35.3605, Review: General Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Morphology, Syntax; The Algonquian Inverse: Hala (2024)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3605. Fri Dec 20 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 35.3605, Review: General Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Morphology, Syntax; The Algonquian Inverse: Hala (2024)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 20-Dec-2024
From: Reid Hala [reid.hala at usask.ca]
Subject: General Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Morphology, Syntax; The Algonquian Inverse: Hala (2024)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35.1456

AUTHOR: Will Oxford
TITLE: The Algonquian Inverse
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Studies of Endangered Languages
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2024

REVIEWER: Reid Hala

SUMMARY

The Algonquian Inverse by Will Oxford (ISBN 9780192871800) is a
detailed examination of inversion as it occurs across the Algonquian
language family, specifically its morphological forms and its direct
effects on syntax and pragmatics in these languages. The book is
academic in nature and geared towards linguists interested especially
in Algonquian morphology, syntax and pragmatics, but also those who
may be interested in the morphology and syntax of the inverse as found
in languages more generally. Oxford also attempts to make the findings
of the book at least somewhat relevant to teachers and learners of
Algonquian languages, claiming that there are two distinct
manifestations of the inverse that should be taught differently, and
occasionally referring to what learners might take away from examining
the data. Oxford nevertheless concedes that “the value of this book
for language maintenance and revitalization is modest at best”
(Oxford, 2024, p. 257), but it must also be said that some learners
may actually benefit from studying the verb paradigm tables in
Appendix B, or simply scouring the book for examples of the
language(s) they wish to learn.

The purpose of The Algonquian Inverse is to serve as a book-length,
unified account of the Algonquian inverse that brings together the
sizeable amount of “descriptive, historical, typological, functional,
and formal research” (Oxford, 2024, pg. 6) on this phenomenon, which
Oxford achieves through a lengthy analysis of the morphological,
syntactic and pragmatic implications of inversion. Indeed, one of the
questions that frames the book is whether the inverse is merely a
morphological pattern, a syntactic pattern, a morphosyntactic one, or
all three. The book also brings together much of the research on
Proto-Algoquian (PA), which is frequently used to support Oxford’s
diachronic analysis of contemporary inverse forms in Algonquian
languages.

One of the major contributions this book makes to the field is to
argue for a new description of what the inverse actually does and how
it patterns in Algonquian languages. As Oxford states, most of the
previous literature on the inverse has taken it as evidence for a
“hierarchy of persons” that is often given as Speech Act Participant
(SAP; i.e., first or second person) > X > 3 > 3’ > 0 where X is a
non-specified actor, 3’ is an obviative third person, and 0 denotes
inanimate nominals (Valentine, 2001). What this means is that
inversion is expected to occur whenever a lower-ranked person acts on
a higher-ranked one, such as a third person acting on an SAP, or an
inanimate noun acting on an animate one. The argument put forth in the
book is that this unified hierarchy is overly complex and unnecessary
to explain inversion, and that a binary or “split” hierarchy is in
fact better able to account for when and why the inverse shows
variability across Algonquian languages, and when/why it does not. The
binary hierarchy proposed by Oxford is: (1) SAP > non-SAP, called the
SAP inverse, and (2) topical third > less topical third, referred to
as the third-person inverse, where a “more topical nominal is higher
in predictability, importance, empathy, and/or individuation” (Oxford,
2024, p. 79), with the underlying assumption that animate nouns are
more topical than inanimate ones.

The first two chapters serve to contextualize the theme of the book
and provide background information to persuade the reader that the
unified person hierarchy is less effective than the split hierarchy in
its ability to predict the contexts in which inversion appears or does
not appear in languages across the family. Chapter Three deals
explicitly with the question “what is the inverse?” by analyzing
examples not only from Algonquian languages but also from unrelated
languages that employ inverse markers, as well as a brief overview of
related phenomena such as contrastive voice, syntactic ergativity, and
hierarchical agreement. The whole chapter is thus a description of
what the inverse does and what it does not do, while proposing that it
should be seen as having both “deep” and “shallow” occurrences in
Algonquian languages: the third-person inverse is labelled as deep
because it arguably inverts the syntax, whereas the SAP inverse is
considered shallow because it is merely a morphological phenomenon
with no effect on the syntax; these arguments are expounded upon in
Chapters Four and Five, respectively.

Chapter Four examines the third-person inverse and includes a series
of diagnostic tests to provide evidence that there is in fact a
syntactic inversion that is best understood in terms of the PATIENT
VOICE category described by Zúñiga & Kittilä (2019). Essentially,
PATIENT VOICE refers to linguistic systems that reverse the typical
agent-as-subject and patient-as-object roles, such as in passive and
inverse constructions.

