Adverbs and variability in Kaqchikel Agent Focus

In many languages with ergative morphology, transitive subjects (i.e. ergatives) are unable to undergo A’-extraction. This extraction asymmetry is a common hallmark of “syntactic ergativity,” and is found in a range of typologically diverse languages (see e.g. Deal 2016; Polinsky 2017, and works cited there). In Kaqchikel, the A’-extraction of transitive subjects requires a special verb form, known in Mayanist literature as Agent Focus (AF). In a recent paper, Erlewine (2016) argues that the restriction on A’-extracting transitive subjects in Kaqchikel is the result of an Anti-Locality effect: transitive subjects are not permitted to extract because they are too close to C0. This analysis relies crucially on Erlewine’s proposal that transitive subjects undergo movement to Spec,IP while intransitive subjects remain low. For Erlewine, this derives the fact that transitive (ergative) subjects, but not intransitive (absolutive) subjects are subject to extraction restrictions. Furthermore, it makes the strong prediction that phrasal material intervening between IP and CP should obviate the need for AF in clauses with subject extraction. In this paper, we argue against the Anti-Locality analysis of ergative A’-extraction restrictions along two lines. First, we raise concerns with the proposal that transitive, but not intransitive subjects, move to Spec,IP. Our second, and main goal, is to show that there is variation in whether AF is observed in configurations with intervening phrasal material, with a primary focus on intervening adverbs. We propose an alternative account for the variation in whether AF is observed in the presence of adverbs and discuss consequences for accounts of ergative extraction asymmetries more generally.

[1]  Nico Baier.  Antilocality and Antiagreement , 2017, Linguistic Inquiry.

[2]  K Abels,et al.  Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding , 2003 .

[3]  G. Müller,et al.  Ergatives Move Too Early: On an Instance of Opacity in Syntax , 2015 .

[4]  Jessica Coon,et al.  VOS as predicate fronting in Chol , 2010 .

[5]  Omer Preminger,et al.  The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan , 2014 .

[6]  Amy Rose Deal,et al.  Syntactic Ergativity: Analysis and Identification , 2016 .

[7]  E. Aldridge.  Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages , 2004 .

[8]  J. Coon.  Rethinking Split Ergativity In Chol1 , 2010, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[9]  Jessica Coon,et al.  Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan , 2017 .

[10]  Omer Preminger,et al.  Agreement and Its Failures , 2014 .

[11]  Jessica Coon,et al.  Mayan Morphosyntax , 2016, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[12]  J. Coon.  Little‐v0 Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol , 2017 .

[13]  ELLEN WOOLFORD,et al.  FOUR-WAY CASE SYSTEMS: ERGATIVE, NOMINATIVE, OBJECTIVE AND ACCUSATIVE , 1997 .

[14]  W. O'grady,et al.  The status of syntactic ergativity in Kaqchikel , 2016 .

[15]  David Pesetsky,et al.  T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences , 2000 .

[16]  Hiroaki Tada,et al.  A/A-bar partition in derivation , 1993 .

[17]  Željko Bošković,et al.  The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach , 1997 .

[18]  Judith Aissen.  Correlates of Ergativity in Mayan , 2017 .

[19]  J. Legate.  The Locus of Ergative Case , 2017 .

[20]  Ken Hale,et al.  Ergativity: toward a theory of a heterogeneous class: toward a theory of a heterogeneous class , 1996 .

[21]  Željko Bošković,et al.  On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling , 2016 .

[22]  Mark Campana,et al.  A movement theory of ergativity , 1992 .

[23]  Jamal Ouhalla,et al.  Subject-extraction, negation and the antiagreement effect , 1993 .

[24]  M. Saito,et al.  Subject Predication within IP and DP , 1999 .

[25]  James Lorin Mondloch,et al.  Voice in Quiché-Maya , 1981 .

[26]  Reinhilde Bok-Bennema,et al.  Case and Agreement in Inuit , 1991 .

[27]  N. Richards.  The Principle of Minimal Compliance , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[28]  N. C. England.  Changes in Basic Word Order in Mayan Languages , 1991, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[29]  Jessica Coon.  Aspects of Split Ergativity , 2013 .

[30]  Francisco Ordóñez,et al.  The Antipassive in Jacaltec: a Last Resort Strategy , 1995 .

[31]  Judith Aissen.  Topic and focus in Mayan , 1992 .

[32]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Deconstructing Ergativity: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features , 2016 .

[33]  Pedro Oscar García Matzar,et al.  Rukemik ri kaqchikel chi' : gramática kaqchikel , 2001 .

[34]  B. Stiebels.  Agent Focus in Mayan Languages , 2006 .

[35]  J. Coon,et al.  Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan , 2018 .

[36]  Julie Anne Legate,et al.  Morphological and Abstract Case , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[37]  Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine,et al.  Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus , 2016 .

[38]  Ellen Woolford,et al.  Clitics and Agreement in Competition: Ergative cross-referencing patterns , 2001 .