Volume 16 Issue 1 (2018) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.487 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. Comparative
and Superlative Constructions in Alaskan Athabascan Languages
Siri G. Tuttle University of Alaska Fairbanks A
survey of reported comparative constructions in the Koyukon,
Ahtna and Tanana Athabascan languages of Alaska shows that many fall into Dixon’s (2008, 2012) A2 class. A dimensional verb
is accompanied by a modifying postpositional phrase, with the standard being
the object of the postposition. Superlatives are not as well represented in
lexical documentation as comparatives, which are themselves rare in texts and
difficult to elicit. Structured elicitation of comparatives and superlatives in
Ahtna and Koyukon supports observations that this
rarity is related to cultural norms in Athabascan communities, where comparison
(especially of people) can be considered rude, and superlatives evidence of
inappropriate pride. 1. Introduction Tanana (also referred to as Lower
Tanana; now represented only by the Minto dialect, Benhti
Kokht’ana Kenaga’), Koyukon (Denaakk’e) and Ahtna (Koht’aene Kenaege’) are three of
the eleven Athabascan languages spoken in Alaska.[1] All three are closely
related, though Tanana and Koyukon, which are
geographically contiguous, feel closer, largely because of shared vocabulary.
Languages of the Athabascan family
are found in three non-contiguous geographic areas in North America: Alaska and
northwest Canada (the Northern group), the Southwest of the contiguous United
States (the Apachean group) and along the west coast of the contiguous United
States (the Pacific Coast group). The languages represented in this study are
all members of the Northern group. The Athabascan languages are
polysynthetic, primarily prefixing, and head-final. Verbs are often described
in the Athabascanist literature using a morphological
template; in this paper, glosses follow this convention. For purposes of the
present discussion, a generalized template can be applied to these three
languages, since the structure of the verb is one of the most consistent
properties across the language family, and especially across the languages of
Alaska’s interior. The template shown in Table 1 roughly follows the
conventions used in Kari (1990) and Jetté and Jones
(2000). Table 1. Reference
template for Athabascan verbal forms Positions in the template are
numbered positively going leftward to prefixes from the stem. The negative
numbers to the right of the stem indicate suffixes. In this morphological
pattern, inflectional affixes frequently separate derivational prefixes, leading
to an effect of interdigitation, rather than layering. This pattern is typical
of the Athabascan family as a whole, though languages may vary in the details
of individual affix order (Rice 2000). In some verbs, only Positions 0 and 3 may
have phonological content in Koyukon and Tanana; in
Ahtna, a few verbs contain only a stem in Position 0, and no affixes. This is
because the templatic organization of the verbal system allows for
zero-elements (which will be notated Ø- in this paper). Subject morphemes, “classifiers”,
mode, and conjugation may be, and often are, represented by a default null
element in the template. Structures used in description are shared
over the three languages discussed here, though patterns, as well as lexical
items, differ. However, depth and breadth of documentation varies, so that
absence of a structure in documentation may not mean absence in the language.
Grammars, per se, have not been written for these languages. The documentation
for Koyukon is most complete, having been begun
earliest with the work of Jules Jetté in the early 20th
century, but even for this language, many infrequent structures have not been
attested, though they may be hypothesized to exist. Many examples of grammar
and usage have been compiled and organized by lexical entry in Jetté and Jones (2000), and that work provides the
background for the present study. In-depth documentation of Ahtna is
represented by the long-term fieldwork of James Kari, much of which is archived
at the Alaska Native Language Archive at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Grammatical examples from this work are compiled and organized by lexical entry
in his Ahtna-English dictionary (Kari 1990). Some grammatical explanation is
found in Tuttle (2009b), a grammatical companion to Kari (1990). Documentation for the Tanana language is
the least extensive lexically, with comparative phonology and text collection
by Krauss in the early 1960s (texts archived as Charlie et al. 1984, 1991), Kari’s
(1994) draft stem dictionary, which includes and organizes many examples from
Krauss’ texts, and Tuttle’s (2009a) pocket dictionary. While comparative and superlative
constructions contain extraverbal elements, some background in Athabascan
verbal morphology is required in order to clarify the examples in this paper.
