The Derivation of Verb-Initiality in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec Austronesian: Holmer 2005, Otsuka 2000, A.O., Zapotec: Black 2000, Foreman 2006)

Home , Zoogocho Zapotec

This question has been investigated extensively for other verb-initial languages, though to a lesser extent within Zapotec. There are two main alternatives:

verb raising (Celtic: Sproat 1985, McCloskey 1991, a.o., Afroasiatic: Fassi Fehri 1993, Kaplan 1991, a.o., The derivation of verb-initiality in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec Austronesian: Holmer 2005, Otsuka 2000, a.o., Zapotec: Black 2000, Foreman 2006)

Jeff Adler, Steven Foley, Jed Pizarro-Guevara, Kelsey Sasaki, and Maziar Toosarvandani (4) TP jmadler, srfoley, jpguevar, kmsasaki, mtoosarv @ucsc.edu { } T vP University of California, Santa Cruz DPS v0

January 6, 2017 – SSILA Annual Meeting v VP

V DPO Languages with basic verb-initial word order (VSO or VOS) are not uncommon. Santiago Laxopa Zapotec (SLZ), like other Zapotec languages, is rigidly VSO. predicate raising (Austronesian: Pensalﬁni 1995, Massam 2001, a.o., Tup´ı-Guaran´ı: Duarte 2012, Mayan: Coon 2010, Zapotec: Lee 2006) (1) Dzut nu’ule=n bene’ xyage’=n. hit.CONT woman=DEF person man=DEF (5) TP ‘The woman is hitting the man.’ (FSR, SLZ57a-s, 1) Not possible: ‘The man is hitting the woman.’ T0 These orders pose a fundamental mystery with certain syntactic assumptions (Anderson and Chung 1977): T DP The subject is structurally superior to the direct object: it is able to asymmetrically bind an R-expression in S DPO that position, producing a Condition C violation (which is active in Zapotec; Lee 2003). vP

(2) a. Bdi’in [beku’ tse Pedro1] leba’1/2. tS v0 bite.COMP dog of Pedro 3SG.INF ‘Pedro1’s dog bit him1/2.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 1:30) v VP b. Betw=ba’ 1/2 [beku’ tse Pedro1]. ⇤ V tO hit.COMP=3SG.INF dog of Pedro ‘He 1/2 hit Pedro1’s dog.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 13:20) ⇤ We propose that verb-initial order in SLZ is derived through predicate raising, not verb raising, since there The clause is the extended projection of the verb (Chomsky 1970, Grimshaw 2005). is some material that can or must move with the verb. With these assumptions, the verb and the direct object must form a constituent to the exclusion of the subject The verb’s arguments must evacuate the constituent that moves, an assumption that can, in part, be justiﬁed on (pace Broadwell 2005). independent grounds.

(3) vP In the rest of this talk, after providing some background on SLZ, we do the following:

ﬁll out the details of the two alternatives above DPS v0 provide three arguments that verb-initiality in SLZ is derived through predicate raising: v VP – the position of adverbs V DPO – copular clauses We assume a fairly articulated structure for the verb phrase: the external argument is introduced in the speciﬁer of – light verb constructions a functional head (Spec-vP) (Kratzer 1996). consider some questions that arise as a result of this analysis What is the grammatical source of verb-initial word order in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec?

1 2 The subject raises to a functional projection below the landing site of the verb (§2.1). 1 Some background on Santiago Laxopa Zapotec Given the complexity of the verbal complex, there is additional verbal functional material (§2.2). We present data from ﬁve speakers of Northern Zapotec varieties from Santiago Laxopa and nearby towns (San Sebastian´ Guiloxi and Santa Mar´ıa Yalina) in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca. The two accounts differ, however, in how large the constituent that moves is: just a head or a phrase containing the verb. In addition, the predicate raising account must make another assumption:

Most vP-internal material must evacuate this constituent before it moves (§2.3).

2.1 The position of subjects

There is some evidence that the subject itself occupies a position outside of vP: the subjects of unaccusative verbs occupy the same position relative to manner adverbs that transitive subjects do.

(6) a. Dziyag Pedro xtidao’. get.cold.CONT Pedro quickly ‘Pedro is getting cold quickly.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 1:19:07) b. * Dziyag xtidao’ Pedro. get.cold.CONT quickly Pedro (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 1:19:20) (7) a. Udoo Juan=a’ yet=e’n xtido’-yes. eat.COMP Juan=DEF tortilla=DEF quickly-INT ‘Juana ate tortillas very quickly.’ (FSR, SLZ1009-s, 21) b. * Udoo xtido’-yes Juan=a’ yet=e’n. eat.COMP quickly-INT Juan=DEF tortilla=DEF (FSR, SLZ1009, 31:15)

Under either account, then, subjects would have to occupy a position outside of vP, but below the position where the verb or predicate raises to (Lee 2006:49), cf. Irish (McCloskey 1996, 2001).

(8) TP

T FP

DPS F0

Figure 1: Composite map of Ixtlan and Villa Alta districts of Oaxaca (Garc´ıa Garc´ıa n.d.) F vP

While there are, of course, slight variations in their speech (mostly phonology), there was no signiﬁcant variation Adv vP with respect to the syntactic phenomena we discuss. These varieties are most closely related to the San Bartolome´ Zoogocho variety (Long and Cruz 2000, Sonnen- v VP schein 2004), and more distantly to the Hidalgo Yalalag (Avelino Becerra 2004) and San Baltazar Yatzachi el V tS Bajo (Butler 1980) varieties.

This projection (informally, FP) might be associated with nominative case and subject agreement, cf. AgrSP 2 Comparing the two alternatives (Pollock 1989). The EPP of T could then be satisﬁed by the verb raising into T or by the predicate raising into Spec-TP (Massam Under both the verb raising and the predicate raising accounts, the verb ends up to the left of the subject. They and Smallwood 1997, a.o.). share a number of other assumptions as well:

3 4 (9) a. Verb raising b. Predicate raising adjunct PPs TP TP (12) a. Chia ghid=e’n lu’ nis=e’n. T FP T0 boil.CONT chicken=DEF in water=DEF ‘The chicken is boiling in the water.’ (FSR, SLZ023-s, 8) DPS F0 T FP b. * Blo’ed lo’ yo’o Maria bidao’ ni beku’. show.COMP in house Maria child this dog F vP DPS F 0 Intended: ‘Maria showed the dog to this child in the house.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 15:18) Adv vP F vP

v VP complement clauses (CPs) Adv vP V tS (13) a. Dze Pedro Maria [bdi’in beku’ xna’=a’]. v VP tell.CONT Pedro Maria bite.COMP dog mother=1SG ‘Pedro told Maria that the dog bit my mother.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 2:07) V tS b. ?? Dze Pedro [bdi’in beku’ xna’=a’] Maria. 2.2 Verbal morphology tell.CONT Pedro bite.COMP dog mother=1SG Maria (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 4:45) c. * Dze [bdi’in beku’ xna’=a’] Pedro Maria. Under either hypothesis, these structures would actually have to be somewhat more articulated, given the com- tell.CONT bite.COMP dog mother=1SG Pedro Maria (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 5:00) plexity of the verb in SLZ. (10) Verbal template in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec There is independent evidence that these elements can move, regardless of how the verb gets into initial position. Aspect Directional Number Voice Root Incorporated Pronominal Except for the subject, argument DPs are freely ordered amongst one another, as are adjunct PPs. adverbial(s) clitic(s) COMP- AND- PL- TR- V =ks ‘again’ =a’ ‘1 sg.’ (14) a. Ba be Maria beku’ bidau’ ni. CONT- VEN- INTR- =dz ‘a lot’ =u’ ‘2 sg.’ already give.COMP Maria dog child this POT- etc. =e’ ‘3 for.’ ‘Maria already gave the dog to this child.’ (RM and FA, GZYZ015, 18:13) STAT- etc. b. Ba be Maria bidau’ ni beku’. already give.COMP Maria dog child this We remain agnostic about how all of this morphology appears on the root: whether through head movement or through a postsyntactic operation, such as morphological merger (Bobaljik 1995) (though see Lee 2006:53–62). ‘Maria already gave the dog to this child.’ (RM and FA, GZYZ015, 18:46) (15) a. Blo’ed Maria bidao’ ni beku’ lo’ yo’o. Presumably, too, this morphology would be introduced in additional verbal functional projections, though we do show.COMP Maria child this dog in house not show them for reasons of space. ‘Maria showed the dog to the child in the house.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 14:40) b. Blo’ed Maria bidao’ ni beku’. 2.3 Verb phrase internal material lo’ yo’o show.COMP Maria child this in house dog (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 6:53) The predicate raising account must assume that most non-verbal material moves out of vP, since it does not surface c. Blo’ed Maria lo’ yo’o bidao’ ni beku’. between the verb and subject: show.COMP Maria in house child this dog (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 7:03)

