WIDE- VERSUS NARROW-SCOPE INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT

Douglas Wharram
University of Connecticut
SULA - UMass (Amherst)
20-22 April, 2001

1. GOAL(S)

(1) Narrow-scope indefinites:

• an extension of van Geenhoven’s (1996) analysis of “noun incorporation” constructions in
Kalaallisut to account for the obligatory narrow scope interpretations of antipassive
‘objects’ in Kalaallisut and Inuktitut.
Wide-scope indefinites:
• wide scope indefinites in the languages must be analysed as involving interpretation via
choice functions, and of the variants of choice function theories that have been recently
proposed, only Kratzer’s (1998) approach can easily accomodate the data

(2) Ergativity in the Inuit languages:1

a. Syntactically transitive predicates:
EAERG IAABS
b. Syntactically intransitive predicates:
i. EAABS (unergative predicates)
ii. IAABS (unaccusative predicates) (?)
(c. Passivised predicates:
IAABS by-NPABL
d. Antipassivised predicates:
EAABS IAMOD)

2. NARROW-SCOPE INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT

(3) Transitive verbal inflection in Inuktitut and Kalaallisut includes person and number agreement
with both the ergative (‘subject’) and the absolutive (‘object’) argument.

(4) Antipassivisation, descriptively, is a process which makes a syntactically transitive predicate

syntactically intransitive. Although the antipassivised verb in (5b) remains semantically
transitive – the internal argument must be expressed in an oblique case –, the verb there has
intransitive inflection, agreeing only with its external argument.

(5) Basic (syntactically) transitive clause:

a. Kingmaalisaa-p atausiq iqaluk taku-j-a-nga
K. -ERG one (ABS) fish (ABS) see-part-[+tr]-3sERG.3sABS
‘Kingmaalisaaq saw a (particular) fish’
1
Abbreviations used in the examples: EA=external argument, IA=internal argument, ABS=absolutive (Case),
ERG=ergative, ABL=ablative, MOD=modalis, ind=indicative (mood), part=participial (mood), NFUT=near future,
PERF=perfective (aspect), tr=transitive, AP=antipassive, PASS=passive.

1
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

Antipassive variant:
b. Kingmaalisaaq atausi-mik iqalu-mik taku-Ø-j-u-q
K. (ABS) one-MOD fish-MOD see- AP-part-[–tr]-3sABS
‘Kingmaalisaaq saw a fish’

2.1 Van Geenhoven (1995,1998) and “noun incorporation” configurations

(6) • incorporating verbs in Kalaallisut introduce the existential quantification of their internal
argument’s variable
• both the West Germanic bare plural ‘object’ and the Kalaallisut “incorporated” noun
denote a property; not, as for Carlson, an individual kind

(7) Any operator taking scope over a Kalaallisut incorporating verb automatically takes scope
over the semantic components of that verb’s meaning.

(8) Jaaku atuagar-si-v-u-q

J. (ABS) book-get-ind-[–tr]-3sABS
‘Jaaku got a book’

(9) S
õy[get’ (y) (j) v book’ (y)]
5
NP VP
Jaaku’ |
V
λx.õy [get’ (y) (x) v book (y)]
5
N V
book’ λP.λx.õy [get’ (y) (x) v P (y)]

2.2 Antipassivisation

(10) V0
fh
V ap

(11) a. Akittiq iqalu-mik taku-Ø-nngit-t-u-q

A. (ABS) fish-MOD see-AP-neg-part-[–tr]-3sABS
i. ‘Akittiq has not seen (even) a single fish’
ii. # ‘There is a (particular) fish that Akittiq has not seen’

b. Akitti-up iqaluk taku-nngit-t-a-nga

A. -ERG fish (ABS) see-neg-part-[+tr]-3sERG.3sABS
i. # ‘Akittiq has not seen (even) a single fish’
ii. ‘There is a (particular) fish that Akittiq has not seen’

2
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

(12) λye.λxe [see’ (y) (x)]

(13) Antipassive morpheme:

λR<e,<e,t>> .λP<e,t>.λxe.õy [R (y) (x) v P (y)]

(14) a. λP<e,t>.λxe.õy [see’ (y) (x) v P (y)]

b. <<e,t>,<e,t>>

(15) VP
λxe .õy [see’ (y) (x) v P (y)]
q p6
NP V
Akittiq λP <s,<e,t>>.λxe.õy [see’ (y) (x) v P (y)]
q p
V ap
taku -Ø
λye .λxe [see’ (y) (x)] λR <e,<e,t>> .λP<e,t> .λxe.õy [R (y) (x) v P (y)]

(16) IP
qi
NP1 3
Akittiq’ λx1 I
5õy [see’ (y) (x1 ) v fish’ (y)]
5
NegP I
[λx1 .õy [see’ (y) (x1 ) v fish’ (y)]
5
vP -nngi
λx1 .õy [see’ (y) (x1 ) v fish’ (y)] 5
5
t1 v
λxe.õy [see’ (y) (x) v fish’ (y)]
5
VP v
λxe.õy [see’ (y) (x) v fish’ (y)]
5
NP V
iqalu-mik λP<e,t>.λxe.õy [see’ (y) (x) v P (y)]
fish’ 5
V ap
taku -Ø
λye.λxe [see’ (y) (x)] λR<e,<e,t>>.λP<e,t>.λxe.õy [R (y) (x) v P (y)]

3
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

(17) Ergative indefinite NPs:

Inuktitut dialects: Obligatory wide scope, as for absolutive Kalaallisut external arguments.
Kalaallisut: Narrow or wide scope with respect to negation. Anti-antipassivisation?

(18) Kratzer (1996):

a. λxe.λes [V (x) (e)] = V0
b. λxe.λes [Agent (x) (e)] = v0

(19) AP morpheme:
λR<s,<e,t>>.λP<e,t>.õx [R (x) (e) v P (x)]

(20) Adjunction of AP to v0 is allowed in Kalaallisut; not in the Inuktitut dialects.

3. CHOICE FUNCTIONS

(21) a. Fido has a bone in every corner of the house.

b. Fido has a bone which is in every corner of the house.
# every corner > a bone

(22) Each teacher overheard the rumour that a student of mine had been called before the dean.

(22) Fodor & Sag (1982):

Indefinites are ambiguous between a quantificational reading and a referential reading,
quantificational indefinites being subject to the same movement constraints as other
quantificational NPs, and referential indefinites being scopeless elements, like proper names.
Thus, in the narrow scope reading of the indefinite a student of mine in (3), the indefinite is
quantificational, its scope restricted to whatever local domain such items are standardly
subject to. In the wide scope reading, the relevant indefinite is referential, giving the illusion
of widest scope.

(23) Most linguists have looked at every analysis that solves some problem.
most linguists > some problem > every analysis

(24) Reinhart: Indefinite determiners may introduce variables over choice functions, and,
in turn, these variables can be bound by existential quantifiers that can be introduced
at any level.
a. A choice function is any function that takes a set α as its argument and returns
an element of α as its value.
b. Reinhart (1997):
A choice function ƒ assigns to any non-empty set of individuals a member of this set.

ƒ is a choice function (ch(ƒ)) iff for any P, P(ƒ(P)), where ƒ is of type <<e,t>,e> and
P is non-empty.

4
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

(25) a. A woman walks.

õƒ [ch(ƒ) v walk (ƒ(woman))]
b. A woman sees a man.
õƒ1,ƒ2 [ch(ƒ1 ) v cf(ƒ2 ) v see (ƒ1 (woman), ƒ2(man))]

(26) Kratzer (1998):

Choice function variables are not existentially quantified, but remain free at LF; the
value of the variable is determined by the context, with the intent of the speaker
being sufficient.

(27) a. Each teacher overheard the rumour that a student of mine had been called
before the dean.
b. Each teacher overheard the rumour that a student of hers had been called
before the dean.

(28) Reinhart (1995,1997) and Winter (1997): Intermediate scope readings are always
possible (but may be apparently absent due to pragmatic interference or competition
from other readings).
Kratzer (1998): Intermediate scope readings are never possible (but apparent
intermediate pseudo-scope readings are possible with the presence of bound variable
pronouns or implicit arguments).

(29) If some evangelist wins, Jean will be disappointed.

i. õƒ [CH(f) v [win (ƒ (evangelist)) 6 disappoint (Jean)]]
ii. [õƒ [CH(f) v win (ƒ (evangelist))]] 6 disappoint (Jean)

4. WIDE-SCOPE INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT

(30) Indefinites contained within if-clauses:

a. Ulluriaq kappiasung-niaq-t-u-q
U.(ABS) be.frightened-NFUT-part-[–tr]-3sABS
arvi-up qajaq katja-kpagu
bowhead.whale-ERG kayak(ABS) hit-COND.[+tr].3sERG.3SABS
i. There is a kayak x, and Ulluriaq will be frightened if a particular bowhead hits x.
ii. #Ulluriaq will be frightened if a particular bowhead hits any kayak
b. Ulluriaq kappiasung-niaq-t-u-q
U.(ABS) be.frightened-NFUT-part-[–tr]-3sABS
arviq qaja-mik katja-kpat
bowhead.whale(ABS) kayak-MOD hit-COND.3sABS
i. #There is a kayak x, and Ulluriaq will be frightened if a particular bowhead hits x.
ii. Ulluriaq will be frightened if a particular bowhead hits any kayak

5
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

(31) a. Kingmaalisaaq quviasung-niaq-tuq innaq qai-kpat.

K.(ABS) happy-NFUT-3sABS elder(ABS) come-COND.3sABS
‘Kingmaalisaaq will be happy if an elder comes’
i. õx [elder(x) v [come (x) 6 happy (Kingmaalisaaq)]]
õf [CH (ƒ) v [come (ƒ (elder)) 6 happy (Kingmaalisaaq)]]
ii.# [õx [elder(x) v come (x)]] 6 happy (Kingmaalisaaq)
b. Kingmaalisaaq quviasung-niaq-tuq innar-mik qai-juqaq-Ø-pat.
K.(ABS) happy-NFUT-3sABS elder-MOD come-someone-AP-COND.3sABS
‘Kingmaalisaaq will be happy if an elder comes’
i. # õx [elder(x) v [come (x) 6 happy (Kingmaalisaaq)]]
ii. [õx [elder(x) v come (x)]] 6 happy (Kingmaalisaaq)

(32) ilisaiji-limaa-t aittarusukka-jaq-t-u-t ilinniaqti

teacher-all-ABS.p disappoint-PASS-ind-[–tr]-3pABS student(ABS.s)
nuqqaq-pat
quit-COND.3sABS
‘Every teacher will be disappointed if a student quits’
i. There is one student, who every teacher doesn't want to see quit.
ii. #For each teacher, there is one student who (s)he doesn’t want to see quit.
iii. # Every teacher will be disappointed if any student quits.

(33) ilisaiji-limaa-t aitta-rusukka-jaq-t-u-t

teacher-all-ABS.p disappoint-PASS-part-[–tr]-3pABS
quit-someone-AP-COND.3sABS ilinniaqti-mik
nuqqaq-tuqaq-Ø-pat student-MOD
‘Every teacher will be disappointed if a student quits’
i. # There is one student, who every teacher doesn't want to see quit.
ii. #For each teacher, there is one student who (s)he doesn’t want to see quit.
iii. Every teacher will be disappointed if any student leaves.

(34) Fourth person agreement indicates that the argument that triggers the agreement is
obligatorily anaphorically linked to a higher subject.

(35) a. ilisaiji-limaa-t aittarusukka-jaq-t-u-t ilinniaqti

teacher-all-ABS.p disappoint-PASS-part-[–tr]-3pABS student(ABS.s)
ikajuq-tavinani nuqqaq-pat
help.4sERG.3sABS quit-COND.3sABS
‘Every teacher1 will be disappointed if a student (s)he1/*2 helps quits’
i. There is one student, who every teacher helped, and doesn't want to see quit.
ii. For every teacher, there is one student that (s)he taught, and doesn't want to see
quit.
iii.# Every teacher will be disappointed if any student quits.

6
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

b. ilisaiji-limaa-t aittarusukka-jaq-t-u-t ilinniaqti

teacher-all-ABS.p disappoint-PASS-part-[–tr]-3pABS student(ABS.s)
ikajuq-tavinanga nuqqaq-pat
help.3sERG.3sABS quit-COND.3sABS
‘Every teacher1 will be disappointed if a student (s)he2/*1 helps quits’
i. There is one student, who some x helped, and every teacher doesn't want to see
that student quit.
ii. # For every teacher, there is a (potentially different) student that some x helped,
and that teacher doesn't want to see that student quit.
iii.# Every teacher will be disappointed if any student quits.

(36) a. .
Anaana-limaa-t numaasukka-jaq-t-u-t nutaraq
mother-every-ABS.p sad-PASS-part-[–tr]-3sABS child(ABS)
nagligi-j-ani tuqu-kpat.
love-part-[+tr]-4sERG.3sABS die-COND.3sABS
‘Every mother1 will be sad if a child she1/*2 loves dies’
i. There is a particular child who every mother loves, and every mother will be
sad if that child dies.
ii. For every mother, there is a child that she loves, and she will be sad if that
child dies.
iii.# Every mother will be sad if any child dies.

b. Anaana-limaa-t numaasukka-jaq-t-u-t nutaraq

mother-every-ABS.p sad-PASS-part-[–tr]-3sABS child(ABS)
nagligi-j-anga tuqu-kpat.
love-part-[+tr]-4sERG.3sABS die-COND.3sABS
‘Every mother1 will be sad if a child she2/*1 loves dies’
i. There is a particular child, who some x loves, and every mother will be sad if
that child dies.
ii. # For every mother, there is a (potentially different) child that some x loves,
and that teacher mother will be sad if that child dies.
iii.# Every mother will be sad if any child dies.

7. Conclusion

(37) In Inuktitut, which lacks indefinite articles, we are able to more easily determine whether
an indefinite in the language must be interpreted via a choice function mechanism or not.
On the basis of very different data, Matthewson (1999) argues that in St’át’imcets the
difference between choice function indefinites and non-choice function indefinites is overtly
encoded in the determiner system. In this, the empirical predictions made by each of
Reinhart’s (1995,1997), Winter’s (1997), and Kratzer’s (1998) approaches can be tested in a
less obscured way in both St’át’imcets and Inuktitut/Kalaallisut than they can in a language
like English, where both Reinhart’s and Kratzer’s approaches predict an alternative
interpretation of some indefinites as existential quantifiers. That the specific aspects of the
grammar by which St’át’imcets and Inuktitut provide the linguist with a relatively unobscured
7
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

view of the processes of indefinite interpretation differ so greatly, yet the resulting empirical
details in each language so closely resembles the other, is strongly indicative of the correctness
of Kratzer’s analysis.

Selected references

Abusch, D. (1994) ‘The scope of indefinites’, in Natural Language Semantics 2,83-135.

Bittner, M. (1987) ‘On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related
constructions’, International Journal of American Linguistics 53,194-231.
Bittner, M. (1988) Canonical and Noncanonical Argument Expressions. PhD dissertation,
University of Texas (Austin).
Bittner, M. (1992) Ergativity, Scope, and Binding. MS, Rutgers.
Bittner, M. (1994a) Case, Scope, and Binding. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Bittner, M. (1994b) ‘Cross-linguistic semantics’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 17,53-108.
Bittner, M. (1995) ‘Quantification in Eskimo: A challenge for compositional semantics’, in
E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B.H. Partee (eds.) Quantification in Natural
Languages. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Bittner, M. and K. Hale (1996a) ‘The structural determination of Case and Agreement’,
Linguistic Inquiry 27(1),1-68.
Bittner, M. and K. Hale (1996b) ‘Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class’,
Linguistic Inquiry 27,531-604.
Carlson, G. (1977) Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of
Massachusetts (Amherst). [(1980) Reference to Kinds in English, Garland, New York.].
Van Geenhoven, V. (1995) ‘Semantic Incorporation: A uniform semantics for West
Greenlandic noun incorporation and West Germanic bare plural configurations’, in
A. Dainora et al. (eds.) Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society 1,171-186.
Van Geenhoven, V. (1996) Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic
and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. PhD dissertation,
Eberhard-Karls-Universisität Tübingen. [SfS-Report-03-96, Eberhard-Karls-Universisität
Tübingen].
Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation,
MIT.
Heim, I. and A. Krazter (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford.
Higginbotham, J. (1985) ‘On Semantics’, in Linguistic Inquiry 16,547-594.
Johns, A. (1987) Transitivity and Grammatical Relations in Inuktitut. PhD dissertation,
Université d’Ottawa.
Johns, A. (1992) ‘Deriving ergativity’, in Linguistic Inquiry 23,57-88.
Johns, A. (1997) ‘Ergativity: Working through some recent analyses’, in Glot International
2(6), 3-8.
Kamp, H. (1981) ‘A theory of truth and semantic representation’, in M. Stokhof,
J. Groenendijk, and T. Jensen (eds.) Truth, Interpretation, and Information: Selected
Papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium., Foris, Dordrecht.
Klein, E. and I. Sag (1985) ‘Type-Driven Translation’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 8,163-
197.
8
INDEFINITES IN INUKTITUT SULA - APRIL, 2001

Kratzer, A. (1996) ‘Severing the External Argument from its Verb’, in J. Rooryck and L.
Zaring (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Kratzer, A. (1998) ‘Scope or Pseudo-Scope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?’, in S.
Rothstein (ed.) Events in Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 163-196.
Matthewson, L. (1999) ‘On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites’, in Natural Language
Semantics 7, 79-134.
Reinhart, T. (1992) ‘Wh-in-situ: An apparent paradox’, in P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.)
Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium. Institute for Logic, Language, and
Computation (ILLC), 483-491.
Reinhart, T. (1995) Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers, University of Utrecht, TL-
95-002.
Reinhart, T. (1997) ‘Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice
functions’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.
Von Stechow, A. (2000) ‘Some remarks on Choice Functions and LF-Movement’, in
K. von Heusinger and U. Egli (eds.) Reference and Anaphoric Relations, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 193-228.
Wharram, D. (in prep.) The Interpretation of Nominals in Inuktitut. PhD dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Winter, Y. (1997) ‘Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites’, in Linguistics
and Philosophy 20, 399-467.