In Table 1, a descriptive reference template is presented for basic morpheme
order in the three languages under consideration. Templates of this sort are
used for descriptive purposes by Athabascanists, but
do not constitute a theoretical representation of speaker knowledge. Verb forms are listed lexically as
“themes” in Northern Athabascan dictionaries, such as in Jetté
and Jones (2000) for Koyukon. A theme consists of a
root, often very abstract in meaning, along with lexically required prefixes
that may or may not carry additional meaning. Other derivational prefixes may
be added to define action, description or state of being more precisely,
creating a verb base. Athabascan verbs are characterized by discontinuous
constituency, since as Table 1 shows, derivational and inflectional elements in
the verb are interspersed linearly, not built in contiguous layers. There are very few true adjectives in the
languages under discussion. Description is most often encoded in verbs. Such a
verb consists of a descriptive root, possible morphological “gender” agreement
with associated arguments, possible thematic modifiers, a productive or
unproductive “classifier” that can mark valence, and stative aspectual
morphology. These prefixes form a characteristic prefix string associated with
descriptive verbs. Such prefix strings are listed in Alaskan
Athabascan dictionaries (Kari 1990, Jetté and Jones
2000) as aspectual derivational strings. Kari
describes an aspectual derivational string as “a package (or formula) of
prefixes and suffixes” (Kari 1990: 50).
They are aspectual in that they require a particular conjugation pattern for
aspect. These strings co-occur in semantically related verbs – motion verbs,
for example, or in this case, descriptive verbs. They may be discontinuous since
inflectional elements may occur between members of such strings. Table 2 identifies some of the prefixes
that will be shown to occur in the descriptive verbs in this paper, relative to
the template in Table 1. Table 2. Reference
for Athabascan Prefixes To take
these in left-to-right order: •Position 9: d- ‘thus’ is described as a “subsidiary”
prefix by Jules Jetté in his grammar of Koyukon (see quotation in Jetté and Jones 2000: 126). In Kari’s lexical work (Kari 1990, 1994) it is described
as a “pro-verb” prefix. It is found in copular, positive, equative, and
comparative forms, as well as in verbs that can replace other verbs in replies.
This prefix does not form part of a substitution set.
•Position 5:
Adverbial and gender prefixes occur in the qualifier zone. “Gender” includes
agreement for properties of the verbal arguments. Gender
prefixes include n-, d-, l-, gh-, Ø- and
the areal prefix, which has varied forms depending on the language. These
prefixes do not increase valence.
•Position 4:
gh-conjugation is found in the
positive and comparative morphology of description. •Position 3:
Perfective n- is found in the
positive and comparative morphology of description. •Position 1:
“Classifiers” do not classify anything; this conventional term is opaque, but
because the substitution set is inconsistent in its behavior, it cannot easily
be replaced with a functional term. When productive, the ł-classifier can add an argument, and the Ø-, l- and d-classifiers can
correlate with lowered valence. However, classifier selection is also
lexicalized as an element in derivational aspectual strings. As will be shown in this paper,
different combinations of the elements in Table 2 are found in positive,
equative, comparative and superlative constructions in the three languages. Note
that even within this restricted set of prefixes, homophonous prefixes can
exist, such as the gh-qualifier and gh-conjugation in Koyukon. Because of the close morphological
resemblances among all the Athabascan languages, linguists often consult works
on related languages when investigating structures that are not fully described
in the language they work with directly. Navajo, an Athabascan language of the
Apachean sub-group, is one of the most-studied languages of the family. Bochnak and Bogal-Allbritten’s
(2015) paper on comparison presents Navajo data that is morphologically similar
to the findings presented in this paper (i.e., verbal morphology for
dimensional adjectival verbs is parallel, as is the use of locational
structures to indicate comparative relationships), though Navajo boasts a wider
variety of adjectival forms than any of the languages discussed here. Bogal-Allbritten’s earlier work on Na-Dene comparatives (2010)
presents examples from Slave, Witsuwit’en (both
northern Athabascan languages) and Tlingit (a member of the larger Na-Dene family
that includes the Athabascan group). 2. Examples in
Lexicons In the following section, archived
and published examples from Tanana, Koyukon and Ahtna
are presented first, since these provided the basis on which recent fieldwork
has been done. Examples cited from published and unpublished dictionaries come
from various sources, which are not annotated in these dictionaries; some are
drawn from texts, and others were the result of elicitation. The citation of
the dictionary does not, therefore, constitute a complete identification of the
data, but will allow the reader to find the example for further examination and
comparison. Comparative and superlative
structures are exemplified in published and unpublished dictionaries for Ahtna,
Koyukon and Tanana (Kari 1990, Kari 1994, Jetté and Jones 2000, Tuttle 2009a). The examples below are
presented in the local orthographies. An orthographic equivalence chart is
given in Appendix A, as the languages share many phonemes that are written
differently in the orthographies. In (1), the cognates of the adjectival
verb that means ‘big, tall, high’ in the three languages are shown in context.
In (1a), the areal gender prefix khw- must be used
to agree with the meaning of the argument ‘house’; the cognate prefix hʉ- is used in the Koyukon example (1b), and ko- in the Ahtna example (1c), to indicate
the otherwise unmentioned referent.[2]
(1) Being
big
The
glosses in (1) show that the morphology of the adjectival verb is different in
Ahtna than in the other two languages. In the positive form, Tanana and Koyukon use the n-perfective prefix, which phonology
renders vocalic. These forms have no classifier. Ahtna, however, does use the ł-classifier,
but not the n-perfective prefix. Comparison of superiority is
often accompanied by changes in morphology, as well as the use of locational
elements, such as postpositions. The Tanana example in (2) shows the use of a
postposition as the standard marker. d- ‘thus’ is the item that seems
best identified as a degree marker; the inner section of the verb, including
stem, classifier, qualifiers and aspect marking, is grouped together as
Parameter.
In
Ahtna, the cognate aspectual string occurs in positive forms as well as in
equative and comparative forms, as shown in (3).
In Ahtna, the aspectual string de#gh+ł appears to perform a basic
descriptive function, while in Tanana and Koyukon, the
data presented in published lexicons suggests that it is specific to
comparative constructions. Kari (1990: 130) refers to the d- prefix in this Ahtna string as the “proverb” prefix, though in
the Koyukon documentation (Jetté
and Jones 2000: 126) the cognate prefix is called “subsidiary” following Jetté’s terminology. The morphological and syntactic
behavior of these cognate prefixes establishes their cognate status. The d-
“proverb” or “subsidiary” prefix is translated ‘thus’, in a number of its
instantiations. This prefix seems to change the complement possibilities of a
verb to include reference to a clause. Jetté, quoted
in Jetté and Jones (2000: 126) observes: The
subsidiary de...occurs in the
subsidiary verbs, in which its meaning is properly that of a demonstrative,
viz.: thus, in such a circumstance or condition. The subsidiary verbs...are
those that can replace other verbs in answers, or in independent propositions. Ahtna d- ‘thus’, along with gh-conjugation, does not appear when a gender
prefix, such as the areal ko-, is
present in an Ahtna dimensional verb. Thus it is not
present in (1c) above. Kari (1990: 130) states that these prefixes do not occur
in combination with gender, but does not indicate
whether this should be considered a morphological or a phonological
alternation. Variation also exists in these patterns over the Ahtna dialects
(Kari 1990: 130). Comparison of equality over a parameter may be
expressed using a postpositional phrase, verbal morphology including d- ‘thus’,
or the particle k’e ‘like’. The
examples in (4) vary across the languages and employ different combinations of
these comparative tools. In (4a), d- ‘thus’ co-occurs with a postpositional standard marker, but in
(4b), this prefix alone is used. In the Ahtna examples in (4c), d- ‘thus’ does not occur, and only the
standard marker is used. Note that in (4a), the parameter has to be shown as
discontinuous in order to identify the comparee. (4)
Equality
Note that d- ‘thus’ seems to work on its own as a degree marker in the Tanana
example in (4b), but occurs along with the
postposition kk’e in the Koyukon
example in (4a). The redundancy of d- ‘thus’
in the Koyukon example is reminiscent of its apparent
inertness in the Ahtna dimensional string d#gh+ł. It is not unusual for
individual Athabascan prefixes that form part of derivational strings to become
bleached in meaning – merely lexical – in some contexts, while remaining
productive in others. Morphological
devices for the expression of equative comparison are summarized in (5). (5)
Strategies in equative constructions ‘as big as’
Morphological strategies in comparative
constructions (comparison of superiority) are similar to those used in equative
constructions: postpositions serve as standard markers along with d- ‘thus’, as a degree marker, and the
rest of the dimensional aspectual derivational string forms the finite verb,
the parameter. Examples from published lexicons are shown in (6). (6) Comparative
Constructions
Superlatives share syntactic
structure with comparatives, in that standards are represented as objects of
postpositions. However, the examples in published lexicons are less consistent
in structure than examples of comparatives. However, a superlative takes as its
standard one of a set of indefinite pronouns: c’- in Ahtna, ch’e- in Tanana
and k’e- in Koyukon
form one cognate set of indefinite prefixes that are found as direct and
indirect objects, possessors and subjects within verbal forms. However, another
element, hʉ- in Koyukon, khw- in Tanana
(not found so far in Ahtna examples) can also represent the indefinite pronoun
in this context. Jetté is quoted in Jetté and Jones (2000: 266) regarding this element, that it
expresses “a remarkably greater shade of indetermination”. This prefix is
homophonous with a prefix known as the “Areal”, which can function as a
modifier, an object, or a subject in a verb form. (7) Superlativity
In (7a) (Ahtna), the standard is
represented by the indefinite object c’-.
