<b>A grammar of Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan).</b> By Eung-Do Cook. (Algonquian and Iroquoian linguistics 17.) Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics, 2004. Pp. xx, 454. ISBN 0921064179. $70.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: A grammar of Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan) by Eung-Do Cook Yury A. Lander A grammar of Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan). By Eung-Do Cook. (Algonquian and Iroquoian linguistics 17.) Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics, 2004. Pp. xx, 454. ISBN 0921064179. $70. This book seems to be the most comprehensive description to date of Dëne Sųłiné, also known as Chipewyan, which is one of the largest Athabaskan languages, second only to Navajo. Eung-Do Cook, a well-known specialist in the Athabaskan field, previously published a number of works on this family, including A Sarcee grammar (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press, 1984). The grammar consists of fourteen chapters, which are put in a well-established order—starting from phonology via morphology to syntax. The first three chapters cover phonology and morphonology as well as the issues of orthography and variability among the dialects. Next come an introductory chapter on the basic characteristics of major word classes and three chapters dealing with the very complex morphological patterns of Dëne Sųłiné. Since the morphology (especially that of the verb) plays a crucial role for polysynthetic languages like Chipewyan, it is no surprise that these chapters occupy more than half of the book. The rest of the monograph is concerned with various syntactic constructions and syntactically oriented morphological issues (such as that of pronominal prefixes and preposition incorporation). In addition, the grammar includes seven sample texts from different dialects and a short bibliography. In general, this description, which involves previously undescribed details obtained through C’s fieldwork or analysis of Chipewyan texts, is rather exhaustive. It is to the author’s credit that he considers data from different dialects and from speech of both younger and older generations. Moreover, the monograph is not merely descriptive. Many facts of Dëne Sųłiné undergo scrupulous analysis, although C’s conclusions are often not definitive. Many complex issues get extensive discussion bringing attention to related phenomena. This makes the grammar not easily searchable, the more so since it lacks any index. Still, various topics can be followed without appeal to other sections because the author readily sacrifices brevity and repeats the same points in different parts of the book. In general, C’s exposition follows the Athabaskan tradition. Thus, for instance, C adheres to the templatic approach to verb morphology, challenged by Keren Rice (Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Yet occasionally the author does suggest novel treatments, as is the case with number prefixes interpreted as ‘duoplural’ rather than plural. The reader therefore should be aware of the fact that C’s representations are not always standard. This said, most claims given in the grammar are carefully commented on and well illustrated. Though examples usually receive only rough morphological analysis, they are chosen so that the point under discussion is easily comprehensible. All in all, C’s grammar is definitely an important contribution to Athabaskan linguistics. Written in a theory-independent [End Page 913] manner, it is a useful source for both students and specialists in the area. Yury A. Lander Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, Moscow Copyright © 2007 Linguistic Society of America
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.020 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".