Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T02:51:11.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mayan Agent Focus and the Ergative Extraction Constraint: Facts and Fictions Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jessica Coon ,
Nico Baier  and
Theodore Levin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many languages of the Mayan family restrict the extraction of transitive (ergative) subjects for focus, WH-questions, and relativization (Ā-extraction). We follow Aissen (2017b) in labeling this restriction the ERGATIVE EXTRACTION CONSTRAINT (EEC). In this article, we offer a unified account of the EEC within Mayan languages, as well as an analysis of the special construction known as AGENT FOCUS (AF) used to circumvent it. Specifically, we propose that the EEC has a similar source across the subset of Mayan languages that exhibit it: INTERVENTION. The intervention problem is created when an object DP structurally intervenes between the Ā-probe on C0 and the ergative subject. Evidence that intervention by the object is the source of the problem comes from a handful of exceptional contexts that permit transitive subjects to extract in languages which normally ban this extraction, and conversely, a context that exceptionally bans ergative extraction in a language which otherwise allows it. We argue that the problem with Ā-extracting the ergative subject across the intervening object connects to the requirements of the Ā-probe on C0: the probe on C0 is bundled to search simultaneously for [Ā] and [D] features. This relates the Mayan patterns to recent proposals for extraction patterns in Austronesian languages (e.g. Legate 2014, Aldridge 2017b) and elsewhere (van Urk 2015). Specifically, adapting the proposal of Coon & Keine 2020, we argue that in configurations in which a DP object intervenes between the probe on C0 and an Ā-subject, conflicting requirements on movement lead to a derivational crash. While we propose that the EEC has a uniform source across the family, we argue that AF constructions vary Mayaninternally in how they circumvent the EEC, accounting for the variation in behavior of AF across the family. This article contributes both to our understanding of parametric variation internal to the Mayan family and to the discussion of variation in Ā-extraction asymmetries and syntactic ergativity crosslinguistically.

Keywords

Ā-extractionextraction restrictionssyntactic ergativityagent focusMayanfeature gluttony

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 97 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 269 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Many thanks to two anonymous referees for helpful detailed comments, as well as to Judith Aissen, Scott AnderBois, Edith Aldridge, Ryan Bennett, Rajesh Bhatt, Kenyon Branan, Telma Can Pixabaj, Emily Clem, Lauren Clemens, Amy Rose Deal, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Robert Henderson, Stefan Keine, Danny Law, Julie Legate, Martina Martinović, Elise Newman, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Ethan Poole, Omer Preminger, Rodrigo Ranero, Justin Royer, Tessa Scott, Lisa Travis, and Juan Jesús Vázquez Álvarez, as well as audiences at McGill, Berkeley, UCLA, Universität Leipzig, and the University of Maryland for helpful comments and discussion at various stages of this work. Special thanks to Filiberto Patal Majzul, Telma Can Pixabaj, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Magdalena Torres, respectively, for Kaqchikel, K'iche', Q'anjob'al, and Chuj data and discussion. Any errors in data or interpretation are our own. This work was supported in part by an SSHRC Insight grant to the first author.