The main argument laid out in Chapter Five is that the SAP inverse is
shallow, i.e., it is purely morphological in nature, and the syntax is
not inverted. Oxford notes that many of the diagnostic tests applied
in Chapter Four are not valid for the SAP inverse; thus there is less
evidence overall of syntactic inversion in comparison to the
third-person inverse. He does, however, provide space to examine the
limited evidence in favour of syntactic inversion, which amounts to
one phrase from Odawa and one from Passamaquoddy; as Oxford points
out, the fact that neither example is straightforward or easily
reproducible diminishes their evidentiary value.

Oxford devotes considerable space to diachronic analysis in §4.4 and
§5.4 to examine the origins of each type of inverse, which serves to
bolster the deep/shallow inverse argument woven throughout the book.
Drawing upon available evidence to reconstruct PA, Oxford assumes that
PA had the third-person inverse in both independent and conjunct
modes, (for simplicity’s sake, these can be thought of as independent
and dependent clauses, respectively) but the SAP inverse was
restricted to the independent mode, which in turn stems from the idea
that the conjunct is older than the independent as an inflectional
paradigm. When the independent mode arose, there was supposedly an
inflectional “gap” that needed filling – i.e., a means of
morphologically indicating 3 > SAP situations – and the most expedient
way to do this was to extend the use of the (originally passive)
inverse *-ekw, albeit without the passive voice property that it
retains in the third-person inverse. From this perspective, wherever
modern Algonquian languages exhibit SAP inversion in the conjunct, it
is a result of extending its use to this domain over time.

Chapter Six is a detailed formal analysis of the inverse in both SAP
and third-person contexts, as another means of displaying where there
is overlap (i.e., in the morphology) and where there is not (i.e., the
syntax). It begins with an outline of formal accounts put forth by
others, including some of the earliest accounts such as Rhodes’
analysis of Odawa from 1976, as well as more recent ones such as that
put forth by Béjar and Rezac in 2009 using data from Ojibwe, while
also listing additional works that are not given space in the book
itself. Oxford is careful to state that the purpose of the chapter is
not to demonstrate that his analysis is any better than the accounts
mentioned in §6.1. Rather, it is meant to synthesize all the
descriptive points laid out thus far in the book, particularly those
from Chapters Four and Five, into a formal account of the inverse.

Chapter Seven provides a fairly succinct conclusion, reiterating the
usefulness of the split hierarchy or deep/shallow inverse hypothesis
and its relevance in examining the inverse from the various
perspectives detailed in the previous chapters. A handful of future
research topics are mentioned, with the notion of subjecthood being of
particular interest, given its apparent ambiguity in Algonquian
languages. The book closes with a nod to language revitalization, with
an admission that the book’s usefulness is rather limited in this
regard due to its highly academic nature.

EVALUATION

One of the major contributions of this book is in its list of paradigm
tables, which provide a fairly comprehensive overview of grammatical
forms across modern Algonquian languages, as well as the suspected
Proto-Algonquian correlates. These paradigm tables present an
excellent resource for linguists studying Algonquian languages and
even teachers of Algonquian languages who are serving learners through
a more western academic approach (i.e., the approach is highly
text-based and informed by the discipline of linguistics rather than
traditional, oral-based learning). While many in the language
revitalization community advocate for more traditional, oral-based
approaches to learning (see for example Chew et al., 2024; Hermes et
al., 2021; Sims, 2019) the reality is that many people now attempting
to learn or reclaim Algonquian languages may need some degree of an
academic approach to support their learning, or they simply may not
have the kind of regular contact with fluent speakers necessary to
learn through a traditional/oral approach.
Since animacy plays an important role in the proposed split hierarchy,
Oxford does well to offer examples that distinguish between
grammatical and semantic animacy. Nouns that have a mismatch between
these two categories, which he refers to as pseudo-animate (i.e.,
those that are grammatically animate but semantically inanimate)
appear to trigger inversion when they act on animate arguments
(covered in § 4.1). It should be noted, however, that the other type
of mismatch, where a noun is grammatically inanimate but semantically
animate, such as Michif enn fleur (‘flower’; Hala, 2022) are not
really dealt with in the book. This is a missed opportunity, as it
would have enriched the data to examine “pseudo inanimate” nouns and
compare  the application of inversion for such nouns
cross-linguistically.

Oxford also provides space in the book to examine data that the split
hierarchy cannot readily account for. One such example comes from
Southwestern Ojibwe, which actually shows inverse morphology in an SAP
> SAP context, something that could not be predicted or explained by
either the unified hierarchy of person or the split hierarchy proposed
by Oxford (INV = inversion marker, TA = transitive animate verb, S =
singular, P = plural):

Waːpamikoːyan
(Oxford, 2024, p. 182)
Waːpam          -ikoː   -yan
See.TA            -INV.X  2S
‘We see you.S’ (or ‘you.S are seen’)


Waːpamikoːyeːk
(Oxford, 2024, p. 182)
Waːpam          -ikoː   -yeːk
See.TA            -INV.X  2P
‘We see you.P’ (or ‘you.P are seen’)

Oxford hypothesizes that such forms may have arisen “as a strategy to
avoid the number syncretism” (Oxford, 2024, p. 183) that is present in
many Algonquian languages in 1P > 2 contexts. Take, for example,
Plains Cree kipêsîtinân ‘we bring you hither’ (Alberta Language
Technology Lab, 2024): The English translation also maintains the
count ambiguity: without more context, it is unclear whether ‘you’ is
singular or plural in such an utterance. Oxford admits that a
synchronic analysis of this phenomenon is not readily available even
through the lens of the split hierarchy.

Evidence for the split hierarchy and its deep/shallow versions are
supported with data from a variety of languages within the Algonquian
family. One language that is never drawn upon, however, is Michif;
while the language is present in the verb paradigm tables in Appendix
B, there are no in-text examples from Michif provided in the book. In
fact, in the entire book, the language is only mentioned three or four
times in passing, always as a part of a larger group of languages with
particular tendencies related to inversion. This may be a mere
oversight, or due to a paucity of available data. Regardless, it would
have been nice to see this under-documented and linguistically
under-described contact language given more representation in the
book, especially given its status as a mixed contact language that
incorporates (mostly) French noun phrases with (mostly) Plains Cree
verb phrases (Bakker, 1997). The lack of Michif examples is, if
nothing else, a good reason for linguists to continue studying the
language; doing so might offer insight as to how intense language
contact may affect phenomena like inversion, especially since French
employs other strategies to invert syntax.

All in all, The Algonquian Inverse is well organized and extremely
detailed, with ample attention paid to various issues and questions
that arise as a result of examining the inverse through a split
hierarchy. The appendices are a useful resource for linguists and
perhaps even certain language teachers/learners. The occasional
attempt to make the book relevant for language learners is
praiseworthy, though perhaps future works could transform the plethora
of data from the book into something more digestible for such an
audience. Aside from the lack of Michif examples, the book largely
achieves the stated goal of bringing together the sizeable body of
research on inversion across the Algonquian language family.

REFERENCES

Alberta Language Technology Lab. 2022. Itwêwina: The online Cree
dictionary. https://itwewina.altlab.app/

Bakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the
mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford University
Press.

Chew, Kari A. B., Leonard, Wesley Y., & Rosenblum, Daisy. 2024.
Decolonizing Indigenous language pedagogies: Additional language
learning and teaching. The languages and linguistics of Indigenous
North America: A comprehensive guide, vol. 2, pp. 767-788. De Gruyter
Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712742-034.

Hala, Reid. 2022. Figurative language in Michif. Saskatoon, Canada:
University of Saskatchewan thesis.

Hermes, Mary, Meixi, Engman, Mel M., & McKenzie, James. 2021. Everyday
stories in a forest: Multimodal meaning-making with Ojibwe elders,
young people, language, and place. International journal of Indigenous
education scholarship, 16(1), pp. 267-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/wj1202120289.

Laverdure, Pateline, & Allard, Ida Rose. 1983. The Michif dictionary:
Turtle Mountain Chippewa Cree. Pemmican Publications.
Oxford, Will. 2024. The Algonquian inverse. Oxford University Press.

Sims, Christine. 2019. Re-centering pedagogy on oral traditions:
Examples from southwest Indigenous languages. In Ari Sherris & Joy
Kreeft Peyton (eds.), Teaching writing to children in Indigenous
languages. Routledge.

Valentine, Randolph J. 2001. Nishnaabemwin reference grammar.
University of Toronto Press.

Zúñiga, Fernando & Kittilä, Seppo. 2019. Grammatical voice. Cambridge
University Press.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

I am a linguist currently working for the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan,
where my job is centered around research, documentation, promotion and
teaching of the Michif language. My research interests include
Algonquian languages, pragmatics, and semantics (particularly
metaphor). While not a Métis/Michif myself, my wife and our beautiful
daughter are “lii Michif,” and it is through them that I have
developed a passion and enthusiasm to learn what I can about Michif
and related languages.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Edinburgh University Press https://edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3605
----------------------------------------------------------