direct object and indirect object DPs This recalls the word order freedom available in the so-called middleﬁeld of Germanic languages (see Haider 2006 for a survey). (11) a. Ba be Maria bidau’ ni beku’. already give.COMP Maria child this dog Assuming this scrambling is derived through some kind of movement, it could fashion the right kind of phrasal ‘Maria already gave the dog to this child.’ (RM and FA, GZYZ015, 18:46) constituent for the predicate raising account, one containing just the verb. b. * Ba be beku’ Maria bidau’ ni. already give.COMP dog Maria child this (RM and FA, GZYZ015, 18:46) c. * Ba be bidau’ ni Maria beku’. already give.COMP child this Maria dog (RM and FA, GZYZ015, 19:51)

5 6 (16) TP cf. 11a (18) a. Neghe be’eye’ Maria=n yetgu’=n. yesterday steam.COMP Maria=DEF tamale=DEF T0 ‘Maria steamed the tamales yesterday.’ (FSR, SLZ062-s, 50) b. * Be’eye’ neghe Maria=n yetgu’=n. T FP steam.COMP yesterday Maria=DEF tamale=DEF (FSR, SLZ062, 1:02:03) c. Be’eye’ Maria=n neghe yetgu’=n. DPS F0 steam.COMP Maria=DEF yesterday tamale=DEF (FSR, SLZ062, 1:02:29) F vP d. Be’eye’ Maria=n yetgu’=n neghe. steam.COMP Maria=DEF tamale=DEF yesterday (FSR, SLZ062-s, 49) DP vP IO This order is surprising: cross-linguistically, such aspectual adverbs typically occur lower in the structure than temporal adverbs that introduce a location time (Cinque 1999, a.o.). DPDO vP (19) a. Today Max is taking the bar exam. t v S 0 b. * Max is today taking the bar exam. v VP (20) a. * Still Max is taking the bar exam. b. Max is still taking the bar exam. tDO V0 While the aspectual adverbs are sensitive to the internal structure of the event described by the verb—and hence V tIO must be located closer to it—the temporal adverbs simply locate the event in time (Tenny 2000). This abstractness may appear to make it impossible to distinguish the predicate raising account from the verb We propose that the inverted order of adverbs in SLZ follows directly from the predicate raising account, assuming raising account. But there are elements that can remain inside vP, moving with the verb to initial position: the following distribution for adverbs: aspectual adverbs (§3) (21) The distribution of adverbs in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec the AP predicate in a copular clause (§4) i) Aspectual adverbs can only adjoin inside vP. ii) Temporal adverbs can adjoin to vP or to CP. the nonverbal element in a light verb construction (§5) The fact that any material can move along with the verb provides support for the predicate raising account. If aspectual adverbs only adjoin inside vP, then they raise invariably with the verb to Spec-TP, thereby appearing only to its left.

3 Argument 1: The position of adverbs (22) TP = 17a

In SLZ, there are a few classes of adverbs with different distributions:

Aspectual adverbs (Advasp), such as chintghe ‘just (now)’, ba ‘already’, and ne’e ‘still’, can only appear T0 immediately before the verb. vP3

(17) a. Chintghe bta Sonia=n zah. t1 v0 T FP just stir.COMP Sonia=DEF bean ‘Sonia just stirred the beans.’ (RD, SLZ2012-s, 17) v VP DP1 F0 b. * Bta chintghe Sonia=n zah. stir.COMP just Sonia=DEF bean (RD, SLZ2012, 43:14) Advasp VP Sonian F vP c. * Bta Sonia=n chintghe zah. chintghe V t2 DP2 t3 stir.COMP Sonia=DEF just bean (RD, SLZ2012, 43:24) d. * Bta Sonia=n zah chintghe. bta zah stir.COMP Sonia=DEF bean just (RD, SLZ2012, 43:28)

Temporal adverbs (Adv ), such as neghe ‘yesterday’, yughe zha ‘every day’, and nezha ‘today’, can occur By contrast, if temporal adverbs can adjoin to vP, they should be able to appear freely between the subject and temp preverbally or anywhere postverbally except between the verb and the subject. any other postverbal elements.

7 8 (23) a. TP = 18c The verb raising account, by contrast, cannot derive the position of adverbs in SLZ without positing a hierarchical ordering of adverbs that is cross-linguistically unexpected.

(25) TP vP3 T0 Advasp TP t1 v0 T FP T FP v VP DP1 F0 DPS F0 V t2 Marian F vP F vP be’eye’ Advtemp vP Advtemp vP neghe DP2 t3 tS v0 yetgu’n v VP b. TP = 18d

V DPO

vP3 T0 Under either account, the ban on adverbs intervening between the verb and subject would have to remain a stipulation. We should note, though, that Irish exhibits an identical restriction (McCloskey 1991). t1 v0 T FP The position of aspectual adverbs, immediately preceding the verb in initial position, supports the predicate raising account over the verb raising account. v VP DP1 F0

V t2 Marian F vP 4 Argument 2: Copular clauses be’eye’ DP2 vP There are a couple of copulas in SLZ: one is zua (or zoo) ‘be, live’. In a copular clause, an adjective predicate can t yetgu’n Advtemp 3 either follow or precede the subject. neghe (26) a. Zua Pedro wen. be Pedro good This should be true regardless of how many post-verbal elements there are. Indeed, temporal adverbs are freely ‘Pedro is well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014-s, 30) interspersed amongst internal arguments and adjuncts. b. Zua wen Pedro. be good Pedro (24) a. Bloe’d Maria neghe bidao’ ni beku’ lo’ yo’o. ‘Pedro is well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014-s, 28) show.COMP Maria yesterday child this dog in house ‘Yesterday, Maria showed the dog to this child in the house.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 16:23) This follows directly from the predicate raising account, if the AP predicate can optionally undergo the same b. Bloe’d Maria bidao’ ni neghe beku’ lo’ yo’o. movement operation that DP arguments and PP adjuncts must undergo obligatorily. show.COMP Maria child this yesterday dog in house (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 16:45) For simplicity, we assume that the copula is a verb that takes a small clause complement, comprising the subject c. Bloe’d Maria bidao’ ni beku’ neghe lo’ yo’o. and the AP predicate. show.COMP Maria child this dog yesterday in house (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 17:03) d. Bloe’d Maria bidao’ ni beku’ lo’ yo’o neghe. show.COMP Maria child this dog in house yesterday (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 17:19)

9 10 (27) a. TP = 26a (29) TP cf. 26a

T FP

vP1 T0 DPS F0

v VP T FP F vP

V SC DP2 F0 v VP

zua t2 t3 Pedro F vP V SC

AP3 t1 tS AP

wen To derive the position of the AP predicate before the subject, it would have to move independently of the verb. b. TP = 26b But this would violate the ban on material intervening between the verb and subject, which is in effect in copular clauses.

(30) a. Neghe zua Pedro wen. vP T0 1 yesterday be Pedro good v VP T FP ‘Yesterday, Pedro was well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014-s, 39) b. * Zua neghe Pedro wen. V SC DP2 F0 be yesterday Pedro good (FSR, SLZ1014, 55:28) c. Zua Pedro neghe wen. zua t2 AP Pedro F t1 be Pedro yesterday good (FSR, SLZ1014, 55:34) d. Zua Pedro wen neghe. wen be Pedro good yesterday (FSR, SLZ1014, 55:42)

Under the predicate raising account, this constraint can be restated as a ban on material intervening between the It can be shown independently that both elements in the small clause are capable of moving: for instance, to the vP and the subject. preverbal focus position. (31) Constraint on postverbal material in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec (28) a. Pedro zua wen. No material can intervene between the vP in Spec-TP and the subject. Pedro be good ‘PEDRO is well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014-s, 31) Indeed, a temporal adverb is ruled out, not just inside the vP that undergoes movement (32b), but also between b. Wen zua Pedro. that constituent and the subject (32c). good be Pedro ‘Pedro is WELL.’ (FSR, SLZ1014, 40:50) (32) a. Neghe [zua wen] Pedro. yesterday be good Pedro By contrast, the verb raising account can only derive the position of the AP predicate when it follows the subject. ‘Yesterday, Pedro was well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014, 56:00) b. * [Zua neghe wen] Pedro. be yesterday good Pedro (FSR, SLZ1014, 56:20) c. * [Zua wen] neghe Pedro. be good yesterday Pedro (FSR, SLZ1014, 56:27) d. [Zua wen] Pedro neghe. be good Pedro yesterday (FSR, SLZ1014, 56:34)

The position of the AP predicate in copular clauses, which can immediately follow the verb — intervening between it and the subject — again supports the predicate raising account over the verb raising account. 11 12 5 Argument 3: Light verb constructions (37) a. Dzun-tek yeze’ Pablo kar tse=ba’=n. do.CONT-a.lot boastful Pablo car of=3.INF=DEF There are light verb constructions in SLZ built from a light verb, -un (or -on) ‘do, make’ plus a nonverbal element, ‘Pablo is boasting a lot about his car right now.’ (FSR, SLZ1016, 14:54) e.g. -un yeze’ ‘boast’, -un lazhe ‘lie’, and -un sgwa ‘show off’ (lit. ‘make much’). b. Dzon-tek lazhe Pedro. do.CONT-a.lot lying Pedro (33) a. Dzun yeze’ Pedro kar tse=ba’=n. ‘Pedro is lying a lot right now.’ (FA, GZYZ020-s, 27) do.CONT boastful Pedro car of=3.INF=DEF c. Dzon-tek sgwa Pedro kar tse=ba’. ‘Pedro is boasting about his car.’ (FSR, SLZ1013-s, 11) do.CONT-a.lot much Pedro car of=3.INF b. Dzon lazhe Pedro nada’. ‘Pedro is showing off his car a lot right now.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 1:25:20) do.CONT lying Pedro 1SG ‘Pedro is lying to me.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ018, 1:25:03) Instead, we might draw a parallel—somewhat speculatively—to light verb constructions in Persian, which can be built from the light verb kardan ‘do’ and a nonverbal element. c. Dzon sgwa Pablo kar tse=ba’. do.CONT much Pablo car of=3.INF (38) Papˆ arˆ Kimea=roˆ bidarˆ kard. ‘Pablo is showing off his car.’ (lit. ‘Pablo is making much of his car.’) (FA, GZYZ018, 45:50) Papar Kimea=OBJ awake do.PAST.3SG ‘Papar woke up Kimea.’ (Folli et al. 2005:1375) Crucially, the nonverbal element in these light verb constructions must occur immediately following the light verb, preceding the subject. In Persian, the light verb is typically analyzed as the realization of the verbal functional head v; its complement is headed by the nonverbal element (Folli et al. 2005, Megerdoomian 2002). (34) a. * Dzun Pedro yeze’ kar tse=ba’=n. do.CONT Pedro boastful car of=3.INF=DEF (39) vP = 38 Intended: ‘Pedro is boasting about his car.’ (FSR, SLZ1013, 20:11) b. * Dzon Pedro lazhe. DP v0 do.CONT Pedro lying Intended: ‘Pedro is lying.’ (RM and FA, GZYZ018, 1:18:01) Papˆ arˆ AP v c. * Dzon Pedro sgwa kar tse=ba’. do.CONT Pedro much car of=3.INF DP A kard Intended: ‘Pablo is showing off his car.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ018, 51:35) bidarˆ Kimea=roˆ We can contrast this class of light verb constructions with another, superﬁcially similar class that exhibits a different behavior (see Broadwell 2004 for a similar contrast in another Zapotec language). With this structure, the position of the nonverbal element follows directly from the predicate-raising account.

