Two kinds of focus constructions in K’iche’

Abstract

Based on original fieldwork data, I argue for a difference in meaning between two focus constructions in K'iche' (Mayan). In particular, I show that the interpretation of focus constructions with aree 'FOC' gives rise to existence and exhaustivity implications (the latter when they are used as answers), both of which do not necessarily arise from the interpretation of focus constructions without aree. I discuss how to analyze these implications and review previous approaches to similar phenomena. I also develop a dynamic account that captures the empirical generalizations I propose. the Syntax-Semantics Discussion Group "Synners" at Ohio State for helpful discussions. Many of the ideas presented here grew out of long discussions with Carl Pollard and I gratefully acknowledge his insights. Of course, the usual disclaimers apply. The fieldwork for this project was supported by the Tinker Field Research and Global Gateway Research Grants as well as the Department of Linguistics and the College of Arts and Humanities at Ohio State. 1 The K'iche' data presented here come from original fieldwork in Santa María Tzejá, Ixcán, Guatemala.I use the following glosses: A1(P), A2(P), A3(P) = absolutive first, second, third person singular (plural); E1(P), E2(P), E3(P) = ergative first, second, third person singular (plural); CLF = classifier; CMP = completive; DET = determiner; DIR = directional; FOC = focus particle; GEN = genitive; ICP = incompletive; PL = plural; SS = status suffix.

Mayan Semantics

“…In recent work, Can Pixabaj and England (2011) andYasavul (2014) go further, showing that K'iche' has two species of focus constructions that differ both in terms of syntax and semantics. On the semantics side, the distinction conforms to the difference between informational and identificational focus described first in Kiss 1998.…”