minista-vini-ik
(PRIVATIVE)
minister-former-ABS.DUAL
‘(two) former Ministers (of Education)’
(Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, 2006, p. 1438)
(9)
iglu-nnguaq
house-pretend/fake
‘a pretend house’
(PRIVATIVE)
No colours, geometric shapes, nationalities, materials, styles, etc. that would presumably
possess an intersective denotation are observed in this class.
This situation contrasts with Dixon (2004)’s typological observations regarding small
adjective inventories and meaning types. He notes that even very small adjective classes
normally possess adjectives belonging to the four classes (i) DIMENSION, (ii) AGE, (iii) VALUE,
and (iv) COLOUR. Interestingly, COLOUR, the only intersective subclass in this basic list, is
missing from the class of suffixal strictly-attributive adjectives.
§
1.2.
Verbs with adjectival meanings
§
Instead, intersective adjectival meanings are all expressed via a subclass of verbs (Spalding,
1998)
§
(10)
qirnir-tuq
black-DEC.3SG
‘black; the colour black; it is black or dark colour (not light)’
(11)
tungur-tuq
purple-DEC.3SG
‘purple; the colour purple; it is purple’
(12)
kipparik-tuq
square-DEC.3SG
‘it is square or rectangular in shape’
(13)
angmalur-tuq
round-DEC.3SG
‘it is round (linear roundness); circular; oval’
These verbs with prototypically adjectival meanings possess most of the syntactic properties
of regular stative verbs in Inuit. However, they exhibit some differences that suggest they
may indeed form a separate class (e.g. of verb-like adjectives).
1.3.
§
(8)
Questions
So, why does the class of suffixal strictly-attributive adjectives lack members with
intersective members?
2
§
Conversely, why are intersective meanings confined to verbal elements?
2. Analysis
2.1.
§
§
§
No Predicate Modification
I propose that the lack of intersective denotations in the class of strictly-attributive adjectives
is not merely an accidental gap in lexicalization (i.e. that all intersective denotations just
happen to have been instantiated as verbs instead of strictly-attributive adjectives).
Instead, I propose that intersective strictly-attributive adjectives are not attested because
Inuktitut lacks a rule of Predicate Modification.
Heim & Kratzer (1998, p. 65) propose a rule of Predicate Modification to handle cases of
modification in which both the modifier and the modified element share the same semantic
type; i.e. ⟨e,t⟩. They formalize the rule of Predicate Modification as follows (italics in
original):
(14)
§
§
§
Predicate Modification (PM)
If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s daughters, and ⟦β⟧ and ⟦γ⟧ are
both in D<e,t>, then
⟦α⟧ = λx ∈ De . ⟦β⟧(x) = ⟦γ⟧(x) = 1.
They go on to note that Predicate Modification could be used to compute the denotations of
nouns modified by intersective adjectives such as gray, which are similarly of type ⟨e,t⟩.
However, they note that Functional Application could also be used to compute such
denotations if we assign such modifiers the type ⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩, thereby allowing them to
compose with type ⟨e,t⟩ nouns.2
Since I’m arguing that the absence of PM in Inuit has consequences for its lexicon that
differentiate it from other languages, I’m making the concomitant claim that (most) other
languages actually employ PM. Is this the case?
o Fortuitously, work by Svenonius (2008) and Truswell (2004) suggest the existence of
PM cross-linguistically. They show that intersectivity is the main/robust determining
factor in adjective ordering, contra Cinque (1994) and Scott (2002).3
o In particular, Svenonius notes that “the order of prenominal adjectives tends to be
similar cross-linguistically”, while languages with post-nominal adjectives either
exhibit the English pattern or its mirror (p. 34). To account for these facts he proposes
2
But, given that intersective adjectives can also act as main predicates, as in Julius is gray (p. 67), they state that
this solution requires that we assign the copula an ambiguous denotation; on one hand shifting type ⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩
adjectives to type ⟨e,t⟩ when they act as main predicates, while elsewhere the copula would be semantically inert
(e.g. with predicate nominals such as in Julius is a cat). Alternatively, they consider allowing intersective adjectives
to have an ambiguous denotation; ⟨e,t⟩ when acting as main predicates and ⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩ elsewhere, although this
would arguably add considerable complexity into the lexicon or require a type-shifting rule. Finally, they offer the
possibility that adjectival predicates may contain additional “non-overt functional structure” such as a covert
pronoun, meaning that Julius is gray would have an underlying structure roughly equivalent to Julius is (a) gray
(one).
3
Analogously for adverbs, Ernst (2004) argues that the ordering of adverbials is primarily due to semantic factors,
not a fixed functional hierarchy.
3
that while intersective adjectives combine with nP via Predicate Modification4,
modification by subsective adjectives (such as dimension adjectives) must occur
above the SORT head that makes nouns countable (and also involves a Degree head),
as illustrated in the following tree diagram (p. 38):
(15)
SORTP
ei
DegP
SORT’
ty
ty
Deg
AP SORT
nP
!
4
ty
very long
AP
n’
5 ty
French n
NP
4
shoe
o So, while French in (15) combines with the nP containing shoe via Predicate
Modification, the DegP very long, presumably instantiating a more complex semantic
type, must combine with SORTP using Functional application.
§
2.2.
In sum, adjective ordering appears to treat intersective adjectives distinctly, which can be
explained if they compose with nouns via PM, to the inclusion of other types of adjectives.
Consequently, if the language lacks a rule PM, only subsective and privative adjectives
(which presumably have more complex types) can combine directly with nouns.
§
Apposition
However, verbs (including verbs with intersective adjectival meanings) can modify nouns:5
(16)
ammaluk-tuq
saaq
katak-tuq
round-DEC.3SG(ABS) table(ABS.SG) fall-DEC.3SG
kipparit-tur-mut
saar-mut
square-dec-ALLAT.SG table-ALLAT.SG
‘The round table fell onto the square table.’
(17)
anguti
taki-juq
taku-qqau-juq
man(ABS.SG) tall-DEC(ABS.SG)
see-REC.PAST-DEC.3SG
arnar-mit
nait-tu-mit
woman-OBL.SG
short-DEC-OBL.SG
‘The tall man saw the short woman.’
4
While not naming Predicate Modification specifically, his statements that this modification is “essentially
intersective” (p.38) and furthermore that “only predicates of the same semantic type as nP can modify it” appear to
unambiguously pick out this mode of composition.
5
These may be relative clauses, however, Creider (1978) states that “RCs in Inuktitut are sentential nominalizations”
(p.103). I am proposing that these nominalized clauses are in fact appositives.
4
§
At first, this would appear to be problematic for the analysis above, but I argue that these
modifiers are themselves DPs in apposition with the nouns they modify. Syntactic evidence
for these modifiers being appositive DPs includes the following:
o Case marking and case mismatches between noun and modifier:
(18)
taki-ju-up
arna-up
tall-DEC-ERG.SG
woman-ERG.SG
‘The tall girl is eating the apple.’
niri-janga
eat-DEC.3SG.3SG
(19)
anguti
pisuk-tuq
akitu-jur-mit
man(ABS.SG) walk-DEC.3SG expensive-DEC-OBL.SG
‘The man is walking to(ward) the expensive house.’
aapu
apple(ABS.SG)
iglu-mut
house-ALLAT.SG
o Ability of case-bearing verbs to act as arguments:
(20)
taki-ju-up
niri-janga
tall-DEC-ERG.SG
eat-DEC.3SG.3SG
‘The tall one is eating an apple.’
aapu
apple(ABS.SG)
o Ability of modifying verbs to be discontinuous from the modified noun:
(21)
apu-mit
niri-qqau-junga
angi-jur-mit
apple-OBL.SG eat-REC.PAST-DEC.1SG big-DEC-OBL.SG
‘I ate a big apple.’
o Stranded verbal modifier bears case when noun undergoes noun-incorporation
(suggesting that case on the modifier is not simply case concord):
(22)
§
§
§
angi-jur-mit
iglu-liu-lauq-tunga
big-DEC-OBL.SG
house-make-DIST.PAST-DEC.1SG
‘I made a big house.’
Furthermore, instead of composing via PM, I propose that these nominal appositives in Inuit
compose via Potts (2005)’s CI application.
Potts proposes a logic for Conventional Implicatures (CIs), arguing that supplements (e.g.
appositives, supplementary relatives, and speaker-oriented adverbs) and expressives (e.g.
expressive attributive adjectives, epithets, and honorifics) should be analysed in a
multidimensional semantics that treats CI content as compositionally independent from the
regular ‘at-issue’ content. He demonstrates that a standard one-dimensional semantics cannot
account for the properties of supplements and expressives such as scopelessness and
independence of truth values.
To account for phenomena such as these, Potts augments the standard set of types with CI
types, separating these from at-issue types. Specifically, he defines ea, ta, and sa as at-issue
5
§
types (for entities, truth values, and situations, respectively) and ec, tc, and sc as CI types (plus
additional combinations6 of these types, e.g. 〈ea,tc〉).
Next he proposes the following rule of CI application (i.e. a rule of Functional Application
involving a CI functor) (p. 64):
(23)
CI application
β : σa
●
α(β) : τc
ru
a c
α : ⟨σ , τ ⟩ β : σa
●
●
c
γ:ρ
δ:υc
§
Effectively, this rule allows a CI operator, α: ⟨σa, τc⟩, to apply to at-issue content, β: σa,
outputting the CI content as applied to the at-issue content, α(β): τc, while simultaneously
outputting the at-issue content unmodified. For instance, for a nominal appositive such as
(24) is analyzed as in (25) below (p. 65):
(24)
(25)
Lance, a cyclist, …
lance: ea
●
cyclist (lance): tc
ei
lance: ea
cyclist: ⟨ea,tc⟩
§
Subsequently, lance can be used again as an argument (e.g. by the main predicate of the
sentence) while the CI proposition cyclist(lance) is also interpreted, yielding a separate CI
truth value.
§
Given that many CIs, such as nominal appositives and supplementary relatives, are
comprised of material that would normally be at-issue, Potts argues that comma intonation is
a type shifter, converting at-issue content to CI content:
(26)
§
COMMA ⤳
λfλx.f(x) : ⟨⟨ea,ta⟩,⟨ea,tc⟩⟩
This COMMA feature allows the material in nominal appositives and supplementary relatives
which would normally possess at-issue types to take on CI types.
6
Potts specifically excludes types which would take CI content as their arguments. This follows from his claim that
“CI meanings apply to at-issue meanings to produce CI meanings” (p.58). See Potts (pp.58-61) for arguments that
at-issue content never applies to CI content and that CI content never applies to CI content.
6
§
Applying Potts’ CI logic to Inuktitut, if verbal modifiers are appositives and thus compose
with the nouns they modify via Potts’ rule of CI application, this would explain why their
semantics is not restricted in the same way that the set of strictly-attributive adjectives are.
o Regardless of their initial status as either intersective or subsective, verbal modifiers
are nominalized, yielding the semantic type ⟨ea,ta⟩ which can then be shifted by the
Inuktitut equivalent7 of COMMA to the CI type ⟨ea,tc⟩ that can compose via CI
application with the head noun.
o Since all verbal modifiers compose with the nouns they modify via CI application, the
lack of Predicate Modification, which would otherwise be required to compose
intersective adjectives with nouns, does not affect the range of possible denotations of
verbal modifiers.
o In contrast, since strictly-attributive adjectives are DP-internal APs (i.e. not
appositives), we find only subsective and privative denotations in this set, given that
only these can combine directly with nouns (or nominal projections of type ⟨ea,ta⟩) in
the absence of Predicate Modification.
§
To see how this system would work, consider the following example containing both a
strictly-attributive adjective and an appositive verbal modifier modifying the object (both of
which translate as ‘big’):
(27)
§
taku-junga
nanur-jjuar-mit
angi-jur-mit
see-DEC.3SG polar.bear-big-OBL.SG big-DEC-OBL.SG
“I see a big polar bear that is so big.”
Focusing on the modifiers of the object, the strictly-attributive adjective jjuaq ‘big’ is a
subsective DP-internal AP of type ⟨⟨ea,ta⟩,⟨ea,ta⟩⟩8, which can combine directly with the
nominal by Functional Application. Conversely, the verb angi-juq ‘(is) big’ is a nominal
appositive adjoined to the object DP and composing with it in the semantics via CI
application. The syntactic structure and semantic parsetree are included below (adapted from
analogous parsetrees in Potts 2005):
7
There may not be a phonological/prosodic exponent of COMMA in Inuktitut. Instead, it may be a language-specific
phonologically covert type-shifting rule. In a Minimalist Syntax COMMA could be a functional projection (that in
English spells out at PF with as comma intonation).
8
Alternatively, following Kennedy & McNally (2005) who argue that the type of gradable adjectives contains a
degree type, subsective adjectives in Inuktitut could have the type ⟨d,⟨⟨ea,ta⟩,⟨ea,ta⟩⟩⟩, where d is a degree type. What
is crucial for my analysis is simply that these adjectives compose via Functional Application, not Predicate
Modification.
7
§
(28)
DPa
qp
DPa
DPb
ei
ei
SORTP
D
CP/NP
D
ei
mit9
5
mit
SORT’
DegP OBL.SG
angi-juq
OBL.SG
ei
ty
big2-DEC.3SG
nP
SORT AP
Deg
ei
4
√ROOT
n
jjuaq
nanuq
big1
polar.bear
(29)
big1(polar.bear): ea
●
big2(big1(polar.bear)): tc
qp
big1(polar.bear): ea
comma(big2): ⟨ea,tc⟩
qp
!
a a
0
a a
a
big1(polar.bear): ⟨e ,t ⟩
D : ⟨⟨e ,t ⟩,e ⟩
big2: ⟨ea,ta⟩
qp
polar.bear: ⟨ea,ta⟩
big1: ⟨⟨ea,ta⟩,⟨ea,ta⟩⟩
Such an analysis correctly predicts that intersective denotations will be absent from the set of
strictly-attributive adjectives, since without Predicate Modification only subsective and
privative adjectives, which possess more complex types, will be able to compose directly
with the nominal. For instance, ‘red’ could not be a strictly-attributive adjective in Inuktitut,
since with type ⟨ea,ta⟩ it could not compose with a noun without Predicate Modification:
(30)
§
?
qp
polar.bear: ⟨ea,ta⟩
red: ⟨ea,ta⟩
Furthermore, this analysis correctly leaves the denotations of verbal modifiers unconstrained,
since as nominalizations their types will be ⟨ea,ta⟩, which is then shifted to ⟨ea,tc⟩ (by the
Inuktitut equivalent of COMMA) to compose with the modified noun via CI application.
9
I have put the oblique singular case marker mit in D to avoid unnecessary structural complexity, however, while
there is a correlation between case and definiteness in Inuktitut, nominals bearing this case can be either definite or
indefinite. Accordingly, case should not be construed as an actual determiner in the syntax or the semantics. Given
that Inuktitut lacks definiteness marking, it is not clear whether the nominal appositive is definite or indefinite.
However, Potts (2005, p.110-111) shows that definite determiners heading nominal appositives do not possess the
uniqueness presupposition normally associated with definite determiners.
8
2.3.
§
§
Testing for CI semantics
Given Potts’ logic for CI content, such content should exhibit scopelessness and nonrestrictiveness.
Beginning with scopelessness, he demonstrates that appositives do not scope under negation
in examples such as the following (p. 114):
(31)
§
§
Under no reading of (31) is the appositive negated.
Similarly, appositive modifiers in Inuktitut (both nouns and verbs) do not appear to in the
scope of negation:
(32)
§
§
uppirusu-nngit-tunga
Richard
qallunaaq
believe-NEG-DEC.1SG
R.(ABS.SG)
white.person(ABS.SG)
niri-lauq-tuq
aapu-mit
eat-DIST.PAST-DEC.3SG
apple-OBL.SG
‘I don’t believe10 (that) Richard, the/a European/Caucasian, ate an apple.’
When asked, the consultant said that there could be many people named Richard, of which
one was a ‘qallunaaq’, or there could be only one person named Richard, e.g. if the listener
didn’t know my name but had seen a ‘qallunaaq’ around town. In either case, though,
Richard is a ‘qallunaaq’, suggesting the appositive is not scoping under negation.
Similarly with a verbal modifier:
(33)
§
It’s false that Alonzo, a big-shot executive, is now behind bars.
uppirusu-nngit-tunga
ilisaiji
taki-juq
believe-neg-dec.1sg
teacher(ABS.SG)
tall-DEC.3SG(ABS)
niri-lauq-tuq
aapu-mit
eat-DIST.PAST-DEC.3SG
apple-OBL.SG
‘I don’t believe that the teacher, {who is tall}/{the tall one}, ate the apple.’
According to the consultant the teacher in this example is still tall. Further consistent with the
independence of truth values inherent to Potts’ system, the consultant agreed that it was
possible for a second person to respond to (33) as follows:
(34)
ii,
kisiani
ilisaiji
yes
but
teacher(ABS.SG)
‘Yes, but the teacher isn’t tall.’
taki-nngit-tuq
tall-NEG-DEC.3SG
10
I tried eliciting something closer to “it’s false…” but corresponding verbs sulin-ngit-tuq ‘(it’s) not true’ and saglujuq ‘(it’s) a lie’ were not compatible with a subsequent clause, suggesting perhaps that the language does not allow
sentential subjects:
i.
*suli-nngit-tuq
Richard
qallunaaq
tigu-jau-sima-juq
true-NEG-DEC.3SG
R.(ABS.SG)
white.person(ABS.SG)
grab-PASS-PERF-DEC.3SG
INTENDED: It’s not true that Richard, the/a European/Caucasian, is locked up.
9
§
§
This would appear to be at least consistent with the appositive yielding independent truth
values.
Similarly, Potts’ notes that appositives scope out of verbs like believe (pp. 114-5):
(35)
§
Sheila believes that the agency interviewed Chuck, a confirmed psychopath, just
after his release from prison.
(≉ Sheila believes that Chuck is a confirmed psychopath and that the agency
interviewed Chuck just after his release from prison.)
In a similar construction my consultant agreed that the appositive need not be part of what
the subject believes (i.e. the appositive could be speaker-oriented):
(36)
Sheila
uppirusuktuq
palisi-kkut
apirusu-lau-mata
S.(ABS.SG)
believe-DEC.3SG
palisi-VIAL.SG question-DIST.PAST-BEC.3PL
Chuck-mit
tunganaq-tu-mit
C.-OBL.SG
friendly-DEC-OBL.SG
‘Sheila believes the police questioned Chuck, (who is) a nice person.’
§
Again, this is consistent with these modifiers being scopeless.
§
Moving on to the predicted property of non-restrictiveness, Potts gives the following
example of the expressive/CI use of an adjective in English (p. 19):
(37)
Edna is at her friend Chuck’s house. Chuck tells her that he thinks all his red
vases are ugly. He approves of only the blue ones. He tells Edna that she can take
one of his red vases. Edna thinks the red vases are lovely, selects one, and returns
home to tell her housemate,
‘Chuck said I could have one of his lovely vases!’
§
In a similar context using ‘John’ and ‘carving’, my consultant was able to employ an
appositive modifier non-restrictively:
(38)
§
John
uqa-lauq-tuq
sanannguaga-nganit
J.(ABS.SG)
say-DIST.PAST-DEC.3SG
carving-POSS.3SG.OBL.SG
piu-ju-mmari-alung-mit
pi-gunnaq-tunga
good-DEC-really-DEGREE-obl.sg
have-can-DEC.1SG
‘John said I could have one of his adorable carvings.’
One confounding factor when attempting to test restrictiveness in Inuit is that arguments do
not mark definiteness. Elements bearing ERGATIVE and ABSOLUTIVE case can potentially be
interpreted as definites or specific indefinites. This complicates testing for restrictiveness
since (at least to my mind) definite nominal appositives appear able to restrict:
10
(39)
§
Potts suggests that the following discourse condition on definite nominal appositives (p.
119):
(40)
§
§
The man, the tall one, wants a drink.11
If a speaker chooses a definite article to head an NA’s appositive, then the
proposition expressed by that NA is deemed essential by the speaker to
determining the referent of the anchor.
While this is not the same as restrictiveness, it seems to tread rather close.
Accordingly, I still need to test whether appositive modifiers of arguments in contexts that
force indefinite readings are in fact non-restrictive.
3. Conclusion
§
§
§
To summarize, I’m proposing that Inuit lacks a rule Predicate Modification and that the
language makes extensive use of apposition, which is composed via CI application.
Some benefits of this analysis include that it:
o accounts for lack of intersective members in the strictly-attributive class (contra
typological observations)
o suggests a reason for the use of verbal elements to express intersective meanings
o explains why verbal modifiers exhibit syntactic properties normally associated with
DPs (acting as arguments, bearing case, discontinuity, etc.), because they are DPs in
apposition with the noun they’re modifying.
A couple things I’m still working on:
o A similar dichotomy exists between adverbs with a restricted semantics and casebearing adverbs. Lacking PM could presumably affect certain types of adverbs.
o Further testing as to whether Inuit appositives exhibit the same semantic phenomena
as Potts observes in English appositives.
11
This example could constitute a parenthetical, but parentheticals are subsumed in Potts logic and share the
speaker-orientation, scopelessness, etc. of appositives and supplementary relative clauses.
11
References
Baker, Mark C. (2004). Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creider, Chet. (1978). The Syntax of Relative Clauses in Inuktitut. Inuit Studies 2.95-110.
Cinque, G. (1994). On the evidence for partial N-movementin the Romance DP. In G. Cinque, J.
Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, & R. Zanuttini (Eds.), Paths toward Universal Grammar:
Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne (pp. 85-110). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Compton, R. (2008). Restrictions on the use of predicate modification in Inuktitut. In S. K. Chin,
& H. Fushein (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in
Languages of the Americas (pp. 39-50). Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge.
de Reuse, Willem J. (1994). Siberian Yupik Eskimo: the language and its contacts with Chukchi.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Dixon, R. (2004). Adjective Classes in Typlogical Perspective. In R. Dixon, & A. Y. Aikhenvald
(Eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology (pp. 1-49). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ernst, T. (2004). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fortescue, Michael. (1980). Affix Ordering in West Greenlandic Derivational Processes.
International Journal of American Linguistics 46:4.259-278.
Fortescue, Michael. (1984). West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Johns, Alana. (2007). Restricting noun incorporation: root movement. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 25.535-576.
Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the
semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81:2.345-381.
Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. (2005). Debates (Hansard), 2nd Assembly, 2nd Session.
Retrieved 2010-23-08 from http://www.assembly.nu.ca/sites/default/files/
Hansard_20050315_Inuktitut.pdf.
Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. (2006). Debates (Hansard), 2nd Assembly, 3rd Session.
Retrieved 04-27-2011, from http://www.assembly.nu.ca/sites/default/files/
Hansard_20060307_Inuktitut.pdf.
Partee, B. H. (2007). Compositionality and coercion in semantics: The dynamics of adjective
meaning. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of
Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sadock, Jerold. (2003). A Grammar of Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic Inuttut). Muenchen:
Lincom Europa.
Scott, G.-J. (2002). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In G.
Cinque (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 1 Functional structure in the
DP and IP, pp. 91–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spalding, A. (1998). Inuktitut - A Multi-dialectal Outline Dictionary (with an Aivilingmiutaq
base). Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut Arctic College.
Svenonius, P. (2008). The position of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the
decomposition of DP. In L. McNally, & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs:
Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse (pp. 16-42). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Truswell, R. (2004). Attributive Adjectives and the Nominals they Modify (Master’s thesis).
Oxford University.
12