(35) a. Dzun shbab Pedro tse nu’ule tse=ba’. (40) TP = 33a do.CONT thought Pedro of woman of=3.INF ‘Pedro is thinking about his wife.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ018, 57:34) b. Dzun shchagh Pedro=n. T do.CONT noise Pedro=DEF vP1 0 ‘Pedro is making noise.’ (FSR, SLZ1014, 1:30:56) t2 v0 T FP (36) a. Dzun Pedro shbab tse nu’ule tse=ba’. do.CONT Pedro thought of woman of=3.INF v AP DP2 F0 ‘Pedro is thinking about his wife.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ018, 57:14)

b. Dzun Pedro=n shchagh. dzun A t3 Pedro F vP do.CONT Pedro=DEF noise t ‘Pedro is making noise.’ (FSR, SLZ1014, 1:31:09) yeze’ DP3 1

Broadwell (2004) proposes that light verb constructions like the ﬁrst class are compounds in San Dionicio Ocote- kar tse=ba’ pec Zapotec. But in SLZ, some incorporated adverbials intervene between the light verb and nonverbal element.

13 14 The nonverbal element always occurs immediately following the light verb because it can never move on its own. Beyond the question of verb-initiality, this investigation raises several interesting questions, which we intend to pursue in the future. (41) a. * Yeze’ dzun Pablo kar tse=ba’. What is the source of the constraint in (31), which bans material from intervening between the verb (really, boastful do.CONT Pablo car of=3.INF the vP) and the subject? Intended: ‘Pablo is boasting about his car.’ (FSR, SLZ1016, 0:30) b. * Lazhe dzon Pedro nada’. How does the predicate raising account interact with subject cliticization? Subject pronominal clitics can in lying do.CONT Pedro 1SG some contexts attach directly to the verb, and in other contexts attach to the entire vP. Intended: ‘Pedro is lying to me.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 1:21:39) (43) a. Zua wen. c. * Sgwa dzon Pedro kar tse=ba’. =ba’ be=3.INF good a.lot do.CONT Pedro car of=3SG.INF Intended: ‘S/he is well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014, 1:13:43) Intended: ‘Pedro is showing off his car.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ019, 1:21:19) b. * Zua wen=ba’. be good=3.INF By contrast, under the verb-raising account, there is no way of understanding how the nonverbal element ends up Intended: ‘S/he is well.’ (FSR, SLZ1014, 1:13:51) between the light verb and subject. (44) a. * Dzon=ba’ lazhe. do.CONT INF lying (42) TP cf. 33a =3 Intended: ‘S/he is lying.’ (RM and FA, GZYZ018, 1:20:01) T FP b. Dzon lazh=ba’ nada’. do.CONT lying=3.INF 1SG DPS F0 ‘He is lying to me.’ (RM and FA, GZYZ018, 1:25:25)

F vP Similarly, how are incorporated adverbials assimilated into the verbal complex? Some attach to the verb and others to the entire vP that is fronted. tS v0 (45) a. Dzun-tek yeze’ Pablo kar tse=ba’=n. v AP do.CONT-a.lot boastful Pablo car of=3.INF=DEF ‘Pablo is boasting a lot about his car right now.’ (FSR, SLZ1016, 14:54) A DP b. Dzun yeze’-kse Pedro kar tse=ba’=n. do.CONT boastful-regularly Pedro car of=3.INF=DEF Unlike with copular clauses, there is no mechanism even for the nonverbal element to move on its own. ‘Pedro regularly boasts about his car.’ (FSR, SLZ1016, 9:55) In some light verb constructions, the nonverbal element must appear immediately following the light verb, providing additional support for the predicate raising account. Abbreviations

6 Conclusion and future prospects The abbreviations we use are: CONT = continuous aspect, COMP = completive aspect, DEF = definite, INF = informal, INT = intensive, INAN = inanimate, SG = singular, STAT = stative aspect, POT = potential aspect. As unlikely as the predicate raising account might seem at first, there is some evidence that other elements move along with the verb to initial position: Appendix: Manner adverbs aspectual adverbs the AP predicate in a copular clause There is also a class of manner adverbs (Advmann), such as xtido’ (or xtidao’) ‘quickly’, cholazhe’e ‘slowly’, and zishghe’ ‘loudly’, which have a superficially similar distribution to temporal adverbs. the nonverbal element in a light verb construction (46) a. Xtido’-yes udoo Juan=a’ yet=e’n. The verb raising account, which may be appropriate for other Zapotec languages, does not offer an immediate quickly-INT eat.COMP Juan=DEF tortilla=DEF explanation for these facts in SLZ. ‘Juan ate tortillas very quickly.’ (FSR, SLZ1009-s, 20)

15 16 b. * Udoo xtido’-yes Juan=a’ yet=e’n. (50) a. * Bi behle’ xtido’ dzoo Juan? eat.COMP quickly-INT Juan=DEF tortilla=DEF (FSR, SLZ1009, 31:15) which meat quickly eat.CONT Juan c. Udoo Juan=a’ xtido’-yes yet=e’n. ‘Which meat is Juan eating quickly?’ (ADR, SLZ1015, 4:25) eat.COMP Juan=DEF quickly-INT tortilla=DEF (FSR, SLZ1009, 29:10) b. * Xtido’ bi behle’ dzoo Juan? d. Udoo Juan=a’ yet=e’n xtido’-yes. quickly which meat eat.CONT Juan eat.COMP Juan=DEF tortilla=DEF quickly-INT (FSR, SLZ1009-s, 21) ‘Which meat is Juan eating quickly?’ (ADR, SLZ1015, 4:03) (51) a. * Bi de’e neghe udoo Juan? They also occur freely interleaved between any nonsubject arguments and adjunct PPs, cf. (18). which thing yesterday eat.COMP Juan Intended: ‘What did Juan eat yesterday?’ (ADR, SLZ1015, 7:39) (47) a. Bloe’d Maria cholazhe’e bidao’ ni beku’ lo’ yo’o. b. Neghe bi de’e udoo Juan? show.COMP Maria slowly child this dog in house yesterday which thing eat.COMP Juan ‘Maria showed the dog to this child in the house slowly.’ (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 49:53) ‘What did Juan eat yesterday?’ (ADR, SLZ1015, 7:23) b. Bloe’d Maria bidao’ ni cholazhe’e beku’ lo’ yo’o. show.COMP Maria child this slowly dog in house (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 49:33) If temporal adverbs are adjoined to CP, then they should allow for a wh-phrase to follow them. By contrast, if c. Bloe’d Maria bidao’ ni beku’ cholazhe’e lo’ yo’o. manner adverbs ﬁll Spec-CP, then they should be in complementary distribution with wh-phrases. show.COMP Maria child this dog slowly in house (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 49:11) d. Bloe’d Maria bidao’ ni beku’ lo’ yo’o cholazhe’e. show.COMP Maria child this dog in house slowly (FA and RM, GZYZ020, 48:52) References