References

Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 229–54. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00084.10.1162/LING_a_00084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1984. Control and command in Tzotzil purpose clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 559–71. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v10i0.1930.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Reidel: Dordrecht.10.1007/978-94-009-3741-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68. 43–80. DOI: 10.2307/416369.10.1353/lan.1992.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1996. Pied-piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 447–91. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133596.10.1007/BF00133596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73. 705–69. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1997.0042.10.1353/lan.1997.0042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75. 451–85. DOI: 10.2307/417057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2000. Prosodic conditions on anaphora and clitics in Jakaltek. The syntax of verb initial languages, ed. by Carnie, Andrew and Guilfoyle, Eithne, 185–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195132229.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2010. Depictives and serialization in Tzotzil. Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter (Current studies in linguistics 49), ed. by Gerdts, Donna B., Moore, John C., and Polinsky, Maria, 1–17. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2011. On the syntax of agent focus in K'ichee'. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of FAMLi 1) 63.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2017a. Agent focus and passive in Tsotsil. Asking the right questions: Essays in honor of Sandra Chung, ed. by Ostrove, Jason, Kramer, Ruth, and Sabbagh, Joseph, 143–61. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8255v8sc.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2017b. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan. In Coon et al. 2017, 737–58. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.30.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.30.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.30.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith, England, Nora C.; and Maldonado, Roberto Zavala. 2017a. Introduction. In Aissen et al. 2017b, 1–15. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith, England, Nora C.; and Maldonado, Roberto Zavala (eds.) 2017b. The Mayan languages. (Routledge language family series.) New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008a. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 966–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00075.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008b. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118. 1440–06. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2017a. Extraction asymmetries in ergative and accusative languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, vol. 1) 84. 1–20. Online: https://glowlinguistics.org/asia11/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/11/v1-aldridge.pdf.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2017b. ϕ-feature competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction. Chicago Linguistic Society 52. 1–20.Google Scholar
Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8. 175–207. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00078.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00078.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2017. Focus, interrogation, and indefinites. In Aissen et al. 2017b, 348–61.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott, and Oscar, Miguel Dzul, Chan. 2020. Headless relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. In Caponigro et al., 444–74. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0013.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0013.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0013.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aravind, Athulya. 2018. Licensing long-distance wh-in-situ in Malayalam. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 1–43. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-017-9371-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8.10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assmann, Anke, Georgi, Doreen, Heck, Fabian, Müller, Gereon; and Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Ergatives move too early: On an instance of opacity in syntax. Syntax 18. 343–87. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12034.10.1111/synt.12034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Glenn. 1983. The antipassive ‘voice’ in Ixil. International Journal of American Linguistics 49. 20–45. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1265576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, Nico. 2018. Anti-agreement. Berkeley: University of California dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/49t9t8h5.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2006. On zero agreement and polysynthesis. Arguments and agreement, ed. by Ackema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike, and Weerman, Fred, 289–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199285730.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Edward R. 1999. A grammar of Sipakapense Maya. Austin: University of Texas Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. by Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa and Roberge, Yves, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.244.07bejCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 35–73. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benito Pérez, José, Gonzalo, . 2016. Orden básico y pragmática de las voces en Poqom. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social master's thesis.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Coon, Jessica; and Henderson, Robert. 2016. Introduction to Mayan linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 453–68. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12159.10.1111/lnc3.12159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Harizanov, Boris; and Henderson, Robert. 2018. Prosodic smothering in Macedonian and Kaqchikel. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 195–246. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00272.10.1162/LING_a_00272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinstein, Ava. 1998. Antipassive and 2-3 retreat in K'ekchi Mayan: Two constructions with the same verbal reflex. Studies in American Indian languages: Description and theory, ed. by Hinton, Leanne and Munro, Pamela, 212–22. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bielig, Louisa. 2015. Resumptive classifiers in Chuj high topic constructions. Montreal: McGill University BA honors thesis.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Kenneth. 1996a. Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 531–604. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178953.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Kenneth. 1996b. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 1–68. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178925.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon, and Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2020. Ā-probing for the closest DP. Singapore: National University of Singapore, ms.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2000. Word order and markedness in Kaqchikel. Proceedings of the LFG '00 Conference, 44–62. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/LFG5-2000/pdfs/lfg00broadwell.pdf.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Algonquian languages have A-movement and A-agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 427–45. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.427.10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buenrostro, Cristina. 2013. La voz en Chuj de San Mateo Ixtatán. Mexico City: El Colegio de México dissertation. Online: https://colmex.userservices.exlibrisgroup.com/view/delivery/52COLMEX_INST/1265049840002716.Google Scholar
Campana, Mark. 1992. A movement theory of ergativity. Montreal: McGill University dissertation.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2017. Mayan history and comparison. In Aissen et al. 2017b, 43–61.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, and Kaufman, Terrence. 1985. Mayan linguistics: Where are we now? Annual Review of Anthropology 14. 187–98. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.an.14.100185.001155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Can Pixabaj, Telma. 2004. La topicalización en K'ichee': Una perspectiva discursiva. Guatemala City: Universidad Rafael Landívar licenciatura thesis.Google Scholar
Can Pixabaj, Telma. 2015. Complement and purpose clauses in K'iche'. Austin: University of Texas Austin dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/31491.Google Scholar
Can Pixabaj, Telma. 2020. Headless relative clauses in K'iche'. In Caponigro et al., 260–89. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0008.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, Torrence, Harold; and Maldonado, Roberto Zavala (eds.) 2020. Headless relative clauses in languages of Mesoamerica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22. DOI: 10.1162/0024389052993655.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. by Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1989. On the notion ‘null anaphor’ in Chamorro. The null subject parameter, ed. by Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Safir, Ken, 143–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_5.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren Eby. 2013. Kaqchikel SVO: V2 in a V1 language. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages (Studies in Kaqchikel grammar) 8. 1–24.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren Eby, and Coon, Jessica. 2018. Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. Language 94. 237–80. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0017.10.1353/lan.2018.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P., 329–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2009. Interrogative possessors and the problem with pied-piping in Chol. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 165–75. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.165.10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858743.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858743.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2016. Mayan morphosyntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 515–50. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12149.10.1111/lnc3.12149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2017. Little-v0 agreement and templatic morphology in Ch'ol. Syntax 20. 101–37. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12135.10.1111/synt.12135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2019. Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots. Journal of Linguistics 55. 35–81. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226718000087.10.1017/S0022226718000087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Carolan, Elizabeth. 2017. Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1):22. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.51.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Henderson, Robert. 2011. Two binding puzzles in Mayan. Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, ed. by Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrígo, Mikkelsen, Line, and Potsdam, Eric, 51–67. Santa Cruz: Linguistic Research Center. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vf4s9tk.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Keine, Stefan. 2020. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry, early access. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane; and Travis, Lisa (eds.) 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Pedro, Pedro Mateo; and Preminger, Omer. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14. 179–242. DOI: 10.1075/lv.14.2.01coo.10.1075/lv.14.2.01cooCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Royer, Justin. 2020. Nominalization and selection in two Mayan languages. Nominalizations: 50 years on from Chomsky's remarks, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis and Borer, Hagit, 139–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0007.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1977. The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1979. The antipassive and Jacaltec. Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. by Martin, Laura, vol. 1, 139–64. Columbia, MO: Lucas Brothers.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1986. Jacaltec noun classifiers: A study in grammaticalization. Lingua 70. 241–84. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(86)90046-X.10.1016/0024-3841(86)90046-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, William D., and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2000. Functional structure and a parametrized account of subject properties. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 15. 48–59.Google Scholar
Davies, William D., and Sam-Colop, Luis Enrique. 1990. K'iche' and the structure of antipassive. Language 66. 522–49. DOI: 10.2307/414610.10.2307/414610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayley, Jon. 1978. Voice in Tzutujil. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 1. 20–52.Google Scholar
Dayley, Jon. 1981. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2. 3–82.Google Scholar
Dayley, Jon. 1985. Tzutujil grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in ϕ-agreement. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 45. 179–92.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Syntactic ergativity: Analysis and identification. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 165–85. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040642.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55. 59–138. DOI: 10.2307/412519.10.2307/412519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doggett, Teal Bissell. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/28837.Google Scholar
Douglas, Jamie. 2018. Māori subject extraction. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1):110. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.566.Google Scholar
Douglas, Jamie, Ranero, Rodrigo; and Sheehan, Michelle. 2017. Two types of syntactic ergativity in Mayan. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, vol. 2) 85. 41–56.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 1983. A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57. 446–86. DOI: 10.1086/ijal.57.4.3519735.10.1086/ijal.57.4.3519735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, Nora C. 2017. Mayan languages. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.60.Google Scholar
England, Nora C., and Zavala, Roberto. 2013. Mayan languages. Oxford bibliographies in linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0147.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2013. Dissociating the syntax and morphological realization of Kaqchikel agent focus. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages (Studies in Kaqchikel grammar) 8. 25–50.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 429–79. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z.10.1007/s11049-015-9310-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2018. Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak. Language 94. 662–97. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0039.10.1353/lan.2018.0039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, van Urk, Coppe; and Levin, Theodore. 2017. Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems. In Coon et al. 2017, 373–96. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.16.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.16.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.16.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Matzar, Pedro Oscar, and Guaján, José Obispo Rodríguez. 1997. Rukemik ri kaqchikel chi', gramática kaqchikel. Guatemala City: Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette, and Peake, Marc. 2012. Ergativity and voice in Mayan: A functional-typological approach. Ergativity, valency and voice, ed. by Authier, Gilles and Haude, Katharina, 15–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110227734.15.10.1515/9783110227734.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 69–101. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178802.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers at the interface) 30. 425–49.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers on phonology and morphology) 21. 275–88.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2017. The ‘bundling’ hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. The verbal domain, ed. by D'Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene, and Gallego, Ángel J., 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0001.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158.10.1353/lan.2002.0158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John Beard. 1981. Sk'op sotz'leb: El Tzotzil de San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Heaton, Raina. 2017. A typology of antipassives, with special reference to Mayan. Manoa: University of Hawai'i at Manoa dissertation.Google Scholar
Heaton, Raina, Deen, Kamil; and O'Grady, William. 2016. The status of syntactic ergativity in Kaqchikel. Lingua 170. 35–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.006.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Robert. 2007. Observations on the syntax of adjunct extraction in Kaqchikel. Memorias del Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica (CILLA) III. Online: https://ailla.utexas.org/sites/default/files/documents/Henderson_CILLA_III.pdf.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert. 2012. Morphological alternations at the intonational phrase edge: The case of K'ichee'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 741–87. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-012-9170-8.10.1007/s11049-012-9170-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Robert, and Coon, Jessica. 2018. Adverbs and variability in Kaqchikel agent focus: A reply to Erlewine (2016). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 149–73. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-017-9370-3.10.1007/s11049-017-9370-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (The proceedings of the MIT-Harvard joint conference (HUMIT 2000)) 40. 67–80.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric. 1989. A parameter for anaphor binding: The case of Jacaltec. Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries, ed. by László, Marácz and Muysken, Pieter, 237–48. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hou, Liwen. 2013. Agent focus in Chuj reflexive constructions. Montreal: McGill University BA honors thesis.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21. 112–59. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12153.10.1111/synt.12153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas mayances con referencia especial al K'iche'. Lecturas sobre la lingüística maya, ed. by England, Nora and Elliot, Stephen R., 59–114. Antigua: CIRMA.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177973.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2012. Samoan ergativity as double passivization. Functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 7, ed. by Brugé, Laura, Cardinaletti, Anna, Giusti, Giuliana, Munaro, Nicola, and Poletto, Cecilia, 168–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0013.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 593–634. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0.10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Thomas W. 1988. Manifestations of ergativity in Quiché grammar. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/22p292kr.Google Scholar
Larsen, Tomas W., and Norman, William M.. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 347–70. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert, 189–215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Law, Danny. 2013. Mayan historical linguistics in a new age. Language and Linguistics Compass 7. 141–56. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12012.10.1111/lnc3.12012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 55–101. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55.10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Types of ergativity. Lingua 122. 181–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.014.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Theodore. 2018. LF determines (non-)interveners: Two case studies in Kaqchikel (Mayan). Paper presented at Current Issues in Comparative Syntax: Past, Present, and Future, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Little, Carol-Rose. 2020. Mutual dependencies of nominal and clausal syntax in Ch'ol. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1813/102869.Google Scholar
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2019. On expletives and the agreement-movement correlation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/124100.Google Scholar
López Ixcoy, Candelaria Dominga. 1997. Gramatica K'ichee' (ri ukemiik ri K'ichee' chii'). Guatemala City: Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Martinović, Martina. 2015. Feature geometry and head-splitting: Evidence from the morphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2001. Procesos de cambio y difusión en Chuj y Q'anjob'al. Guatemala City: Universidad Rafael Landívar BA thesis.Google Scholar
Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2003. Ergatividad mixta en Q'anjobal (Maya): Un reanálisis. Proceedings of the Conference of Indigenous Language of Latin America 1. Online: https://www.ailla.utexas.org/sites/default/files/documents/MateoToledo_Q7anjob7al.pdf.Google Scholar
Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2008. The family of complex predicates in Q'anjob'al (Maya): Their syntax and meaning. Austin: University of Texas Austin dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/18289.Google Scholar
Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2017. Q'anjob'al. In Aissen et al. 2017b, 533–69.Google Scholar
Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2020. Headless relative clauses in Q'anjob'al. In Caponigro et al., 290–326. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0009.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0009.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0009.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Judith M. 1976. Chuj intransitives: Or when can an intransitive verb take an object? Journal of Mayan Linguistics 1. 128–40.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Judith M. 1981. How to talk to people who talk chekel ‘different’: The Chuj (Mayan) solution. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Mendes, Gesoel, and Ranero, Rodrigo. 2021. Chain reduction via substitution: Evidence from Mayan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1):10. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1087.Google Scholar
Mondloch, James. 1981. Voice in Quiche-Maya. Albany: SUNY Albany dissertation.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 35–82. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35.10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 273–313. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2.10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 939–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4.10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Elise. 2020. On the movement/(anti)agreement correlation in Romance and Mayan. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2009. Revisiting agent focus in Yucatec. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (New perspectives in Mayan linguistics) 59. 135–56.Google Scholar
Norman, William M. 1977. Topic and focus in Mayan. Paper presented at the Mayan Workshop II, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.Google Scholar
Norman, William M., and Campbell, Lyle. 1978. Toward a Proto-Mayan syntax: A comparative perspective on grammar. Papers in Mayan linguistics (University of Missouri miscellaneous publications in anthropology 6), ed. by England, Nora C., 136–56. Columbia: University of Missouri.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1995. The antipassive in Jacaltec: A last resort strategy. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics (CatWPL) 4. 329–43. Online: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/CatalanWP/article/view/73991.Google Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T φ-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. Agreement restrictions, ed. by D'Alessandro, Roberta, Fischer, Susann, and Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn, 159–80. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Oxford, Will. 2019. Inverse marking and multiple Agree in Algonquian: Complementarity and variability. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37. 955–96. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9428-x.10.1007/s11049-018-9428-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, Will. 2020. Elsewhere morphology and alignment variation: Evidence from Algonquian. Paper presented at the 51st meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 51), Université du Quebec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L., and Zavala, Roberto (eds.) 2013. Estudios sintácticos en lenguas de Mesoamérica. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.Google Scholar
Pascual, Adán F. 2007. Transitividad y dependencia sintáctica y discursiva en Q'anjob'al. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social master's thesis.Google Scholar
Pérez Vail, José, Reginaldo, . 2014. La inversion y obviación en mam de Cajolá. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social master's thesis.Google Scholar
Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del tseltal de Oxchuc. (Publicaciones de la Casa Chata.) Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.Google Scholar
Polian, Gilles, and Aissen, Judith. 2020. Headless relative clauses in Tseltalan. In Caponigro et al., 403–43. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0012.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0012.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0012.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2016. Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190256586.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Antipassive. In Coon et al. 2017, 308–31. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.13.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.13.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.13.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about ‘abstract’ agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1):13. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.315.Google Scholar
Quesada, J. Diego. 1997. A note on Mayan ‘crazy’ antipassivization. Theoretical Linguistics 23. 79–112. DOI: 10.1515/thli.1997.23.1-2.79.10.1515/thli.1997.23.1-2.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea, and Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 565–99. DOI: 10.1162/002438905774464368.10.1162/002438905774464368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranero, Rodrigo. 2019. Voice mismatches in Kaqchikel (Mayan) sluicing: Consequences for syntactic parallelism. College Park: University of Maryland, ms.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. A second COMP position. Theory of markedness in generative grammar, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 517–57. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 563–72. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198241171.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara Thomas. 2010. Animacy in Blackfoot: Implications for event structure and clause structure. Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure, ed. by Rappaport-Hovav, Malka, Doron, Edit, and Sichel, Ivy, 124–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0007.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990a. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2. 27–42.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990b. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2019. Domain restriction and noun classifiers in Chuj (Mayan). North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 49(3). 87–89.Google Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2020a. Headless relative clauses in Chuj. In Caponigro et al., 327–61. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2020b. Subject or possessor? Binding and the ‘low/high-abs‘ parameter in Mayan. Paper presented at the 51st meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 51), Université du Quebec à Montréal. Online: https://sites.grenadine.uqam.ca/sites/lin-guistique/en/nels51/documents/get_document/37.Google Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2021a. Prosody as syntactic evidence: The view from Mayan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-021-09506-1.10.1007/s11049-021-09506-1.10.1007/s11049-021-09506-1.10.1007/s11049-021-09506-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2021b. Decomposing definiteness: Evidence from Chuj. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, to appear.10.1017/cnj.2022.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, Eli. 2016. First and second person pronouns in Q'anjob'al (Maya). Providence, RI: Brown University BA honors thesis.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57. 1–46. Online: https://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/4562723/8500167.pdf.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions. Papers in Mayan linguistics (University of Missouri miscellaneous publications in anthropology 6), ed. by England, Nora C., 169–87. Columbia: University of Missouri.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24. 501–70. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-005-0539-9.10.1007/s11049-005-0539-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12677.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Shoichi, and Hulsey, Sarah. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/Ādistinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 387–426. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387.10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan, and Vikner, Sten, 307–27. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8416-6_14.Google Scholar
Tollan, Rebecca, and Clemens, Lauren. 2021. Syntactic ergativity as a constraint on crossing dependencies: The perspective from Mayan. Linguistic Inquiry, Advance publication. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00421.10.1162/ling_a_00421.10.1162/ling_a_00421.10.1162/ling_a_00421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/ura96.pdf.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101595.Google Scholar
Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús. 2011. A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Austin: University of Texas Austin dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2011-08-4293.Google Scholar
Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús, and Coon, Jessica. 2020. Headless relative clauses in Ch'ol. In Caponigro et al., 362–402. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0011.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0011.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, Leah Bridges. 2014. Focus and movement in a variety of K'ichee'. Austin: University of Texas Austin dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/28421.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2017. The division of labor between syntax and morphology in the Kichean agent-focus construction. Morphology 27. 685–720. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-017-9312-0.10.1007/s11525-017-9312-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On ‘ergativity’ in Halkomelem Salish. Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. by Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane, and Ndayiragije, Juvenal, 197–227. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_8.10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2011. PF factors in pronominal clitic selection in Tzotzil. Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, ed. by Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrígo, Mikkelsen, Line, and Potsdam, Eric, 313–20. Santa Cruz: Linguistic Research Center. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vf4s9tk.Google Scholar
Yuan, Michelle. 2018. Dimensions of ergativity in Inuit: Theory and microvariation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/122054.Google Scholar
Zavala, Roberto. 2000. Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). Systems of nominal classification, ed. by Senft, Gunter, 114–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.70CrossRefGoogle Scholar