In this example, the indefinite standard c’-
seems to be best translated as ‘anyone’, though the set to which ‘she’
belongs is not apparent in this lexicon example. The standard marker is a superlative
string made up of postpositional and modifying prefixes listed by Kari (1990: 208)
as P+gha+s+ta,
which subcategorizes for the n-perfective.
In the Ahtna form we do not see an element that could be identified as a degree
Marker. In the Koyukon
example, the adverbial k’ehʉk’ots’e is a compound of k’ehʉ ‘farthest’ and k’ots’e ‘ahead’. K’ehʉ itself is complex, as it
combines the indefinite object k’e- and -ʉhʉ, which Jetté and Jones translate as “comparative”. The indefinite object/subject/possessor,
k’e- in Koyukon,
has multiple roles in grammar; it can serve as a dummy object in a transitive
verb, but it can also stand in for a force of nature acting as agent. The areal
prefix, hʉ- in Koyukon, is similarly versatile. It can
represent a natural subject (weather), agree with a nominal in gender, or refer
to the situation in general. When the two are combined, as in the Koyukon example in (5c), a possible gloss could be ‘farthest-ahead'.
The lead dog is the smartest being in the situation (that being the set of dogs
on the line of a particular sled). It will be noted that I have not provided
a published example of a grammatical superlative from Tanana, because the
published materials do not contain one. This foreshadows the dearth of examples
to be found in corpora for these languages. The examples shown here, all drawn from
published sources, show that morphosyntactic structures exist in Tanana, Koyukon and Ahtna that can be used to express comparison.
Adjectival stative verbs are used in description, and comparative and
superlative constructions are formed by combining these verbs with locational
phrases. 3. Going beyond
the lexicons Though grammatical strategies for expressing
comparison are clearly present, as evidenced by lexical documentation,
non-elicited examples are not easy to find. This is particularly true for
superlatives. Examples of superlatives in available documentation are
relatively few compared to simple descriptions, and even in comparison with
comparatives. To provide a rough idea of the scarcity of
these expressions in texts: for this paper, a set of ten archived texts in
Tanana were consulted (Charlie et al. 1991), along with a set of Ahtna texts in
preparation for publication (Kari and Tuttle to appear), and a set of Koyukon texts from a variety of sources, currently being
prepared for inclusion in a grammatical database. All three sets of texts
contain a variety of genres, including memoirs, myths and historical material.
None of these texts contain any morphosyntactic comparatives, though other
strategies for comparison are used. It is important to note that some
comparisons are inherent in lexical sets. For example, the kinship systems in
all three languages include lexemes that mean, in themselves, ‘older brother,’ ‘younger
sister,’ etc. Thus, a story that contrasts the attributes of two siblings (a
common device in Athabascan storytelling) often does so as in the Ahtna example
in (8). In this example, details of morphology have been omitted. The word for ‘older
sister’, -adae,
is prefixed with the indefinite possessor c’-,
as is the word for ‘younger sister’, ‑daedze’, providing the indefinite form that introduces
the characters. (8) From Kudadzaey Ts’akae “Spider
Woman”, by Martha Jackson
In a language without such inherently
comparative lexemes, the beginning of this story might have required
morphosyntactic comparison. In Ahtna, however, the kin terms provide the
contrast along with the non-parallel clauses, describing the two girls using
different parameters, at least on the surface. The metaphor of “not listening”,
or “not having ears” is used to describe people who choose to ignore the
teaching of elders, while “being smart” is applied to successful characters who
follow cultural norms, and usually also turn out to be lucky. Listening, we conclude,
is part of being smart; so in effect, the younger girl
is the smarter one – but she is not described exactly that way in an Ahtna
story. There is likely a cultural component to
the avoidance of superlatives; Eliza Jones, Denaakk’e
(Koyukon) elder and co-author of Jetté
and Jones (2000), observes (p.c.) that traditional modes of speech avoid any
appearance of boasting or even calling attention to the speaker’s self, which
an extreme comparison or a superlative may suggest. A textual example from Tanana
(9, examined for morphology in Example 4b) demonstrates the possible
consequences of extreme comparison. Structurally, this extreme claim is formed
as an equative construction. It uses the dedicated comparative morphology. Standard
and Comparee precede the verb, and d- ‘thus’
serves as degree marker. However, because the character in the story is
comparing his mind to the size of the highest mountain in North America, he is
expressing a metaphorical superlative. (9) Tanana
story Tsidoghe Tthi’ To’,
recorded July 20, 2007 by the late Neal Charlie
In the story from which this
quotation comes, the boastful speaker is physically removed from power very
soon after he makes this speech. This is part of the moral of the story. The
act of boasting is shown to be followed by an extreme punishment. This avoidance of boastful claims seems to
be a part of a larger set of restrictions, which generally prescribe modest
behavior and careful speech. While younger Athabascans move somewhat freely
between the world of European-Americans, with its challenge to stand up for
oneself, market oneself, promise and predict, elders often remind them of the
rules, thinking of possible consequences. While these rules are not formally grammaticized,
they are encoded in language behavior among the elders who serve as our
grammatical mentors. 4. Elicitation
with graded stimuli In order to learn more about use
and avoidance of grammatical comparison strategies, a structured elicitation
activity was used. A small set of pictures was prepared to use in elicitation,
to learn more about how speakers of these languages would describe a “standard”
set of objects that are gradable using one property or another. Pictures of
people’s feet, of kettlebells, of dogs, of different shades of red, of
mountains, and of the checkpoints on the Iditarod Trail, among other things,
were used as stimuli. Examples from two speakers, one of Ahtna and one of Koyukon, will be presented here. Despite the availability of morphosyntactic
comparatives and superlatives in all three languages, as documented in lexical
research, there was considerable variety of expression in response to the
arrangement of supposedly gradable properties in series. A set of increasingly
happy faces (Fig 2) received the responses given in (7 and 8):
Figure 2: Happy,
happier, happiest? Instead of using a single gradable
property, the sets of three were very commonly described using different, categorical
properties. (10) Ahtna (Tuttle field notes, March 2015)
(11) Koyukon (Tuttle field notes, May, 2015)
The responses in (10) and (11)
certainly compare impressions of the three images, but they do not use the
available morphosyntactic pattern that could compare over the same parameter. These
descriptions are typical of the responses we were able to elicit. Indirect encoding of descriptions is seen
in other strategies in texts. For example, the use of hʉyoze ‘a little’ in Koyukon has an interesting
twist. In texts and conversation, hʉyoze is often
interpreted backwards, indicating not “a little” but “a lot” or “all the time”,
as in (12). (12) From
the autobiography of Sally Pilot (translated by Eliza Jones; Tuttle and Jones
fieldnotes)
Eliza Jones (p.c.) also calls
attention to a non-segmental strategy used to intensify description. This
effect is represented in (13). A high tone is placed on a word stem (usually a
verb stem, but here on the modifier edenh.) This tone is used along with vowel lengthening to
intensify descriptive verbs (similar to faaaaaar away in
English) but in her analysis of this text, also indicates repetition of actions
and contrast focus.
Further study is needed to define
the relationship of this intonational pattern to the comparative and
superlative system represented by segmental structures. This note from Dr.
Jones should be investigated further in the light of the claims made in this paper,
since non-lexical suprasegmental effects have not been represented in
grammatical sources for this language. Sometimes, the standard is presented as
the best example of the property being discussed. Another example in the
elicitation set shows three great mountains of Alaska, Denali, St. Elias and
Foraker. Ex. (14) is Dr. Jones’ response to the request to compare them. Instead
of starting with the smaller Foraker (17,400 feet, 5,304 m), Dr. Jones starts with the
great Denali (20,237 feet, 6,168 meters)
and works down through the middling St. Elias (18,008
feet, 5,489 meters). (14)
Mountains, compared; Koyukon (Tuttle notes, May 2015)
In this comparison
of the mountains, the same parameter is used for all the parts of the
description. The description of Denali (14a) uses the morphosyntactic
superlative, with the areal gender prefix performing the role of indefinite
standard. The description of Mount St. Elias (14b) uses the comparative
morphosyntax in the verb, though it does not use a postpositional phrase to
state the standard, but rather the areal prefix in hʉtsenh, since the standard was
introduced in the first sentence. (14c) and (14d) do not use comparative
morphology. This example was the one in the elicitation set least likely to
create a conflict with cultural norms, since the size of the mountains is
beyond question. This is likely to be one reason for the direct use of the
comparative morphology. The existence of morphosyntactic comparative
and superlative constructions in lexical and grammatical documentation makes
clear that with the correct context, speakers of Ahtna, Tanana and Koyukon can use these expressions. However, this small
experiment with elicitation suggests that the context must delimit the
possibilities for degrees of the property being used, and, in addition, that
the use of morphological comparison between entities, over an identical
parameter is rarely the chosen form; instead, other strategies are used. 5. Summary A survey of reported
comparative constructions in three Athabascan languages of Alaska shows that
many fall into Dixon’s (2008) A2 class: parameters are
expressed using adjectival neuter verbs, with standard markers tending to be
expressed in postpositional (spatial or time-related) form. However, even in lexical documentation, superlative
examples are rare. Spontaneous and elicited responses involving comparison also
show avoidance of morphosyntactic superlatives, and even of comparing different
entities over the same parameter. Cultural norms may affect these patterns,
with modest and cautious expression being highly valued. Incomplete knowledge
does not provide an acceptable base for claiming that an entity is the “most”
anything. A proverbial saying included in Jetté and Jones (2000: 704) encodes these values: (15) A
quotation from Catherine Attla, a famous Koyukon storyteller (Jetté and Jones 2000: 704)
References Bochnak, M. Ryan and
Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten. 2015. Investigating
gradable predicates, comparison and degree constructions in underrepresented
languages. In: Bochnak, M. Ryan and Lisa Matthewson
(eds.), Methodologies in Semantic
Fieldwork, pp. 110-134. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2010. Distribution and function of comparative aspect
in Athabaskan/Dene. In: Tuttle, Siri and Justin Spence (eds.), Working Papers in Athabaskan Languages 8
[Proceedings of the 2009 Athabaskan Languages Conference], pp. 19-32.
Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Charlie, Moses, Michael Krauss and James Kari. 1991. The Moses Charlie Collection. Ms., ANLC
Archive. TNMN 981 K1991d. Charlie, Moses, Michael Krauss and James Kari. 1991. The Moses Charlie Collection. Ms., ANLC
Archive. TNMN 981 K1991d. Dixon, R.M.W. 2008. Comparative
constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies
in Language 32(4), 787-817. Dixon, R.M.W. 2012. Comparative constructions (Chapter
26). In: Basic Linguistic Theory: Further Grammatical Topics. Vol. III: 343-375.
Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jetté, Jules and
Eliza Jones. 2000. Koyukon Athabaskan
Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Kari,
James. 1990. Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary.
Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Kari, James and Siri
Tuttle. (to appear) Yenida’a, Tsuts’aede, K’adiide: Mythical Times, Ancient Times, Recent Times. An
Anthology of Ahtna Narratives. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Krauss, Michael, Gary Holton, Jim Kerr, and Colin West. 2011. Indigenous Peoples and Languages of Alaska.
Alaska Native Language Center and University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of
Social and Economic Research. Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme
Order and Semantic Scope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stassen,
Leon. 2013. Comparative constructions. In: Dryer, Matthew S. and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The
World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at: http://wals.info/chapter/121
Tuttle, Siri. 2009a. Benhti
Kokht’ana Kenaga’, Lower Tanana Pocket Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native
Language Center. Tuttle, Siri. 2009b. Ahtna
Athabaskan Grammar Reference. Chistochina: Mt. Sanford Tribal Consortium. Appendix A: Orthographic
comparison: Koyukon, Tanana, Ahtna This table
compares symbols used in the practical orthographies to IPA symbols. Vowels are
compared only for quality, not for length. For some consonants, a single symbol
may be interpreted over a range of articulations, more commonly in Ahtna; thus multiple IPA symbols may be associated with one
orthographic symbol. Not all phones represented in orthographies are phonemes.
[1] This research is
supported by National Science Foundation project BCS1160654 and by the Alaska Native Language Center. [2] Abbreviations
used in glosses: ADV Adverbial, AR Areal, CLF Classifier, CNJ Conjugation, COMP
Complementizer, CUST Customary, DM Discourse marker, FOC Focus, G Gender, INDEF
Indefinite, IPFV Imperfective, NEG Negative, OBJ Object, P Plural, PP
Postposition, PPO Object of postposition, PFV Perfective, PSSR Possessor, QUAL
Qualifier, REFL Reflexive, REL Relativizer, S Singular, SBJ Subject, SUPRL
Superlative, TOP Topical, TRANS Transitional | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||