Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger MIT/Harvard, March 2012
This talk is based on collaborative work with Jessica Coon ([email protected]) and Pedro Mateo Pedro ([email protected]).
1. Introduction The suffix -on (glossed “AF”) appears in Q’anjob’al in two seemingly disparate environments: • In clauses from which transitive subjects have been extracted:1 (1) transitive subject extraction →“Agent Focus” maktxel max-ach il-on-i? who asp-2abs see-af-itv ‘Who saw you?’
• In embedded transitive clauses—regardless of whether extraction has taken place: (2) embedded transitives chi uj [ hach y-il-on-i ]. asp be.able.to 2abs 3erg-see-af-itv ‘She can see you.’
➻ Developing the intuition in Pascual (2007), and building on the proposal in Ordóñez (1995), we develop an account which explains the appearance of -on in both these environments
The larger question: What restricts transitive subjects (ergatives) from extracting in the first place? • In many—but not all—ergative languages, transitive subjects cannot be extracted without using special morphology on the verb (Aldridge 2008, Dixon 1972, Manning 1996)
* Thanks to the audiences at FAMLi, Leipzig, UCSC, MIT, UCLA, and the Harvard Agent Extraction reading group, and especially to Judith Aissen, Ava Berinstein, Edith Aldridge, Robert Henderson, David Pesetsky, Maria Polinsky, Clifton Pye, Norvin Richards, Kirill Shklovsky, Lisa Travis, and Valentina Vapnarsky for useful feedback and discussion. Special thanks to Chol language consultants Virginia Martínez Vázquez, Doriselma Gutiérrez Gutíerrez, and Matilde Vázquez Vázquez; and to Kaqchikel language consultant Ana López de Mateo. 1Q’anjob’al data are from collaborator Pedro Mateo Pedro. Abbreviations in glosses are as follows: abs — absolutive; af — agent focus; ap — antipassive; asp — aspect marker; caus — causative; cl — clitic; det — determiner; dir — directional; dtv — derived transitive suffix; erg — ergative; foc — focus marker; itv — intransitive verb suffix; ncl — noun class clitic; nml — nominal; perf — perfect; pl — plural; prep — preposition; prfv –perfective; prog — progressive; rn — relational noun; tv — transitive verb suffix.
–1– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
Proposal: The AF morpheme licenses the transitive object in environments where it would otherwise be unlicensed. • The problem with extracting transitive (ergative) subjects arises due to the manner in which absolutive arguments are licensed. . . ◦ In Q’anjob’al, absolutive = nominative (assigned by Infl0) ◦ The absolutive object raises above the subject to receive absolutive/nominative, trapping it inside the verbal phase ➻ AF permits extraction in (1) by altering the case assignment properties of the clause
• The morpheme -on is also required in non-finite contexts like (2), where case is otherwise unavailable to the object
We show this through a comparison of Q’anjob’al with Chol, a related ergative language which does not show extraction asymmetries, showing that: • ergative languages do not form a homogenous group (Aldridge 2004, Johns 1996, Legate 2002) • (at least in Mayan) the problem with extracting the ergative subject is not about properties of the subject ...... outline:
§2 – Ergative and absolutive in Mayan §3 – The problem with ergative extraction §4 – Agent Focus §5 – Predictions §6 – Summary and conclusions
–2– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
2. Ergative and absolutive in Mayan 2.1. Morphological ergativity The Mayan language family consists of about thirty languages, usually grouped into five or six major sub-groups (Campbell & Kaufman 1985), spoken altogether by over six million people in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize. (3) Mayan family classification (Campbell &Kaufman 1985) a. Wastekan: Wastek b. Yukatekan: Yukatek, Lakandon; Mopan, Itza’ c. Greater Tseltalan: i. Cholan: Chol, Chontal; Ch’orti’ ii. Tseltalan: Tseltal, Tzotzil d. Greater Q’anjob’alan: i. Q’anjob’alan: Q’anjob’al, Akatek, Jakaltek; Mocho’ ii. Chujean: Chuj, Tojol’ab’al e. Kichean–Mamean: i. Kichean: Q’eqchi’; Uspantek; Poqomchi’, Poqomam; K’ichee’, Kaqchikel, Tz’utujil, Sakapultek, Sipakapense ii. Mamean: Tekiteko, Mam; Awakatek, Ixil
• Q’anjob’al is spoken primarily in Huehuetenango, Guatemala by about 80,000 people • We’ll also discuss Chol, a member of the Tseltalan branch spoken in the northern part of the state of Chiapas by approximately 200,000 people (Historical works suggests Q’anjob’alan and Tseltalan split close to 3000 years ago.) ...... Despite significant diversity within the family, all Mayan languages share a number of core characteristics. . .
• Morphological ergativity
(4) ergative-absolutive nominative-accusative
A P A P transitive: erg abs nom acc
S S intransitive: abs nom
–3– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
• In Mayan languages, we see the ergative system via person marking on the predicate: (5) Chol a. tyi i-mek’-e-yoñ. asp 3erg-hug-tv-1abs ‘She hugged me.’ b. tyi ts’äm-i-yoñ. asp bathe-itv-1abs ‘I bathed.’
◦ ergative and possessor agreement morphemes are identical (often referred to as “set a” in Mayanist literature):
(6) a. tyi ii-ch’il-i ja’as jiñi xk’aläli. asp 3erg-fry-tv banana det girl ‘The girl fried bananas.’
b. ii-chich jiñi xk’aläli 3erg-older.sister det girl ‘the girl’s (older) sister’ ◦ subjects, objects, and possessors may be dropped ◦ 3rd-person absolutive is null (will be left unglossed in what follows) (7) a. tyi k-ch’il-i-φ. asp 1erg-fry-tv-3abs ‘I fried it.’ b. tyi majl-i-φ. asp go-itv-3abs ‘She left.’
• Clause-initial aspect-markers (8) a. tyi k-wuts’-u pisil. prfv 1erg-wash-tv clothes ‘I washed clothes.’ b. mi k-wuts’ pisil. impf 1erg-wash clothes ‘I wash clothes.’ c. choñkol k-wuts’ pisil. prog 1erg-wash clothes ‘I’m washing clothes.’ ◦ one of these aspect markers is obligatory in eventive matrix predicates – but they are absent in non-finite embedded clauses ◦ argued to occupy Infl0 (Aissen 1992)
–4– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• “Status suffixes” ◦ vary with transitivity, aspect; argued to occupy v0 (Coon 2010, Coon & Preminger 2010) ◦ In Q’anjob’al, these only surface when they would occupy a phrase-final position; we’ll use square brackets to show which status suffix would surface if the stem had appeared finally – see also Henderson 2012 (9) Chol tyi wäy-i jiñi wiñik. asp sleep-itv det man ‘The man slept.’ (10) Q’anjob’al a. max way[-i] naq winaq. asp sleep-itv ncl man ‘The man slept.’ b. max way-i. asp sleep-itv ‘He slept.’
• Voice morphology ◦ may appear between the root and the status suffix: (11) a. tyi wäy-i-yoñ. asp sleep-itv-1abs ‘I slept.’ b. tyi i-wäy-is-ä-yoñ. asp 3erg-sleep-caus-dtv-1abs ‘She made me sleep.’
2.2. The location of absolutive • Though the order of these morphemes is fairly stable across the family, the location of the absolutive marker varies: “high-abs”: the absolutive morpheme surfaces right after the aspect-marker “low-abs”: the absolutive morpheme surfaces after the verb stem
high-abs aspect abs erg root (voice) suffix (12) low-abs aspect erg root (voice) suffix abs
–5– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
Q’anjob’al and Chol illustrate this difference:2 (13) Q’anjob’al – “high-abs” (14) Chol – “low-abs” a. max-ach y-il-a’. a. tyi y-il-ä-yety. asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv asp 3erg-see-tv-2abs ‘She saw you.’ ‘She saw you.’ b. max-ach way-i. b. tyi wäy-i-yety. asp-2abs sleep-itv asp sleep-itv-2abs ‘You slept.’ ‘You slept.’ c. max-ach hin-way-tzene-j. c. tyi k-wäy-is-ä-yety. asp-2abs 1erg-sleep-caus-dtv asp 1erg-sleep-caus-dtv-2abs ‘I made you sleep.’ ‘I made you sleep.’
2.3. Syntactic ergativity and its distribution • Tada (1993): The location of the absolutive morpheme correlates with the appearance of extraction asymmetries (languages not originally present in Tada’s have been italicized)3
(15) +asymmetries -asymmetries high-abs Q’anjob’al, Akaktek, Jakaltek, Chuj, Q’eqchi’, Uspantek, Poqomchi’, Poqomam, K’ichee’, Kaqchikel, Tz’utujil, Sakapultek, Sipakapense, Mam, Awakatek low-abs Yucatec, Ixil Lakandon, Mopan, Itza’, Chol, Chontal, Tseltal, Tojol’ab’al
2.3.1. Low-abs In low-abs languages like Chol, all core arguments (S, A, P) can extract freely for questions, focus, and relativization: (16) Chol intransitive subject (=absolutive) extraction a. tyi wäy-i jiñi x’ixik. asp sleep-itv det woman ‘The woman slept.’
b. Maxkii tyi wäy-i ti? who asp sleep-itv ‘Who slept?’
2high-abs languages can be further divided based on the location of the abs morphemes in stative or “non- verbal” predicates, not discussed here. 3See Coon, Mateo Pedro & Preminger 2011 for a discussion of Yucatec and Ixil, which differ from the languages discussed in other important respects; e.g. in Yucatec there is no Agent Focus morpheme and the construction referred to as “Agent Focus” is often optional (Norcliffe 2009); in Ixil absolutive markers are free-standing words (Ayres 1983).
–6– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
(17) Chol transitive object (=absolutive) extraction a. tyi aw-il-ä aj-Maria. asp 2erg-see-dtv det-Maria ‘You saw Maria.’
b. Maxkii tyi aw-il-ä ti? who asp 2erg-see-dtv ‘Who did you see?’ (18) Chol transitive subject (=ergative) extraction a. tyi y-il-ä-yety aj-Maria. asp 3erg-see-dtv-2abs det-Maria ‘Maria saw you.’
b. Maxkii tyi y-il-ä-yety ti? who asp 3erg-see-dtv-2abs ‘Who saw you?’
• Because both DPs are post-verbal (VOS), and there is no morphological case on nouns, when both are third person, ambiguity results (see Eby Clemens et al. 2012)
(19) MaxkiA/P tyi y-il-ä {tP} aj-Maria {tA}? who asp 3erg-see-dtv det-Maria ‘Who saw Maria?’ / ‘Who did Maria see?’
2.3.2. High-abs In high-abs Q’anjob’al, absolutive arguments extract freely, but ergatives do not: (20) Q’anjob’al intransitive subject (=absolutive) extraction a. max way-i naq winaq. asp sleep-itv ncl man ‘The man slept.’
b. Maktxeli max way-i ti? who asp sleep-itv ‘Who slept?’ (21) Q’anjob’al transitive object (=absolutive) exraction a. max h-il-[a’] ix Malin. asp 2erg-see-tv ncl Maria ‘You saw Maria.’
b. Maktxel max h-il-a’ ti? who asp 2erg-see-tv ‘Who did you see?’
–7– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
➻ Extracting the ergative subject is impossible: (22) Q’anjob’al transitive subject (=ergative) extraction a. max-ach y-il-[a’] ix Malin. asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv ncl Maria ‘Maria saw you.’ b. * maktxel max-ach y-il-a’? who asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv intended: ‘Who saw you?’
• No ambiguity arises with two third person arguments; only the object-extraction interpretation is possible (Q’anjob’al basic order is VSO), cf. (19):
(23) MaktxelP/*A max y-il-a’ {tA} ix Malin {tP}. Who asp 3erg-see-tv det Maria ‘Who did Maria see?’ not: ‘Who saw Maria?’
• Instead. . . (24) Q’anjob’al Agent Focus (AF) maktxel max-ach il-on-i? who asp-2abs see-af-itv ‘Who saw you?’
2.3.3. Syntactic ergativity • The inability for ergative subjects to extract falls under the label of “syntactic ergativity”: ◦ the syntax treats ergatives (= transitive subjects) in some way distinct from absolutives (= intransitive subjects, transitive objects)
A P (25) transitive: erg abs
S intransitive: abs
• Many morphologically ergative languages exhibit syntactic ergativity ◦ see, for example, Aldridge (2008), Dixon (1972) and Manning (1996) • However, as Mayan family demonstrates, not all morphologically ergative languages exhibit syntactic ergativity ◦ all Mayan languages show an ergative pattern of person marking ◦ only some Mayan languages show extraction asymmetries
–8– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• And as far as we know, no morphologically nominative-accusative language exhibits syntactic ergativity:4
(26) + morph. ergativity − morph. ergativity + syntactic ergativity Q’anjob’al φ − syntactic ergativity Chol English, etc.
Questions: • What is the source of the inability to extract ergatives in some—but not all—morphologically ergative languages? • Why is this problem dependent on morphological case alignment? • How (in Mayan) does the Agent Focus construction circumvent this problem?
3. Absolutive and the problem with ergative extraction in short: • Absolutive morphemes are pronominals (see, for example, Woolford 2000 on Jakaltek and Coon 2010 on Chol) ◦ their high position in Q’anjob’al blocks the ergative argument from extracting ◦ in Chol they are low, and extraction is not blocked
(27) Q’anjob’al (28) Chol a. position of abs marker a. position of abs marker max-ach y-il-a’. tyi y-il-ä-yety. asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv asp 3erg-see-tv-2abs ‘She saw you.’ ‘She saw you.’ b. extraction of transitive subj b. extraction of transitive subj * maktxel max-ach y-il-a’. maxki tyi y-il-ä-yety. who asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv who asp 3erg-see-tv-2abs ‘Who saw you?’ ‘Who saw you?’ • Question: What causes the difference in the position of the absolutive markers in the two kinds of languages (high-abs vs. low-abs)?
4This is reminiscent of another ergativity-related typological gap: while there are languages whose case system is ergative-absolutive but whose agreement system is nominative-accusative, the converse (a nominative-accusative case system with an ergative-absolutive agreement system) does not seem to be attested; see Anderson (1977), Comrie (1978) and Dixon (1979), among others.
–9– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
3.1. Assumptions • All noun-phrases in Q’anjob’al/Chol require case in order to be licensed • What ergative languages have in common: The transitive subject (=ergative) is licensed inherently, e.g. by v0 (Aldridge 2004, Laka 2006, Legate 2008, Woolford 1997) (29) transitive (30) intransitive TP TP
T0 vP T0 vP
DP v’ v0 VP
erg v0 VP V0 DP
V0 DP
➻ What about the absolutive arguments? ......
• Legate (2008): What we call “absolutive” is not a unified category. ◦ terminology: “nominative” – the case assigned by T0/Infl0 “ergative” – the case assigned to transitive subjects by v0 “accusative” – the case assigned to transitive objects by v0 cf.: “absolutive” – not a case; a descriptive term applied by linguists when we see the same morphology on intransitive subjects and transitive objects
• Aldridge (2004) and Legate (2008): ergative languages are divisible into two types — I. abs=nom: transitive objects and intransitive subjects receive case from T0 (31) transitive (32) intransitive TP TP
T0 vP T0 vP
0 DPerg v’ v VP
0 0 v VP nom V DPabs
0 nom V DPabs
–10– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
II. abs=def: absolutive is a morphological default ◦ transitive objects receive structural accusative from v0 ◦ intransitive subjects receive structural nominative from T0 ➻ the language spells both of these out with the same exponent(s)
(33) transitive (34) intransitive TP TP
T0 vP T0 vP
0 DPerg v’ v VP
0 0 v VP nom V DPabs
0 V DPabs acc
3.2. A Mayan Absolutive Parameter proposal: The surface position of absolutive in Mayan corresponds to how it is assigned
(35) Mayan Absolutive Parameter high-abs abs=nom; absolutive assigned uniformly by Infl0 (=Q’anjob’al) low-abs abs=def; absolutive as a morphological default (=Chol)
3.2.1. Prediction: Embedded clauses ➻ If absolutive is assigned by Infl0 (=nominative), we predict it to be unavailable in non-finite environments (36) licensing “absolutive” abs=nom abs=def intransitive subject Infl0 Infl0 transitive object Infl0 v0
–11– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
Intransitives: • In both Chol and Q’anjob’al, absolutive is not found in non-finite intransitives; instead, ergative is used (see Coon 2010, Mateo Pedro to appear): (37) Q’anjob’al (high-abs) (38) Chol (low-abs) a. max-in way-i. a. tyi wäy-i-yoñ. asp-1abs sleep-itv asp sleep-itv-1abs ‘I slept.’ ‘I slept.’ b. lanan [ hin-way-i ]. b. choñkol [ k-wäy-el ]. prog 1erg-sleep-itv prog 1erg-sleep-nml ‘I’m sleeping.’ ‘I’m sleeping.’
Transitives: • We predict a difference in embedded transitives: ◦ In low-abs/abs=def languages, it should be possible ◦ In high-abs/abs=nom languages, absolutive should be unavailable5
(39) Q’anjob’al (40) Chol a. max-ach hin-laq’-a’. a. tyi k-mek’-e-yety. asp-2abs 1erg-hug-tv asp 1erg-hug-tv-2abs ‘I hugged you.’ ‘I hugged you.’ b. * lanan [ hach hin-laq’-a’ ]. b. choñkol [ k-mek’-ety ]. prog 2abs 1erg-hug-tv prog 1erg-hug-2abs intended: ‘I am hugging you.’ ‘I am hugging you.’ ➻ Embedded transitives are generally impossible in high-abs languages ◦ e.g. Kaqchikel, Jakaltek (Craig 1977:ch. 8), Mam (England to appear), Q’eqchi’ (Berinstein 1985:265–9) ◦ in order to embed, transitives are passivized or antipassivized • In low-abs languages, embedded transitives are robustly attested ◦ e.g. Tojol’ab’al (Furbee-Losee 1976:207–209), Yukatek (Bricker 1981:96)
5The sentence in (39b) is ungrammatical regardless of where the absolutive morpheme appears (i.e., whether it is attached to the aspect marker, or free-standing).
–12– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
3.2.2. Deriving high-abs ➻ In Q’anjob’al, abs=nom; absolutive pronouns raise to a higher clausal position in order to receive case from Infl0 • We assume the following structure for both Q’anjob’al and Chol clauses:
(41) InflP
Infl0 vP
aspect v0 VoiceP
status DP Voice’ suffix subject Voice0 VP
active, V0 DP causative, etc. object
◦ the verb root undergoes head-movement through Voice0 and v0, giving the order of stem suffixes [root-voice-suffix], in accordance with the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985) ➻ Transitive v0 heads are phasal; intransitive v0 is not (Chomsky 1995, a.o.) ◦ and crucially, only transitive v0 assigns ergative ⇒ the phasehood of v0 covaries with whether or not ergative case is assigned
Recall that v0 is instantiated by the status suffixes: • -itv (intransitive verb) • -tv (transitive verb) • -dtv (derived transitive verb)
(42) v0 assigns ergative? v0 phasal? Q’anjob’al Chol itv no no -i -i tv yes yes -V’ -V dtv yes yes -j -V
–13– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
(43) transitive (44) Intransitive InflP InflP
Infl0 vP Infl0 vP
v0 VoiceP v0 VoiceP
-tv DP Voice’ -itv Voice0 VP
0 0 erg subject Voice VP V DP
V0 DP subject
object
• In Q’anjob’al (abs=nom), the phase in the transitive vP creates a problem for the case assignment relation between Infl0 and the object DP • In Chol (abs=def), this problem does not arise; the object can receive case within the vP ⇒ In Q’anjob’al, the absolutive DP must raise to the phase edge in order to receive case: (45) Q’anjob’al a. max-ach y-il[-a’] ix Malin. asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv cl Maria ‘Maria saw you.’ b. InflP
0 Infl vPtv
max DP vtv’ asp
0 -ach vtv VoiceP nom 2pron [+epp] -a DP Voice’
ix Maria Voice0 VP cl Maria 0 V tach 2pron
il see
–14– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
To capture the uniformly high position of the absolutive pronouns in Q’anjob’al, we propose that in Q’anjob’al v0—both transitive and intransitive variants—has an EPP feature which attracts the absolutive pronoun to its specifier. • at this point, the EPP feature on intransitive v is purely a stipulation, used to get the morpheme order correct • but, as we’ll see below, this will have welcome consequences when we turn to other high-abs languages (46) Q’anjob’al a. max-ach way-i. asp-2abs sleep-itv ‘You slept.’ b. InflP
0 Infl vPitv
max DP vitv’ asp
0 -ach vitv VP nom 2pron [+epp] 0 -i V tach 2pron
way sleep
–15– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
3.3. Blocked extraction The raised absolutive argument blocks the subject from extracting out of the phase — • crucially, we assume that at least in Q’anjob’al, only one specifier position is available for extraction out of the vP ◦ consistent with the unavailability of multiple-wh questions (47) a. * maktxel max-ach y-il-a’? who asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv intended: ‘Who saw you?’ b. CP
C’
C0 InflP
Infl0 vP
DP v’ nom
0 ✗ object vtv VoiceP [+epp] DP Voice’
subject Voice0 VP
0 V tobject
–16– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
In Chol, the object is licensed within the vP phase and the subject is free to extract through [Spec,vP] — (48) a. maxki tyi y-il-ä-yety? who asp 3erg-see-tv-2abs ‘Who saw you?’ b. CP
C’
C0 InflP
Infl0 vP
v’
0 vtv VoiceP [+epp] DP Voice’
subject Voice0 VP
V0 DP
object
4. Agent Focus What do you do if you want to question, focus, or relativize a transitive subject in Q’anjob’al? • Compare the Q’anjob’al forms in (49a–b): (49) Q’anjob’al agent extraction a. regular transitive w/extracted Agent * maktxel max-ach s-laq’-a’? who asp-2abs 3erg-hug-tv intended: ‘Who hugged you?’ b. Agent Focus construction w/extracted Agent maktxel max-ach laq’-on-i? who asp-2abs hug-af-itv ‘Who hugged you?’
–17– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
• AF constructions have inspired a large amount of work — ◦ including: Aissen 1999, 2011, Ajsivinac & Henderson 2011, Ayres 1983, Berinstein 1990, Bricker 1979, Coon & Mateo Pedro 2011, Coon, Mateo Pedro & Preminger 2011, Craig 1979, Davies & Sam-Colop 1990, Norcliffe 2009, Ordóñez 1995, Pascual 2007, Preminger 2011, Pye 1989, Smith- Stark 1978, Stiebels 2006, Tonhauser 2007
➻ AF constructions have been described as syntactically and semantically transitive, but morphologically intransitive (Aissen 1999, Craig 1979, Stiebels 2006) (50) Agent Focus maktxel max-ach il-on-i. who asp-2abs see-af-itv ‘Who saw you?’ ◦ “transitive” because. . . – there are two non-oblique DPs (e.g. “who” and “you” in (50)) ◦ “intransitive” because. . . – there is no set a (ergative) marking (i.e. the subject does not trigger agreement) – the verb appears with the intransitive status suffix(-i)
• Though the AF construction was initially described as a variety of antipassive, Mayanists have argued that the AF is not an antipassive at all ◦ Q’anjob’al does have a separate construction which is a true antipassive (which uses the suffix -waj), as shown in (51): (51) Q’anjob’al antipassive max il-waj[-i] naq winaq [obl y-in no tx’i’ ]. asp see-ap-itv ncl man 3erg-rn ncl dog ‘The saw the dog.’ ◦ here, the Agent argument becomes an intransitive subject, through demotion of the object to an oblique – the object appears as the possessor of a relational noun; it cannot control person- marking on the predicate – the verb takes the intransitive status suffix (when phrase final) – the subject is expressed via set b (absolutive) morphology – there is no set a (ergative) marking · because there is no transitive subject ◦ note also: – antipassives appear in the language regardless of whether the agent has extracted, and often have the discursive effect of drawing attention to the Agent; the object is frequently indefinite/non-referential – AF, in contrast, is only possible when the Agent argument appears dislocated
–18– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• Compare again: (52) a. Agent Focus set b co-indexes object maktxel max-ach il-on-i? who asp-2abs see-af-itv ‘Who saw you?’ b. antipassive set b co-indexes subject maktxel max-φ il-waj(-i) [obl y-in no tx’i’ ]? who asp-3abs see-ap-itv 3erg-rn ncl dog ‘Who saw the dog?’ ➻ To be explained: What allows the Agent argument to extract in AF? Why do we find the intransitive status suffix(-i), despite the presence of two full non- oblique DP arguments? Why is there no set a marking?
–19– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
Proposal The AF morpheme alters the case-assignment properties of the clause: (53) Agent Focus CP
C0 InflP
Infl0 vP
max v’ asp
0 vitv VoicePaf [+epp]
-i DP Voiceaf’ -itv nom 0 maktxel Voiceaf VP who -on V0 DP -af laq’ -ach hug 2pron acc
• Adapting the proposal for Jakaltek in Ordóñez 1995, we argue that the Agent Focus morpheme -on: (i) assigns case to the transitive object (ii) introduces the transitive subject • In this respect, AF can be thought of along the lines of English transitive v0 ◦ since AF case is only assigned to objects and is structural, we call it “accusative”, but nothing much hinges on this label
⇒ Consequently: ◦ since the object has already been licensed, Infl0 is free to assign case to the subject ◦ no ergative case is assigned, so intransitive vP is merged – the relevant difference between intransitive and transitive v0 is whether or not they assign ergative case—not whether or not there are two full DP arguments ◦ this explains the -itv suffix, as well as the absence of ergative (set a) morphology
–20– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• Just as in the other constructions, the internal argument is attracted to [Spec,vP] by v0’s EPP features ...... however, the subject is still free to extract because intransitive vP is not phasal: (54) Agent Focus CP
C’
C0 InflP
Infl0 vP
max DP v’ asp
0 -ach vitv VoicePaf 2pron [+epp]
-i DP Voiceaf’ -itv 0 maktxel Voiceaf VP who 0 -on V tach -af 2pron laq’ hug
–21– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
5. Predictions I. The ban on extracting ergative subjects is not about properties of the subject (cf. Markman 2009, Polinsky 2011, Weisser et al. 2012, a.o.) • rather, it is about the object’s need for case from Infl0 ⇒ We predict that if, for some reason, the object doesn’t need case, then ergative subjects should be able to extract II. Above we stipulated that there are always EPP features on v0 in Q’anjob’al, both transitive and intransitive • this is needed to get the morpheme order right in Q’anjob’al ➻ but nothing should go wrong case-wise if this didn’t happen in AF and intransitive constructions III. If the AF morpheme is a case-assigner, we might expect it to assign case elsewhere • recall that the AF morpheme is found in non-finite embedded transitives, as well, regardless of extraction ➻ we argue that this is so for case assignment reasons (see also Ordóñez 1995)
5.1. It’s not about the subject • Agent Focus is not possible in Q’anjob’al in clauses in which the object is a reflexive (Fowlie 2011, Pascual 2007) ◦ also true in e.g. Jakaltek (Craig 1977), Tzotzil (Aissen 1999), and K’ichee’ (Aissen 2011, Coon & Henderson 2011, Mondloch 1981) • Instead, the regular transitive form of the verb must be used: (55) a. Reflexive maktxel max y-il s-b’a? who asp 3erg-see 3erg-self ‘Who saw herself?’ b. Non-reflexive maktxel max il-on[-i] naq winaq? who asp see-af-itv ncl man ‘Who saw the man?’
–22– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• AF is also impossible in sentence in which the possessor of the object is coreferential with the subject, known as extended reflexive (Aissen 1999) ◦ When AF appears, as in (56b), the subject and the possessor of the object are necessarily interpreted as having disjoint reference (56) a. Extended reflexive maktxel max s-b’on s-na? who asp 3erg-paint 3erg-house ‘Whoi painted hisi/*j (own) house’ b. Agent Focus– disjoint reference maktxel max b’on-on[-i] s-na? who asp paint-af-itv 3erg-house ‘Whoi painted his*i/j house?’
➻ Evidence from word order, the availability of nominal classifiers, and coordination, suggests that the bold-faced objects in the Q’anjob’al examples in (55a) and (56a) are not full DPs
• Aissen (2011) notes that AF in K’ichee’ is “systematically absent” when the object is a bare (i.e., determinerless) noun-phrase (57) K’ichee’ a. jachiin x-u-loq’ uuq? who asp-3erg-buy cloth ‘Who bought cloth?’ b. * jachiin x-u-loq’ rii uuq? who asp-3erg-buy det cloth intended: ‘Who bought the cloth?’ (Aissen 2011:15)
➻ It seems plausible that reflexive, extended reflexive, and bare NP objects are caseless ◦ they are licensed by incorporation (Baker 1988) or pseudo-incorporated into the verb stem (e.g. Massam 2001)
–23– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
• Since AF is precisely about assigning case to objects, and since the incorporated objects do not require case, we correctly predict the absence of AF in these constructions —
(58) CP
C’
C0 InflP
Infl0 vP
v’
v0 VoiceP [+epp] DP Voice’
subject Voice0 VP
0 V NP(−case)
object
◦ reflexive, extended reflexive, and bare objects are all smaller than DP and are unable to satisfy the EPP feature of v0—instead, the object remains in situ ◦ transitive vP is merged, assigning ergative case to the subject ➻ crucially, even though the construction is transitive (as evidenced by the ergative agreement marking), the subject can raise through the phase edge because the object is not there to occupy the escape hatch
Evidence:
• Word order is normally VSO, but must be VOS with reflexives: (59) a. Transitive – VSO max y-il[-a’] ix ix naq winaq. asp 3erg-see-tv ncl woman ncl man ‘The woman saw the man.’ b. Reflexive – VOS max y-il s-b’a ix ix. asp 3erg-see 3erg-self ncl woman ‘The woman saw herself?’
–24– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• Noun classifiers are impossible on reflexive and extended reflexive objects: ◦ in a sentence where the transitive subject is coreferential with the object’s possessor, the noun class clitic te’ is impossible (60a) ◦ when the subject and possessor are non-coreferential, the classifier is obligatory (60b) (60) a. Extended reflexive * maktxel max s-b’on[-o’] (*te’) s-na? who asp 3erg-paint-tv ncl 3erg-house ‘Whoi painted hisi (own) house?’ b. Non-extended reflexive maktxel max s-b’on-on[-i] *(te’) s-na? who asp 3erg-paint-af-itv ncl 3erg-house ‘Whoi painted hisj house’ ⇒ At least in Mayan languages, extraction asymmetries cannot be uniformly characterized as a ban on restricting ergative-marked arguments (or ergative agreement-triggering arguments) ◦ instead, the restriction appears to have everything to do with properties of the absolutive argument ...... Our analysis not only accounts for the impossibility of AF (since there is no case-requiring object), but also for the possibility of a transitive (cf. previous analyses by Aissen 2011 and Coon & Henderson 2011) — • Since the object cannot satisfy the EPP, the subject is free to extract through [Spec,vP] ➻ The ban on extracting Agent arguments is not about special properties of ergatives, but about case-assignment properties of the clause more generally nb: The account put forth by Weisser et al. 2012 comes close to this, but is unable to account for morphologically ergative languages which do not show extraction restrictions (like Chol).
5.2. Hierarchy effects and AF • In Kichean languages the absolutive morpheme in an AF construction may index either the subject or the object, depending on which is highest on a person hierarchy: ◦ 1/2 ≫ 3-plural ≫ 3-singular – see, for example, Dayley 1978, Mondloch 1981, Norman & Campbell 1978, Smith-Stark 1978, Stiebels 2006 (61) Kaqchikel a. ja yïn x-i-tz’et-ö ri achin foc 1pron asp-1abs-see-af det man ‘It was me who saw the man.’ b. ja ri achin x-i-tz’et-ö yïn foc det man asp-1abs-see-af 1pron ‘It was the man who saw me.’
–25– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
• Recall that in a regular transitive, the EPP features of transitive v0 must target the object to raise it to the edge of the phase, to a position from which it may receive case from Infl0: (62) Q’anjob’al a. max-ach y-il[-a’] ix Malin. asp-2abs 3erg-see-tv cl Maria ‘Maria saw you.’ b. InflP
0 Infl vPtv
max DP vtv’ asp
0 -ach vtv VoiceP abs 2pron [+epp] -a DP Voice’
ix Maria Voice0 VP cl Maria 0 V tach 2pron
il see
• In the AF construction, however, there is no phase (as argued in §4) ➻ In principle, the EPP feature on v0 could target either the subject or the object in this configuration, without depriving either of the ability to receive case ⇒ It therefore depends on the properties of the EPP probe: it could invariably target the Patient (as in Q’anjob’al), or be more flexible in its probing
–26– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• In Kaqchikel, we see that the probe targets whichever argument bears a [participant] feature (i.e., 1st/2nd-person), skipping the subject if it does not bear this feature (Preminger 2011) (63) Agent Focus CP
C0 InflP
Infl0 vP
v’
0 vitv VoicePaf [+partic.]
-i DP Voiceaf’ -itv 0 maktxel Voiceaf VP who -on V0 DP -af laq’ -ach hug 2pron case
• For Q’anjob’al, the proposal that all internal arguments are targeted by the EPP features of v0 was a stipulation, used to derive the uniformly high position of the absolutive morpheme across the language ➻ this in fact should be a stipulation; it is not a necessary property of AF, but is a point subject to cross-linguistic variation
Crucially, the current proposal explains why such hierarchy effects emerge only in this corner of the Kaqchikel grammar: • it is the only configuration where the EPP probe could, in principle, target either core argument without creating case-related problems
–27– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
5.3. Returning to the “Crazy Antipassive” • Recall that in “high-abs” languages, since abs=nom, absolutive is unavailable in non-finite embedded clauses • Embedded intransitives use the ergative marker to co-index the person of the subject (64b) (64) Q’anjob’al (high-abs) a. max-in way-i. asp-1abs sleep-itv ‘I slept.’ b. lanan [ hin-way-i ]. prog 1erg-sleep-itv ‘I’m sleeping.’ (∼ ‘My sleeping is happening.’)
◦ while this has been described as “split-ergativity”, these constructions have actually been analyzed as nominalizations – recall: ergative and genitive are syncretic across the entire Mayan family ◦ see, for example: Bricker 1981 on Yukatek; Coon 2010 on Chol; Mateo Pedro to appear on Q’anjob’al • In languages like Mam or K’ichee’, a transitive clause must be de-transitivized to be embedded • Languages of the Q’anjob’alan branch of the Mayan family—Q’anjob’al, Jakaltek (Popti’), and Akatek—also have what Kaufman (1990) has called a “Crazy Antipassive”: “Clearly this is a mixed structure, not worth interpreting according to logic.” [Kaufman 1990:92] ◦ in these languages, the AF morpheme is extended to nonfinite embedded transitive clauses, as shown in the Q’anjob’al examples in (65) (65) “Crazy Antipassive” chi uj [ hach y-il-on[-i] ix Malin ]. inc be.able.to 2abs 3erg-see-af-itv cl Maria ‘Maria can see you.’ ◦ see discussions in Ordóñez 1995, Pascual 2007, Quesada 1997
• Under our proposal, -on is a case assigner ⇒ Its presence here receives a natural explanation: Just as in matrix clauses, the AF morpheme in the “crazy antipassive” licenses case on the object in a context where it is otherwise unavailable. ◦ While in other high-abs languages embedded transitives are simply impossible — ➻ languages of the Q’anjob’alan family extended the object case assigner used for extracting subjects to this environment, as well
–28– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
6. Summary & future work • In Mayan, the appearance of extraction asymmetries reduces to independently observable differences in how absolutive arguments are licensed in the clause ◦ following Aldridge 2004, 2008, Legate 2002, 2008 • In ergative languages in which absolutive is assigned internal to the vP phase (i.e., in abs=def languages), either argument may extract through [Spec,vP] • On the other hand, if absolutive is assigned by Infl0 (i.e., in abs=nom languages), the object must raise to [Spec,vP], leaving the subject trapped inside the phase ➻ The location of the absolutive morpheme (i.e., “high-abs” vs. “low-abs”), and the availability of absolutive in non-finite clauses provided independent support for this division
⇒ This provides support that ergative languages (even within the same language family) do not form a uniform group • If this analysis is correct, then at least some cases of “syntactic ergativity” are not—despite initial appearances—the result of special properties of the ergative subject at all ◦ but rather, the result of the locality restrictions on absolutive case assignment ...... future work: (i) Syntactic ergativity in other language families: We do not claim that the account of syntactic ergativity in Mayan necessarily extends to any ergative language that bans extraction of transitive subjects. • It may be the case that in some languages, it is properties of the ergative argument proper that give rise to what is a superficially similar effect ◦ e.g. when ergative comes from historical reanalysis of passive, and ergative subjects are syntactically oblique (Markman 2009, Polinsky 2011) • However, the results of the previous sections cast doubt on the converse—namely, a uniform account of syntactic ergativity based on properties of the ergative itself ⇒ The present account can be seen as a tool to investigate the question of uniformity of syntactic ergativity
(ii) The nature of the ergative-absolutive vs. nominative-accusative distinction: (66) ingredients of our account (i) transitive verb-phrases are phasal (ii) the transitive subject is generated below the verb-phrase level phase (iii) there is only a single specifier available for extraction out of this phase
–29– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
• None of these ingredients seems necessarily unique to ergative languages—what would the combination of these same ingredients yield in a nominative-accusative language? ⇒ We might predict the existence of nominative-accusative languages which are the mirror image of Q’anjob’al: ◦ subjects occupy [Spec,vP], receiving (nominative) case from Infl0 ◦ transitive objects (=accusative) cannot be extracted without a special construction • Why don’t we find (much of) this? ◦ A significant amount of work on ergativity has converged on the conclusion that the defining trait of ergative case is that it is associated with structurally low positions in the functional structure of the clause (Aldridge 2004, 2008, Legate 2002, 2008, Merchant 2009, Woolford 1997) ➻ If so, then the property in (66.ii) may be restricted to ergative languages, after all ⇒ explaining why the corresponding extraction restriction is unattested in nominative-accusative languages
full paper:
References Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Dordrecht: Reidel. Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68:43–80. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75:451–485. Aissen, Judith. 2011. On the syntax of agent focus in K’ichee’. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics (FAMLi), eds. Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Jessica Coon, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 1–16. Ajsivinac, Juan & Robert Henderson. 2011. Foco de agente sin agente enfocado. In Proceedings of FAMLi: formal approaches to Mayan linguistics, eds. Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Jessica Coon, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118:1440–1469. Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. Charles N. Li, 317–364. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Ayres, Glenn. 1983. The antipassive “Voice” in Ixil. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:20–45. Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16:373–416. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Berinstein, Ava. 1985. Evidence for multiattachment in K’ekchi Mayan. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Berinstein, Ava. 1990. On distinguishing surface datives in K’ekchi. In Studies in Relational Grammar 3, eds. Paul M. Postal & Brian D. Joseph, 3–48. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bricker, Victoria R. 1979. Wh-questions, relativization, and clefting in Yucatec Maya. In Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. William Norman Victoria R. Bricker, 109–138. Columbia, Missouri: Lucas Brothers.
–30– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
Bricker, Victoria R. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2:83–127. Campbell, Lyle & Terrence Kaufman. 1985. Mayan linguistics: where are we now?, Annual Review of Anthropology 14:187–198. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic typology: studies in the phenomenology of language, ed. Winfred P. Lehmann, 329–394. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Coon, Jessica. 2010. Complementation in Chol (Mayan): a theory of split ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Coon, Jessica & Robert Henderson. 2011. Two binding puzzles in Mayan. In Representing language: essays in honor of Judith Aissen, eds. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Bravo, Line Mikkelsen & Eric Potsdam, 51–67. Santa Cruz, CA: LRC Publications. Coon, Jessica & Pedro Mateo Pedro. 2011. Extraction and embedding in two Mayan langauges. In Proceedings of FAMLi: formal approaches to Mayan linguistics, eds. Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Jessica Coon, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Omer Preminger. 2011. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: evidence from Mayan. Ms. url:
–31– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
Laka, Itziar. 2006. On the nature of Case in Basque: structural or inherent?, in Organizing grammar, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster, 374–382. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. Warlpiri: theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39:55–101, doi: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55. Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Markman, Vita G. 2009. On the adpositional nature of ergative subjects: ergative “case” is not case. Paper presented at the EHU International Workshop on Ergative Languages, Bilbao. Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19:153–197, doi: 10.1023/A:1006465130442. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. to appear. Revisiting split ergativity in Q’anjob’al. In Proceedings of SULA 5: semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas, ed. Suzi Lima. Merchant, Jason. 2009. Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 42), eds. Jackie Bunting, Sapna Desai, Robert Peachey, Chris Straughn & Zuzana Tomkova, vol. 2, Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society, 57–76. Mondloch, James L. 1981. Voice in Quiche-Maya. Doctoral dissertation, Albany, NY: State University of New York. Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2009. Revisiting Agent Focus in Yucatec. In New perspectives in Mayan linguistics: Proceedings of SSILA 2008 (the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas), eds. Heriberto Avelino, Jessica Coon & Elisabeth Norcliffe, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 59, 135–156. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Norman, William M. & Lyle Campbell. 1978. Towards a Proto-Mayan syntax: a comparative perspective on grammar. In Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. Nora C. England, University of Missouri Miscellaneous Publications in Anthropology 6, 136–156. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Ordóñez, Francisco. 1995. The antipassive in Jacaltec: a last resort strategy. CatWPL 4:329–343. Pascual, Adán F. 2007. Transitividad y dependencia sintáctica y discursiva en Q’anjob’al. Master’s thesis, CIESAS. Polinsky, Maria. 2011. Ergativity is different. Paper presented at UC Berkeley. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Pye, Clifton. 1989. The focus antipassive in K’iche’ Mayan. In Studies in native american languages V, eds. Jong-Seok Ok & Mubeccel Taneri, vol. 14, Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 88–98. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Linguistics Graduate Student Association. Quesada, J. Diego. 1997. A note on Mayan “Crazy” antipassivization. Theoretical Linguistics 23:79–112. Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: some facts and fictions. In Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. Nora C. England, University of Missouri Miscellaneous Publications in Anthropology 6, 169–187. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent Focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24:501–570, doi: 10.1007/s11049-005-0539-9. Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivations. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Tonhauser, Judith. 2007. Agent focus and voice in Yucatec Maya. In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 39), 540–558. Weisser, Philipp, Gereon Müller, Fabian Heck, Doreen Georgi & Anke Assmann. 2012. Blocking of ergative movement by maraudage. Ms., Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Institut für Linguistik.
–32– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15:181–227, doi: 10.1023/A:1005796113097. Woolford, Ellen. 2000. Ergative agreement systems. In Proceedings of the Maryland Mayfest on Morphology, 1999, eds. Kleanthes K. Grohmann & Caro Struijke, University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 157–191. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Department of Linguistics. Woolford, Ellen. 2011. PF factors in clitic selection in Tzotzil. In Representing language: essays in honor of Judith Aissen, eds. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Bravo, Line Mikkelsen & Eric Potsdam, 305–320. Santa Cruz, CA: LRC Publications.
Appendix: Loose ends A.1. Local subjects • In Q’anjob’al (but not in all Mayan languages that exhibit “syntactic ergativity”), 1st and 2nd person transitive subjects appear dislocated with no special construction: (67) a. 3rd person Agent — AF a-Juan max maq’-on[-i] no tx’i’. foc-Juan asp hit-af-itv cl dog ‘It was Juan who hit the dog.’ b. 1st person Agent — no AF ay-in max hin-maq’[-a’] no tx’i’. foc-1abs asp 1erg-hit-tv cl dog ‘It was me who hit the dog.’ • This is a point of variation among Mayan language with AF (see e.g. Stiebels 2006) ◦ in Kaqchikel, for example, equivalents of the sentences in (67) both require AF: (68) Kaqchikel a. ja ri a-Juan x-φ-tz’et-ö ri tz’i’. foc det cl-Juan asp-3abs-see-af det dog. ‘It was Juan who saw the dog.’ b. ja yïn x-i-tz’et-ö ri tz’i’. foc pron1 asp-1abs-see-af det dog ‘It was me who saw the dog.’
–33– Syntax Square MIT — March 2012
➻ These facts suggest that we do not want to derive the Q’anjob’al facts in (67) from deep properties of the AF construction ◦ We assume that in Q’anjob’al, first and second person agents are allowed to be base-generated in a high position (see e.g. Aissen 1992 on externally-generated topics in Tzotzil), perhaps due to higher discourse prominence6 ◦ This correctly predicts that the same restriction should not be found in embedded contexts: -on occurs in all non-finite transitives, regardless of the person features of the subject – in embedded contexts there simply is no (finite case-assigning) Infl0 available ⇒ the presence or absence of AF marking is not tied to extraction (69) Q’anjob’al chi uj [ hach w-il-on-i ]. asp be.able.to 2abs 1erg-see-af-itv ‘I can see you.’
A.2. Third person objects We attributed the ban on ergative extraction to the high position of the absolutive DP: • While first and second person absolutive arguments are realized affixed to the aspect marker (as in (70a)), this is not the case for full third person DPs (as in (70b)) (70) a. max-in h-el-a’. asp-1abs 2erg-see-tv ‘You saw me.’
b. max-φi h-el[-a’] naq winaqi. asp-3abs 2erg-see-tv ncl man ‘You saw the man.’ ➻ Extraction of ergative arguments is impossible irrespective of the person features of the object
• At least two possibilities for accounting for this: (i) third person objects involve a null pronominal in the specifier of vP; the full DP is adjoined higher in an adjunct position, as in pronominal argument languages (Jelinek 1984) (ii) the full DP object forms a chain headed in [Spec,vP], but only the lower copy is pronounced
6Thanks to Maria Polinsky for this suggestion.
–34– Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al Omer Preminger
• There is some evidence for option (ii) in Tzotzil—Tzotzil is unusual within Mayan in having two sets of absolutive markers (Aissen 1987, see discussion in Woolford 2011) ◦ high markers are used when Aspect is present, as in (71) ...... except when a phonological restriction prevents it (*VV), as in (72a): (71) l-i-s-maj a-tot. asp-1abs-3erg-hit 2gen-father ‘Your father hit me.’ (Aissen 1987:40) (72) a. * ch-i-a-mil. asp-1abs-2erg-kill intended: ‘You are going to kill me.’ b. ch-a-mil-on. asp-2erg-kill-1abs ‘You are going to kill me.’ svn revision code: 5670
–35–