Abney CLD : Software for analysis of Anishinaabemowin texts and recordings

‘Rounding dissimilation’ is the name for a sound change in Miami-Illinois already seen in the late seventeenth century records of the language. Rounding dissimilation is a process whereby Proto-Algonquian *o (and sometimes *wa) changes to Miami-Illinois a in weak syllables preceding labials or Cw clusters. The effects of this rule have been disturbed by analogy and paradigmatic levelling, and even in the oldest records the process is not entirely regular. In my previous work on Miami-Illinois, I have anecdotally mentioned forms that undergo this rule, but I have never before examined the rule systematically, giving all the forms affected by it. In this paper I will lay out the exact conditioning of rounding dissimilation, showing the numerous forms that undergo paradigmatic alternations due to the rule, which forms have been reshaped, and which forms have failed to undergo the rule. Embedded questions in Meskwaki: syntax and information structure Amy Dahlstrom Meskwaki is unusual in the Algonquian family in its formation of embedded questions. This paper describes their syntax, investigates their relationship to formally similar evidentials and a sub-class of relative clauses, and explores the information structure relations of topic and focus are realized in embedded questions. Sister languages such as Nishnaabemwin (Valentine 2001:990) and Menominee (Johnson and Macaulay 2015:369) display independent question words in both matrix and embedded questions: (1) Wa-nda-gkenim [aaniin naa endshiwaad giwi eyaajig wadi]. go.&.find.out.2s>3 how as.many.as.they.were those who.were.there there ‘Go find out [how many of them there are over there].’ (2) ’S aw-kocēmonakeh [wāēkiq cew-āwek eneh nayōhtah]. 
 AOR IRR-ask.TA.1PL>3CONJ what EPIS-be.II.0CONJ that.INAN carry.on.back.TI.3>0CONJ ‘We will ask him [what it is that he carries on his back].’ In Meskwaki, on the other hand, embedded questions are expressed with a special inflected form of the verb, the interrogative participle, and no independent question word: (3) e·hpwa·wi–kehke·nema·či [ wi·hasemiha·kwe·hini] AOR.not–know.3>3’/AOR FUT.help.3>3’/INT.PART/3’ ‘He (prox) didn’t know whom (obv) he (prox) should help.’ (Michelson 1930:118) The final suffix –ini on the verb of the complement clause identifies the element questioned as 3rd person obviative singular, which is the object of the verb ‘help.’ Interrogative participles also have evidential functions and are used as relative clauses if the existence of the referent is not presupposed: (4) ne·sa·kwe·na ‘whoever kills him’ [if anyone] kill 3–3’/INT.PART/3 The paper explicates the unifying semantics of the interrogative inflection’s use for questions, evidentials and relative clauses in Meskwaki, and contrasts the information structure relation of focus in matrix questions with that found in embedded questions, where no independent word can be identified as occupying a focus position. ________________ Johnson, Meredith, and Monica Macaulay. 2015. A Monoclausal Analysis of Menominee WhQuestions. IJAL 81:337-377. Michelson, Truman. 1930. Contributions to Fox Ethnology II. (BAE Bulletin 95.) Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto UP. Ashley Glassburn Falzetti and Sara Acton, Eastern Michigan University Finding Better Ways to Teach Grammar: A Community-Linguist Partnership in the Miami Nation Linguists have long been creating world-class materials describing the grammars of Algonquian languages. Increasingly, linguists are paying attention to the needs of community members and striving to create materials that better serve community language revitalization groups. Our experiences creating languageteaching materials for the Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana have taught us that there is a need for a true paradigm shift in the teaching of Algonquian grammars. First, we argue that teaching grammar is important, particularly in the context of language reclamation (by which we mean a community in which there are no fluent native speakers). We have been working together to address the frustration of community members who celebrate the creation of linguistic materials on their language, though are frustrated when they are not capable of using materials designed for linguists. Our goal is to support the re-creation of a living community of speakers by giving community members skills to speak their minds—to create original sentences, original songs, original prayers, original jokes: language that is necessary for a community of speakers to flourish. For this we believe that an understanding of grammar and an ability to use dictionary and grammar resources is vital. One obvious barrier to community learners is the usage of grammatical jargon. We have found that teaching the structure of a language grammar by replacing jargon with “friendlier” language is not a sufficient bridge to community learners. This approach assumes that the linguistic idea around the grammar is the important part, which, apologies to linguists, is not true. We argue that the kernel of teaching from which we create a lesson is not new grammatical knowledge, but new word-building and sentence-building skills. Another barrier to community learners arises from the experience of learning within a reclamation context. Given that our linguistic knowledge of grammar is shifting and developing, and that communities of speakers are choosing and establishing a modern style of speech, community learners may find themselves on unstable ground and may question the validity of the knowledge that they bring to the table. We find that addressing questions about this shifting ground is extraordinarily important, and that we need to acknowledge and affirm the ways that learners have been taught and have heard their Elders speak. We find that we need to give learners skills to make choices when they have more than one option for expressing their ideas. This goes beyond teaching grammar to teaching decisionmaking in their context as learners. We argue that teaching grammar is a necessary (though not sufficient) component to the creation of a vibrant speaking community. To do so requires rethinking how lessons are structured from the perspective of community learners. This approach may be jarring to a linguistic model of teaching grammar because it shifts the logic behind teaching grammar from understanding grammatical constructions to articulating original ideas. The morpheme eke in Mi’kmaq: A light verb, not a detransitivizing final Barbara Sylliboy, Elizbeth Paul, Serge Paul, Arlene Stevens, Dianne Friesen The structure of the Mi’kmaq1 verb word is well studied (Inglis 1986; McCulloch 2013; Hamilton 2015) but the function of some of the morphemes remains elusive. One of the less well-defined morphemes, eke, is involved in transitivity. The morpheme eke2 was identified by Inglis (1986: 15) as being a verb suffix (“final” in Algonquianist terms) marking an intransitive verb where an animate subject acts on an indefinite object. McCulloch (2013: 21) discussed that this morpheme may function to introduce a nonspecific internal argument or to delete/absorb the internal argument. We find that eke has neither of the functions described by Inglis and McCulloch. The research focuses on the dialect of Mi’kmaq spoken in Cape Breton. We study 108 verb stems selected to cover a range of verbs. We assume, following McCulloch (2013: 31), that roots are uncategorized and receive their classification as a verb (or a noun) by particular morphemes, and that eke is a suffix. We elicited clauses for each of the verb stems, using verbs with and without eke. We tested the verbs to determine if the verb could carry eke and if the verbs were in clauses that were transitive or intransitive. In addition to morphological criteria, we also used syntactic and semantic criteria, defining syntactic transitivity in terms of the number of object complements that can appear in a clause (e.g., Kemmer 2003) and semantic valence in terms of the number of semantic roles associated with the verb in context (Comrie 1989). Contrary to our expectations, we find that a verb with eke can in fact have a specific DO in the clause (ex. 1). Therefore, eke cannot delete or absorb the internal object, nor does it license a nonspecific DO. We propose that eke is a light verb (cf. Manyakina 2015 for the morpheme(s) e’ge in verb stems with noun incorporation) and that it is semantically transitive. The presence (ex. 1) or absence (ex 2) of a DO (and its definiteness) depends on another closely related set of morphemes (glossed as Vt-). (1) tep-eke-y tu’aqn on-LV-1s ball ‘I throw the ball on.’ (2) tep-o’t-eke-y on-Vt-LV-1s ‘I am throwing stuff on.’ (loading a vehicle) Further research reveals that there are a set of intransitive light verbs and another set of transitive light verbs in Mi’kmaq. A light verb analysis has been proposed for several other Algonquian languages. A light verb analysis for Mi’kmaq and further investigation of the Vtmorpheme set may aid in navigating through some of the mismatch that has been reported between morphological and syntactic transitivity. References Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. University of Chicago Press. Hamilton, M. D. (2015). The syntax of Mi’gmaq: A configurational account. Doctoral dissertation, Montréal: McGill University. Inglis, S. 1986. The fundamentals of Micmac word formation. MA thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Kemmer, Suzanne (2003). Transitivity and voice. In: International encyclopedia of linguistics (Vol. 4). Ed. By Frawley, W. J. Oxford University Press. Manyakina, Y. (2015). Two Types of “Incorporation” in Mi’gmaq. MA thesis, Montréal: McGill University. McCulloch, G. (2013b). Verb Stem Composition in Mi’gmaq. MA thesis, Montréal: McGill University. 1 ‘Mi’kmaq’ and ‘Mi’gmaq’ represent different dialects and orthographies of the same language found in different regions. 2 Or ege in other orthographies. The Unami Harmony (1837 [1839]) of Ira Blanchard, a pioneering Algonquian linguist