But the distribution of manner and temporal adverbs comes apart when other material appears preverbally, e.g. (i) Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68:43–80. a wh-phrase or focus, or (ii) a topic linked to a pronominal clitic, or “external topic” in Aissen’s (1992) terms. Anderson, Stephen R. and Sandra Chung. 1977. On grammatical relations and clause structure in verb-initial languages. In Grammatical relations, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry M. Sadock, volume 8 of Syntax and Semantics, 1–25. New York: Academic Press. (48) a. Maria1 nole beku’2 bleyd=ba’1 t2? Maria which dog see.COMP=3SG.INF Avelino Becerra, Heriberto. 2004. Topics in Yalalag´ Zapotec, with particular reference to its phonetic structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. ‘Which dog did Maria see?’ (FA, GZYZ020-s, 7) Black, Cheryl A. 2000. Quiegolani Zapotec syntax: A principles and parameters account. Arlington, TX: SIL b. Maria1 beku’ tsi=a’2 bleyd=ba’1 t2. International. Maria dog of=1SG see.COMP=3SG.INF Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inﬂection. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts ‘Maria saw my dog.’ (RM, GZYZ020-s, 8) Institute of Technology. Broadwell, George Aaron. 2003. Optimality, complex predication, and parallel structures in Zapotec. Proceedings We take these preverbal elements to accommodate two distinct positions (Black 2000, Foreman 2006), though of the LFG Conference . sometimes a third position is proposed to account for the behavior of negation (Lee 2006, Broadwell 2003). Broadwell, George Aaron. 2004. The morphology of Zapotec pronominal clitics. In Conference on Otomanguean and Oaxacan languages, eds. Rosemary Beam de Azcona and Mary Paster, volume 14 of Survey Reports, (49) CP 15–36. Berkeley, CA: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Broadwell, George Aaron. 2005. It ain’t necessarily S(V)O: Two kinds of VSO languages. Proceedings of the XP1 CP LFG Conference . Butler, Inez M. 1980. Gramatica´ zapoteca: Zapoteco de Yatzachi el Bajo. Mexico City: Instituto Lingu¨´ıstico de wh C0 Verano. XP Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, eds. ⇢ 2 C TP Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. V=pro1...t2... Coon, Jessica. 2010. VSO as predicate fronting in Chol. Lingua 120:354–378. Duarte, Fabio´ Bonﬁm. 2012. Tenetehara:´ A predicate-fronting language. Candian Journal of Linguistics 57:359– 386. Neither manner nor temporal adverbs allow for a wh-phrase to precede them. This follows if they do not move Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Amsterdam: Springer. along with the verb, but rather are inserted higher in the clause. Folli, Raffaella, Heidi Harley and Simin Karimi. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115:1365–1401.

17 18 Foreman, John Olen. 2006. The morphosyntax of subjects in Macuiltianguis Zapotec. Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles. Garc´ıa Garc´ıa, Angel. n.d. Oaxaca: Distritos municipios, localidades y habitantes. n.p. (Priv. de Rayon no. 104, Centro, Oaxaca, Oaxaca). Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Extended projection. In Words and structures, 1–73. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Haider, Hubert. 2006. Mittelfeld phenomena (Scrambling in Germanic). In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, volume 3, 204–274. Oxford: Blackwell. Holmer, Arthur. 2005. Seediq: Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formsan VOS language. In Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 175–201. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kaplan, Tami. 1991. A classification of VSO languages. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8:198–209. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6:84–114. Lee, Felicia. 2006. Remnant raising and VSO clausal architecture: A case study of San Lucas Quiavin´ı Zapotec. Amsterdam: Springer. Long, Rebecca and Sofronio Cruz. 2000. Diccionaria Zapoteco de San Bartolome´ Zoogocho Oaxaca. Mexico City: Instituto Lingu¨´ıstico de Verano. Massam, Diane. 2001. Psueo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:153– 197. Massam, Diane and Carolyn Smallwood. 1997. Essential features of predication in English and Niuean. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 27:263–272. McCloskey, James. 1991. Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85:259–302. McCloskey, James. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In The syntax of Celtic language: A comparative perspective, eds. Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCloskey, James. 2001. The distribution of subject properties in Irish. In Objects and other subjects: Gram- matical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, eds. William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 157–192. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Megerdoomian, Karin. 2002. Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California. Otsuka, Yuko. 2000. Ergativity in Tongan. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oxford. Pensalfini, Robert. 1995. Malagasy phrase structure and the LCA. In Papers on Minimalist syntax, eds. Robert Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura, volume 27 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 245–260. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of the IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424. Sonnenschein, Aaron. 2004. A descriptive grammar of San Bartolome´ Zoogocho Zapotec. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California. Sproat, Richard. 1985. Welsh syntax and VSO structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:173–216. Tenny, Carol L. 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In Events as grammatical objects, eds. Carol L. Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 285–334. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.