Mayan Morphosyntax

Coon, Jessica

doi:10.1111/lnc3.12149

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As foreshadowed in section , I argue that Set B/absolutive markers are the result of clitic doubling of nominal arguments (which may be pro ) and that Set A/ergative markers are the result of a local relation of Agree between the transitive subject and transitive v 0 . The status of absolutive markers as clitics is relatively well accepted within Mayan; see Grinevald & Peake and Coon for overviews; Mateo‐Toledo and Coon, Mateo Pedro & Preminger on Q'anjob'al; Woolford on Popti’; Coon on Ch'ol; and Preminger on Kaqchikel (cf. Shklovsky for more nuanced discussion of Tseltal).…”

Section: Set a And Set Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Little‐v⁰Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Coon

2017

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses typological differences in subject-verb agreement and provides evidence that transitive subject agreement need not always involve a high functional head, namely T 0 , but may instead be the result of a local relation between the subject and a low functional head, v 0 . In Mayan languages, grammatical relations are head-marked on the predicate through two series of morphemes, known as "Set A" (ergative/possessive) and "Set B" (absolutive). I argue that Set A morphemes reflect a local relationship of agreement between v 0 and the transitive subject in its low base position and, in an analogous structural configuration in the nominal domain, between a possessive n 0 head and the possessor. Crucially, I show that no higher functional projection is involved. This is important in light of proposals that ergative agreement systems are epiphenomenal, resulting from standard nominative agreement from T 0 which is blocked from agreeing with morphologically casemarked ergative subjects (Woolford 2010). In this paper, I examine the morphologically ergative Mayan language Ch'ol to show that true ergative agreement is possible even in the absence of morphological case. This paper has implications for the typology of ergative case and agreement systems and contributes to our understanding of the nature of agreement and clitic doubling. two anonymous Syntax reviewers for helpful discussion and comments on various stages of this work. I am grateful to Virginia Mart ınez V azquez, Morelia V azquez Mart ınez, Juan Jes us V azquez Alvarez, and Nicol as Arcos L opez for discussion of Ch'ol and to Magdalena Torres for Chuj. Any errors in data or analysis are, of course, my own. This work was supported by an FRQSC Nouveaux-Chercheurs grant. 1 Unless otherwise noted, Mayan data below are from the author's field notes. Abbreviations in glosses are as follows: A = Set A (ergative/possessive); ABS = absolutive; ACC = accusative; APPL = applicative; B = Set B (absolutive); CAUS = causative; CL = noun-class clitic; CLF = nominal classifier; DAT = dative; DET = determiner; DTV = derived/nonroot transitive suffix; EP = epenthetic insertion; ERG = ergative; FEM = feminine; IMP = imperative; IPFV = imperfective; ITV = intransitive verb suffix; LOC = locative; MASC = masculine; NML = nominal; NOM = nominative; PASS = passive; PERF = perfect; PL = plural; PFV = perfective; SG = singular; TAM = tense, aspect, mood; and TV = transitive verb suffix.

show abstract

Section: Set a And Set Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Little‐v⁰Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Coon

2017

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in other Mayan languages, predicates in Chuj can be divided into two types: verbal predicates and nonverbal predicates (see Grinevald & Peake 2012;Coon 2016a). The former generally denote events and require a TAM marker, as in examples seen so far above.…”

Section: Chuj Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Larsen & Norman 1979;Grinevald & Peake 2012;Coon 2016a;Aissen to appear). In Chuj, the head-marking pattern shows an aspectual split (see e.g.…”

Section: Aspect-based Split Ergativity In Chujmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan

Coon

Carolan

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the structure of progressives and nominalizations in Chuj, an understudied Mayan language of Guatemala. Like many other Mayan languages, Chuj shows aspect-based split ergativity: the otherwise ergative head-marking pattern in the language disappears in the progressive aspect. In other Mayan languages-for example Ch'ol (Coon 2010; and Yucatec (Bricker 1981)-the appearance of a non-ergative pattern in the progressive has been attributed to nominalization. In Chuj, however, there is no clear morphological reflex of nominalization, as is found in other languages in the family. Using data from negation, particle placement, and agreement, we argue that Chuj progressives nonetheless involve an aspectual matrix predicate and a nominalized embedded verb. This provides a clear structural explanation for the split pattern. Finally, we distinguish different types of nominalizations in Chuj: those which are nominalized directly from a root, and those which are nominalized above verbal projections.

show abstract

“…In Mayan Agent Focus, the ergative agreement marker goes missing entirely, and a special suffix-here -on-is added to the verb; the verb appears with an intransitive, rather than transitive, "status suffix". The suffix -on does not occupy a typical agreement slot, but rather appears in a position normally occupied by voice and other derivational morphology (Coon 2016). As discussed in detail in Davis andBrown 2011 andBrown 2016, the Gitksan construction in (33b) also involves more than simple agreement changes.…”

Section: Caseless Languages and Syntactic Ergativitymentioning

confidence: 94%

Case Interactions in Syntax

Coon¹,

Parker²

2019

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of case has been studied widely at both the descriptive and theoretical levels. Typological work on morphological case systems has provided a picture of the variability of case cross-linguistically. In particular, languages may differ with respect to whether or not arguments are marked with overt morphological case, the inventory of cases with which they may be marked, and the alignment of case marking (e.g., nominative-accusative vs. ergative-absolutive). In the theoretical realm, not only has morphological case been argued to play a role in multiple syntactic phenomena, but current generative work also debates the role of abstract case (i.e., Case) in the grammar: abstract case features have been proposed to underlie morphological case, and to license nominals in the derivation. The phenomenon of case has been argued to play a role in at least three areas of the syntax reviewed here: (a) agreement, (b) A-movement, and (c) A’-movement. Morphological case has been shown to determine a nominal argument’s eligibility to participate in verbal agreement, and recent work has argued that languages vary as to whether movement to subject position is case-sensitive. As for case-sensitive A’-movement, recent literature on ergative extraction restrictions debates whether this phenomenon should be seen as another instance of “case discrimination” or whether the pattern arises from other properties of ergative languages. Finally, other works discussed here have examined agreement and A’-extraction patterns in languages with no visible case morphology. The presence of patterns and typological gaps—both in languages with overt morphological case and in those without it—lends support to the relevance of abstract case in the syntax.

show abstract

Mayan Morphosyntax

Cited by 30 publications

References 75 publications

Little‐v⁰Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Little‐v⁰Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan

Case Interactions in Syntax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Mayan Morphosyntax

Cited by 30 publications

References 75 publications

Little‐v0Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Little‐v0Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan

Case Interactions in Syntax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Little‐v⁰Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

Little‐v⁰Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol