Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:27:55.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eskimo word order variation and its contact-induced perturbation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Michael Fortescue
Michael Fortescue
Affiliation:
Department of Eskimology, University of Copenhagen, Strandgade, 100H, DK-1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eskimo languages are commonly characterized as displaying rather ‘free’ word order as compared to the major western European languages. Nevertheless, there is in West Greenlandic at least a clearly dominant, pragmatically neutral ordering pattern. Deviation from this – when possible at all – results in specifiable contextual marking (the factors involved will be discussed and illustrated in section 2). In fact, the degree of ‘freedom’ involved may vary considerably from dialect to dialect (and from language to language), also through time and according to register/medium. Specifically I shall be claiming that no Eskimo dialect is of the purely pragmatically based word order type (lacking a syntactic ‘basic order’) which Mithun claims is typical for polysynthetic languages with inflected verbs that can stand as independent sentences (Mithun, 1987: 323). Unlike the type of language that Mithun describes, which includes (Iroquoian) Cayuga and (‘Penutian’) Coos, for example, I shall argue that West Greenlandic (WG), a highly polysynthetic language, behaves more like Slavic languages in this respect, though the ‘neutral’ pattern there is of course SVO rather than SOV. Much as described for Czech and Russian by the Prague School functionalists, word order in WG seems to reflect the common ‘functional sentence perspective’ whereby – ignoring postposed ‘afterthought/clarificatory’ material – early position in the sentence is associated with given material of low communicative dynamism, whereas later position is associated with new or important material of high communicative dynamism (see Firbas, 1974). This is the reverse of the situation described by Mithun.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 267 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Afcan, Pascal (1976). How a unified writing system will affect the Yuk Eskimo. In Hamp, E. (ed.) Papers on Eskimo and Aleut linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 1–10.Google Scholar
Ahvakana, Floyd (1973). In Point Hope, Alaska. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Aiken, Martha (1976). Iliappaluum quyyasiutaa. Barrow: Barrow School Inupiat Program.Google Scholar
Annogiyuk, C. (1987). Yuuk neqengyuqaq ungipaghaq. In Apassingok, A., Walunga, W., Oozevaseuk, R. & Tennant, E. (eds.) Lore of St. Lawrence Island, vol. II: Savoonga. Unalakleet: Bering Strait School District. 265–269.Google Scholar
Brandt, Ole (1971). K'ôka. Godthåb: Det Grønlandske Forlag.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon (1989). The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Engell, Mikaela (1982). Et land – to sprog: dansk i Grønland. Master's thesis, University of Copenhagen (unpublished).Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In Daneš, F. (ed.) Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton. 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael (1984). West Greenlandic. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael (1987). Switch reference anomalies and ‘topic’ in West Greenlandic: a case of pragmatics over syntax. In Verschueren, J. (ed.) Levels of linguistic adaptation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 53–80.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael (forthcoming). Grammaticalized focus in Yukagir: is it really grammaticalized and is it really Focus? In Falster, Jakobsen L., Engberg-Pedersen, E., Harder, P. & Heltoft, L. (eds.) Context, expression and structure: studies in Danish Functional Grammar. University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1990). Syntax, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.) Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 58–90.Google Scholar
Hannay, Michael 1983. The Focus function in Functional Grammar: questions of contrast and context. In Dik, S. (ed.) Advances in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 207–223.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ivarluk, Bessie (1973). Le renard rouge. In Métayer, R. P. M. (ed.) Unipkat, I (Collection Nordicana no. 40). Quebec: Laval University. 2–5.Google Scholar
Jenness, Diamond (1924). Report on the Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913–18, vol. VIII: Eskimo folk lore. Ottawa: Department of the Naval Service.Google Scholar
Kaladlit okalluktualliait (1863). Godthåb: Inspektoratets bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Kaveolook, Harold (1975). Aġviq. Barrow: Barrow School Inupiat Program.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael (1980). Alaska native languages, past, present and future (ANLC Research Paper no. 4). University of Alaska Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Lynge, Kristoffer (1978). Kalâtdlit oKalugtuait oKalualâvilo. Godthåb: Det Grønlandske Forlag.Google Scholar
Menovshchikov, G. A. (1988). Materialy i issledovanija po jazyku i fol'kloru Chaplinskikh eskimosov. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, Sam (1978). Christmas time in northern Labrador. Inuktitut, winter: 81–87.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne (1987). Is basic word order universal? In Tomlin, R. (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 329–360.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Frederik (1970). Ilivse tássa nunagssarse. Godthåb: Det Grønlandske forlag.Google Scholar
Nungak, Z. & Arima, E. (1969). Eskimo stories, Unikkaattuat (Bulletin no. 235). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
Panigeo, Jana (1979). Uqapiaqta. Let's speak Eskimo. Barrow: Inupiat University of the Arctic.Google Scholar
Petersen, Robert (1979). Danish influence on Greenlandic syntax. In Basse, B. & Jensen, K. (eds.) Eskimo languages, their present-day condition. Århus: Arkona. 113–122.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Knud (1930). Culture of lglulik and Caribou Eskimos (Report of the 5th Thule Expedition 1921–24, vol. 7, no. 3). Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Reed, Irene, Miyaoka, Osahito, Jacobson, Steven, Afcan, Paschal & Krauss, Michael (1977). Yup'ik Eskimo Grammar. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem J. (1988). Studies in Siberian Yupik Eskimo morphology and syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Tennant, Edward A. & Bitar, Joseph N. (1981). Yupik lore, Yunt Qanemciit. Bethel: Lower Kuskokwim School District.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence (1991). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vakhtin, Nikolai B. (1979). Sintaksicheskij analiz raznosistemnykh jazykov. Lingvisticheskije issledovanija: 20–29.Google Scholar
de Vries, Lourens (1992). Frames and Topics in some Papuan languages. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Functional Grammar,Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar