Cover not available
Part of
Nominalization in Languages of the Americas
Edited by Roberto Zariquiey, Masayoshi Shibatani and David W. Fleck
[Typological Studies in Language 124] 2019
► pp. 273–299

Chapter 6
Nominalization in Central Alaskan Yup’ik

| Osaka University

This article analyzes related lexical and grammatical structures in Central Alaskan Yup’ik (CAY) in terms of the theory of nominalization (Shibatani 2018, this volume) focusing on the relationships between noun formation and grammatical structures paralleling so-called relative clauses in other languages. We first examine the characteristics of nominalizations lexicalized as nouns, showing that various types of nominalizers are employed in the formation of nouns, and then observe that essentially the same formal structure is utilized in relative-clause counterparts in CAY, with the use of some of the nominalizers seen in lexicalized forms (Jacobson 1995). We demonstrate that the differences between derived nouns and relative-clause counterparts are attributable to the different instantiations of the single process of nominalization–lexical nominalization and grammatical nominalization.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Lexical nominalizations
  • 3.Types and characteristics of CAY nominalizers
  • 4.Grammatical nominalizations
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Morpheme gloss abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.124.06tam
References
Bergsland, Knut
1997 Aleut Grammar. Fairbanks AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1997 Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds), 51–60. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2006 Syntactic typology: Just how exotic are European-type relative clauses. In Linguistic Universals, Ricardo Mairal & Juana Gil (eds), 130–154. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2002 Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, in honor of Prof. James A. Matisoff, Patrick Chew (ed.), 55–72. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
2010 Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol 2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Jacobson, Steven A. & Kaplan, Lawrence
2010 Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Steven A.
1984 Yup’ik Eskimo Dictionary. Fairbanks AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
1995 A Practical Grammar of the Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo Language. Fairbanks AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana
1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23(1): 57–87.Google Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito
1986 Eskimogo no nookakusei (Ergativity in Alaskan Yupik Eskimo). Gengo Kenkyu 90:97–118.
https://doi.org/
Google Scholar
Miyaoaka, Osahito
2012 A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1986 Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, Irene, Miyaoka, Osahito, Jacobson, Steven A., Afcan, Paschal & Krauss, Michael
1977 Yup'ik Eskimo Grammar. Fairbanks AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem J.
2007 Polysynthesis as a typological feature: An attempt at a characterization from Eskimo and Athabascan perspective. In Variations on Polysynthesis: The Eskaleut languages [Typological Studies in Language 86], Marc-Antoine Mahieu & Nicole Tersis (eds), 19–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
2009 Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t: The case of relativization. In Syntactic Complexity Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 163–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Rethinking relative clauses. Handout distributed at International Workshop on Nominalization in the languages of the Americas. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 28 August.Google Scholar
2018 Nominalization in crosslinguistic perspective. In Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguistics, Prashant Pardeshi & Taro Kageyama (eds), 345–410. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thalbitzer, William
1911 Eskimo. In Handbook of American Indian Languages [Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40.1], Franz Boas (ed.), 967–1069. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C.
1985 Noun phrase, nominal sentence, and clause in Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some Approaches to Theory from the Field, Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds), 61–88. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2002 The word in Cup'ik. In Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 79–99. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar