Yucatecan Control and Lexical Categories in SBCG ka’ansik \teach" I tuxtik \send" I sajak \fear" I kanik \learn" I k’at \want" I ojel \know (how to)" I motion verbs: I bin \go"

$Page 1: Yucatecan Control and Lexical Categories in SBCG ka’ansik \teach" I tuxtik \send" I sajak \fear" I kanik \learn" I k’at \want" I ojel \know (how to)" I motion verbs: I bin \go"$
Exposition Previous accounts Formalism Explanation Summary

Yucatecan Control and Lexical Categories inSBCG

Maksymilian Dabkowski

Department of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological SciencesBrown University

24th International Conference on HPSG, 2017

1 / 33


Complement control

Complement control

DefinitionComplement control is a construction where the implicit subject ofa given verb is determined by some other expression in the clause.

I Yucatec Maya has two complement control constructions:subjunctive control and incompletive control.

2 / 33


Complement control

Status marking

transitive intransitive

inc . . . -ik . . . -Vl, -∅sbj . . . -ej, . . . -∅ . . . -Vk, . . . -akcpl . . . -aj . . . -aj, . . . -∅

Table: Status morphology

3 / 33


Complement control

Examples

(1) Ki’imakhappy

inA1

w-oolONGL-spirit

inA1

w-il-ik-ech.ONGL-see-INC-B2SG

“I am happy to see you.”

(AnderBois and Armstrong, ms.)

(2) Ma’NEG

inA1

k’aatwish

inA1

man-∅buy-SBJ

leDEF

ba’al-o’ob-o’.thing-PL-D2.

“I don’t want to buy those things.”

(Bohnemeyer, 2002)

4 / 33


Complement control

Copy control

(3) Pil-e’Felipe-D3

uA3

k’aatwisg

uA3

y-il-ej.ONGL-see-SBJ.B3SG

“Felipe wish to see him/her/it.”

(4) *Pil-e’Felipe-D3

uA3

k’aatwish

in/aA1/A2

w-il-ej.ONGL-see-SBJ.B3SG

intended: “Felipe wants me/you to see him/her/it.”

(5) InA1SG

kaatwish

kaafor/that

meyaj-n-ak-ech.work-ANTIPASS-SBJ-B2SG

“I want you to work.”


5 / 33


Complement control

Split ergativity

(6) Ts’o’okterm

[ina1sg

na’ak-s-ik-ech].ascend-caus-inc-b2sg

“I finished lifting you up.”

(7) Ts’o’okterm

[ina1sg

na’ak-al].ascend-inc

“I finished going up.”

(8) Saamrec

[ina1sg

na’ak-s-∅-ech].ascend-caus-sbj-b2sg

“I lifted you up a while ago.”

(9) Saamrec

[na’ak-ak-en].ascend-sbj-b1sg

“I went up a while ago.” (AnderBois and Armstrong, ms.)

6 / 33


Government

GovernmentSubjunctive controllees

Predicates taking subjunctive complements:

I ka’ansik “teach”I tuxtik “send”I sajak “fear”I kanik “learn”I k’at “want”I ojel “know (how to)”

I motion verbs:

I bin “go”

I jok’ok “leave”

I okol “enter”

I taal “come”

7 / 33


Government

GovernmentImperfective controllees

Predicates taking imperfective complements:

I k’a’ajsik “remind”I k’a’ajal “remember”I tu’ubul “forget”I chunsik “begin”

I motion verbs:

I bin “go”

I jok’ok “leave”

I okol “enter”

I taal “come”

8 / 33


Government

Motion verbs semantics

(10) Juan-e’Juan-D3

taanPROG

uA3

bingo

uA3

t’ox-iksee-INC

chu’ujukcandy

te’to.DEF

mejensmall

paal-o’ob-o’.child-PL-D3

“Juan is going around passing out candy to children.”

(11) Juan-e’Juan-D3

taanPROG

uA3

bingo

uA3

t’ox-∅see-SBJ

chu’ujukcandy

te’to.DEF

mejensmall

paal-o’ob-o’.child-PL-D3

“Juan is going (in order) to pass out candy to children.”


9 / 33


Government

The riddleWhat we expect...

(12) Jprv

taal-∅-encome-cpl-b1sg

[ina1sg


“I came (while) lifting you up.” (incompletive transitive)

(13) Jprv


[ina1sg


“I came (while) ascending.” (incompletive intransitive)

(14) Jprv


[ina1sg


“I came to lift you up.” (subjunctive transitive)

(15) *Jprv


[na’ak-ak-en].ascend-sbj-b1sg

intended: “I came to ascend.” (subjunctive intransitive)

10 / 33


Government

The riddle... is not what we get

(12) Jprv


[ina1sg



(13) Jprv


[ina1sg



(14) Jprv


[ina1sg



(15′) Jprv


[na’ak-al].ascend-inc

“I came to ascend.” (subjunctive intransitive)

11 / 33


Bold claims

Spoiler alert

Ahead:

I a review of previous literature, specifically AnderBois andArmstrong (ms.),

I some arguments for, some arguments against, some ruminationsover the nature of nouns and verbs,

I a sketch of an SBCG account,

I an alternative story of intransitive subjunctive control’s origin,where the irregularity follows a well-trodden path todisambiguation.

12 / 33


Previous accounts

Previous accounts II Coon (2013) argues that control in Ch’ol is nominal.

(16) Chonkol-∅prog-b3sg

ja’al.rain

“It is raining.”(lit. “Rain is happening.”) Ch’ol, (A&A, ms.)

(17) *Taanprog

chaak.rain.

intended: “It is raining.” Yucatec Maya, (A&A, ms.)

13 / 33


Previous accounts

Previous accounts II

I A&A argue that control in Yucatec Maya is verbal,I possible exception: subjunctive intransitive control.

I A&A’s arguments for the nominal nature of subjunctiveintransitive controllees:

I morphological identity with nominalizations,I nominalizations tend to have a looser relation with they

arguments.

14 / 33


Morphological identity

Morphological identity I

(18)

(19)

15 / 33



Morphological identity II

(20)

(21)

16 / 33



Morphological identity III

(22)


17 / 33



Counterarguments II Presented nominalizations are all characterized by definite

morphology, the determiner le and the deictic clitic o’.

I While not necessary, nominalization tend to gravitate todefinitive morphology.

(23) ?Uts-∅good-b3gs

xook-∅.study-inc/nml

‘It’s good to study.’ / ‘Studying is good.’

(24) Uts-∅good-b3gs

xook-∅-o’.study-inc/nml-d2 (AnderBois, 2017)

‘It’s good to study.’ / ‘Studying is good.’

(AnderBois, 2017)

18 / 33



Counterarguments II

(25) InA1

k’aatwish

meyaj-∅.work-INC

“I want to work.”


I The same definite morphology is ungrammatical in subjunctiveintransitive control.

19 / 33


Argument relations

Argument relations

I Set-A and set-B morphology, as witnessed on verbs, are elementsof verbal inflection morphology, and they need not apply onnominalizations.

I Nouns tend to have a looser relation with their arguments.

20 / 33


Argument relations

Set-A and set-B

singular plural

1st in (w-). . .k . . .in (w-). . . -o’on

2nd a (w-). . . a (w-). . . -e’ex3rd u (y-). . . u (y-). . . -o’ob

singular plural

1st . . . -en . . . -o’on2nd . . . -ech . . . -e’ex3rd . . . -∅ . . . -oob

Set-A morphology Set-B morphology

I Identical on nouns and verbs; the overlap is complete. Difficult todismiss.

21 / 33


Argument relations

Counterarguments I

I Verbs inflected for status either require or forbid it; contrary toexpectations, so do nouns.

inalienable

(26) inA1

taatajfather

“my father”

(27) *inA1

sujuyvirgin

intended: “my virgin”

(28) inA1

k’aanhammock

“my hammock”

alienable

(29) *tatajfather

intended: “father”

(30) sujuyvirgin

“virgin”

(31) k’aanhammock

“hammock”

22 / 33


Argument relations

Counterarguments II(Lehmann, 2002)

I Can we even tell the difference between nouns and verbs reliably?

(32) Taanprog

ina1sg

paan-ik-∅.dig.out-inc-b3sg

“I am digging out (holes).”“My digging is ongoing.” (Bohnemeyer, 2002)

(33) Uts-∅good-b3sg

t-inin-a1sg

t’aanspeech

ina1sg

ts’u’uts’-ik-∅smoke-inc-b3sg

chamal.cigarette

“I like smoking cigarettes.”

lit. “Smoking cigarettes is good in my speech,” “to smokecigarettes is good in my speech.” ? (Armstrong, 2009)

I Yes, we can, but should we? No need to postulatenominalization.

23 / 33


The riddle, revisited

The riddle... is not what we get

(12) Jprv


[ina1sg



(13) Jprv


[ina1sg



(14) Jprv


[ina1sg



(15′) Jprv



“I came to ascend.” (subjunctive intransitive)

24 / 33


Formalism

Set-A syntax II Intransitive subjunctives cross-reference their only argument with

set-B; importantly: no set-A.

incompletive subjunctive

transitive 3 3intransitive 3 7

Table: Set-A?

I Possibly control demands set-A:

control-lexeme ⇒

syn [arg-st

⟨. . . /VP

[agr-a agr-cat

]⟩]25 / 33


Formalism

Set-A syntax II

(15′) Jprv



“I came to ascend.”#“I came (for somebody else) to ascend.”

(34) Ina1sg

k’aatwish

xook-∅.study-inc

“I want to study.”#“I want studying.”#“I want studying to occur.”


26 / 33


Formalism

inflectional-lxm

nerb-lxm

cn-lxm

... verb-lxm

... 1ref-v-lxm

... iv-lxm motion-v-lxm

cmv-lxm

icmv-lxm scmv-lxm

...

2ref-v-lxm

... stv-txm dtv-lxm

ctrl-lxm

inc-c-lxm sbj-c-lxm

...

pred-lxm

... amm-lxm adj-lxm

27 / 33


Formalism

Formalism II Incompletive controllees work just as expected.

incompletive-control-lexeme ⇒

syn [agr-st

⟨. . .[status inc

]⟩]I But subjunctive controllees misbehave.

verb

subjunctive-controllee-verb

intransitive-sceev transitive-sceev

non-subjunctive-controllee-verb

Figure: verb hierarchy

28 / 33


Formalism

Formalism II

transitive-subjunctive-controllee-verb ⇒

synset-a +

agr-b agr-cat

status sbj

intransitive-subjunctive-controllee-verb ⇒

synset-a 0

agr-b none

status inc

I An example maximal node...

control-motion-verb-lexeme ⇒

syn [arg-st

⟨[agr-b 1

],[agr-a 1

]⟩]I ... and a lexical entry:

cmv-lxm

form⟨

taal⟩

29 / 33


Explanation

Why not just have the set-A morpheme?

(34) Ina1sg

k’aatwish

inA1

xook-∅.study-inc

“I want to study.”


I Set-A missing in agent focus constructions:

(35) Leti’he

jats’-ik-en.beat-INC-B1SG

“It is he who beats me.” (Bohnemeyer, 2002)

I Unlike in non-agent focus constructions:

(36) Leti’he

k-inIMPV-A1

jats’-ik-∅.beat-INC-B3SG

“It is he whom I beat.” (Bohnemeyer, 2002)

30 / 33


Explanation

A wild speculation

I Agent focus has been described as a disambiguating mechanism

I Subjunctive control shares with agent focus the purging of set-Amorphology in non-head daughters.

I Subjunctive control disambiguates.

I A formal characteristic possibly paving the way for other functionallysimilar ones?

31 / 33


Summary

I The paradigm-defying intransitive subjunctive controlconstruction presents us with a riddle.

I A nominalization account does not give us satisfying answers.

I The phenomenon can be easily accounted for in SBCG.

I The answer to intransitive subjunctive control’s nature might lie indisambiguation.

32 / 33

References

For further reading

For further reading

Scott AnderBois and Grant Armstrong. On a transitivity-based split inYucatec Maya control. Brown University and University of Wisconsin,ms.

Jurgen Bohnemeyer. The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya.Lincom Europa, 2002.

Jessica Coon. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Scott AnderBois. Personal communication, January-February 2017.

Christian Lehmann. Possession in Yucatec Maya. Second, revised edition.Universitt Erfurt, 2002.

Grant Armstrong. On Copular Sentences in Yucatec Maya. In Proceedingsof the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-IV., 2009.

33 / 33

A Grammar Signature

A.1 A Partial Type Hierarchy

A.1.1 linguistic object

linguistic-object

... trilean

6−

+

boolean

0

6+

−

mrk

...

sign-or-none

sign

lex-sign

lexeme

...

expression

overt-expr

word phrase

covert-expr

gap pro

none

category

...

distal-or-none

distal

i’ e’

optional

speech-sit

o’ a’

none

role

agent other

linguistic-object

...

constuct

phrasal-cxt

...

lexical-cxt

...

status

... erg

cpl

ncpl

sbj

acc

inc

none

agr-cat-or-none

agr-cat none

person

1 2 3 number

sg pl

A.1.2 mrk

mrk

def

le

basic

inh

prefocal

set-a

sa-sel

unmk

det-sel

focal

nerbal

inal

glide

adj-sel

sep

topical

34

A.1.3 lexeme

lexeme

invariant-lxm

...

inflectional-lxm

nerb-lxm

cn-lxm

... verb-lxm

... 1ref-v-lxm

... iv-lxm motion-v-lxm

cmv-lxm

icmv-lxm scmv-lxm

...

2ref-v-lxm

... stv-txm dtv-lxm

ctrl-lxm

inc-c-lxm sbj-c-lxm

...

pred-lxm

n-pred-lxm

... drv-n-pred-lxm

amm-lxm adj-lxm

A.1.4 invariant-lxm

invariant-lxm

set-a-lxm pron-lxm det-lxm pn-lxm

A.1.5 cn-lxm

cn-lxm

al-n-lxm inal-n-lxm

ref-inal-n-lxm verboid-lxm

... sbj-c-lxm n-pred-lxm

35

A.1.6 category

category

det a-agreeing

set-a noun

b-agreeing

verb

scee-verb

isceev tsceev

non-scee-verb

adj amm

adv

¬set-a : everything that is not set-a.

A.1.7 phrasal-cxt

phrasal-cxt

... headed-cxt

head-comp-cxt

head-func-cxt

sa-hd-func-cxt nsa-hd-func-cxt

filler-gap-cxt

distal-q-cxt

clause

focus-cl

...

top-cl

A.1.8 focus-cl

focus-cl

... agent-f-cl

agent-f-main-cl agent-f-rel-cl

f-main-cl other-f-cl

other-f-main-cl other-f-rel-cl

36

A.1.9 lexical-cxt

lexical-cxt

deriv-cxt

... status-cxt

2ref-status-cxt 1ref-status-cxt

erg-status-cxt acc-status-cxt

sel-adj-cxt n-pred-cxt

infl-cxt

...

postinfl-cxt

... deq-d-cxt

A.1.10 infl-cxt

infl-cxt

bisinfl-cxt

circ-sa-bis-cxt suff-sa-bis-cxt

siminfl-cxt

sound-sim-cxt defect-sim-cxt

nullinfl-cxt

A.2 Type Declarations

A.2.1 sign

sign :

[form morph-objsyn syn-obj

]

lex-sign :[arg-st list(expression)

]

syn-obj :

cat categoryval list(expression)gap list(expression)mrkg markenq-d distal-or-nonedeq-d distal-or-none

A.2.2 construct

construct :

[mtr signdtrs nelist(sign)

]

lex-cxt :[dtrs list(lex-sign)

]

deriv-cxt :

[mtr lexemedtrs list(lexeme)

]

infl-cxt :

[mtr worddtrs list(lexeme)

]

postinfl-cxt :

[mtr worddtrs list(word)

]

phr-cxt :

[mtr phrasedtrs list(overt-expr)

]

headed-cxt :[hd-dtr overt-expr

]

37

A.2.3 category

category :

select sign-or-nonepred booleanrole roleset-a trilean

a-agreeing :[agr-a agr-cat-or-none

]

b-agreeing :[agr-b agr-cat-or-none

]

verb :[status status

]A.2.4 agr-cat

agr-cat :

[person personnumber number

]

A.3 General Types

subjunctive-controllee-verb ⇒[ ]

intransitive-subjunctive-controllee-verb ⇒

syn

set-a 0

agr-b nonestatus inc

transitive-subjunctive-controllee-verb ⇒

syn

set-a +

arg-b agr-catstatus sbj

non-subjunctive-controllee-verb ⇒[ ]

A.4 Lexical-Class Constructions

lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

select /nonepred /−set-a /6−

mrkg /unmkenq-d /nonedeq-d /none

arg-st /〈〉

set-a-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

set-a

select

[agr-a 1

mrkg sa-sel

]agr-a 1 agr-cat

mrkg set-a

38

pronoun-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

nounagr-a noneagr-b agr-cat

mrkg inh

determiner-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

det

select NP[mrkg det-sel

]mrkg defenq-d optional

proper-noun-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

nounagr-a noneagr-b 3sg

mrkg inh

nerb-lexeme ⇒[syn

[mrkg nerbal

]]

common-noun-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

[nounagr-b 3

]

alienable-noun-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat[agr-a none

]mrkg unmk

inalienable-noun-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

[set-a 6+agr-a 1

]mrkg inalenq-d optional

arg-st

⟨NP[agr-b 1

], ...

⟩

referential-inalienable-noun-lexeme ⇒[arg-st

⟨X⟩]

verboid-lexeme ⇒

[agr-st

⟨[agr-b 1

],[agr-a 1

]⟩]

39

verb-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

[verbstatus none

]arg-st nelist(/NP)

1ref-verb-lexeme ⇒

[syn

[arg-st

⟨Xo, ...

⟩]]

intransitive-verb-lexeme ⇒

[syn

[arg-st

⟨X⟩]]

motion-verb-lexeme ⇒

syn

arg-st

⟨X,

[mrkg prefocalrole other

], ...

⟩Mrkg of motion-verb-lexeme’s argument is a simplification pending further research.

control-motion-verb-lexeme ⇒

syn

arg-st

⟨[agr-b 1

], X,

[agr-a 1

role other

]⟩

incompletive-control-motion-verb-lexeme ⇒[ ]

subjunctive-control-verb-lexeme ⇒[ ]

2ref-verb-lexeme ⇒

[syn

[arg-st

⟨Xa, Xo, ...

⟩]]

strict-transitive-verb-lexeme ⇒

[syn

[arg-st

⟨X, X

⟩]]

ditransitive-verb-lexeme ⇒

[syn

[arg-st

⟨X, X, Xo

⟩]]

control-lexeme ⇒

syn

[arg-st

⟨. . . /VP

[agr-a agr-cat

]⟩]

incompletive-control-lexeme ⇒

syn

[agr-st

⟨. . .[status inc

]⟩]

40

subjunctive-control-lexeme ⇒

syn

[agr-st

⟨. . .[scee-verb

]⟩]

predicate-lexeme ⇒

syn[cat

[pred +

]]arg-st nelist

nominal-predicate-lexeme ⇒[syn

[cat noun

]]

am-marker-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

[am-markeragr-b /none

]arg-st

⟨/VP

⟩

adjective-lexeme ⇒

syn

cat

[adjectiveagr-b 1

]arg-st

⟨NP[agr-b 1

]⟩

derived-nominal-predicate-lexeme ⇒

syn[agr-b 1

]arg-st

⟨. . . NP

[agr-b 1

]⟩

A.5 Combinatoric Constructions

A.5.1 Phrasal Constructions

phrasal-ctx ⇒

mtr

[form א ⊕ ב ⊕ . . .⊕ ש

gap / A ⊕ B ⊕ . . .⊕ Z

]

dtrs

⟨[form א

gap A

],

[form ב

gap B

], ...

[form ש

gap Z

]⟩

headed-cxt ⇒

mtr

cat / 1

val / 2

mrkg / 3

hd-dtr

cat / 1

val / 2

mrkg / 3

41

distal-queue-cxt ⇒

mtr

[enq-d Fmax( 1 , 2 , ... n−1 , n )deq-d m

]

dtrs

⟨[enq-d 1

deq-d none

], ...

[enq-d n−1

deq-d none

],

[enq-d n

deq-d m

]⟩

head-functor-cxt ⇒

mtr

[mrkg 1

]dtrs

⟨[select 2

mrkg 1

], 2

⟩hd-dtr 2

set-a-head-functor-cxt ⇒

mtr[set-a +

]dtrs

⟨[cat set-a

],[set-a −

]⟩

non-set-a-head-functor-cxt ⇒

[dtrs

⟨[cat ¬set-a

], ...

⟩]

head-complement-cxt ⇒

mtr[val 〈〉

]dtrs

⟨1 , 2 , 3 , . . . n

⟩hd-dtr 1

set-a 6−

val⟨

2 , 3 , ... n

⟩

filler-gap-cxt ⇒

mtr

[gap A

]dtrs

⟨1 ,

set-a /+

gap⟨

1

⟩⊕ A

⟩

focus-cl ⇒

mtr

[mrkg focal

]dtrs

⟨1 ,[val 〈〉

]⟩hd-dtr 1

[mrkg prefocal

]

focus-main-cl ⇒

mtr

[pred +

]dtrs

⟨1

[pred −

],[gap

⟨1

⟩⊕ L

]⟩

42

other-focus-cl ⇒

dtrs

⟨X,

[pred +

mrkg prefocal

]⟩

agent-focus-cl ⇒

dtrs

⟨X,

cat

verbset-a 0

status ncpl

gap

⟨Xa⟩⊕ L

⟩

agent-focus-main-cl ⇒[ ]

other-focus-main-cl ⇒[ ]

agent-focus-relative-cl ⇒[ ]

other-focus-relative-cl ⇒[ ]

topical-cl ⇒

mtr

mrkg topicalenq-d 1

deq-d 1

dtrs

⟨2

[enq-d 3

deq-d Fmax(e’, 3 )

], 4

cat[pred +

]val 〈〉

gap⟨

2

⟩⊕ L

mrkg mrkenq-d 1

deq-d 1

⟩

hd-dtr 4

A.5.2 Lexical Constructions

status-cxt ⇒

mtr / 1 !

form⟨Fstatus( 2 , 3 )

⟩status 3

dtrs

⟨/ 1

verb-lxm

form⟨

2

⟩status none

⟩

43

2ref-status-cxt ⇒

mtr

cat

set-a 6+agr-a 1

agr-b 2

dtrs

⟨2ref-v-lxmarg-st

⟨[agr-b 1

],[agr-b 2

], ...

⟩⟩

1ref-status-cxt ⇒

[dtrs

⟨[1ref-v-lxm

]⟩]

ergative-status-cxt ⇒

mtr

cat

set-a 6−agr-a noneagr-b 1

status erg

dtrs

⟨[arg-st

⟨[agr-b 1

], ...

⟩]⟩

accusative-status-cxt ⇒

mtr

cat

set-a 6+agr-a 1

agr-b nonestatus acc

dtrs

⟨[arg-st

⟨[agr-b 1

], ...

⟩]⟩

selctional-adjective-cxt ⇒

mtr 1 !

cat

select

cat

[nounmrkg adj-sel

]agr-b none

dtrs⟨

1

[cat adj

]⟩

nominal-predicate-cxt ⇒

mtr 1 !

drv-n-pred-lxm

cat[agr-b agr-cat

]arg-st A ⊕

⟨X⟩

dtrs

⟨1

cat noundeq-d nonearg-st A

⟩

44

bisinflectional-cxt ⇒

dtrs

⟨[infl-lxmset-a 6+

]⟩

circumfix-set-a-bisinflectional-cxt ⇒

mtr 1 ![form

⟨Fcirc-A&B( 2 , 3 , 4 )

⟩]

dtrs

⟨1

form

⟨2

⟩cat

[agr-a 3

agr-b 4

]mrkg glide

⟩

suffix-set-a-bisinflectional-cxt ⇒

mtr 1 ![form

⟨Fsuff-A&B( 2 , 3 , 4 )

⟩]

dtrs

⟨1

form

⟨2

⟩cat

[agr-a 3

agr-b 4

]mrkg sep

⟩

siminfectional-cxt ⇒

mtr 1 ![form

⟨FB( 2 , 3 )

⟩]

dtrs

⟨1

infl-lxm

form⟨

2

⟩cat

[agr-b 3

]mrkg basic

⟩

sound-siminflectional-cxt ⇒

dtrs

⟨[cat

[set-a 6−

]]⟩

defective-siminflectional-cxt ⇒

dtrs

⟨cat

[verbset-a 6+

]⟩

nullinflectional-cxt ⇒

[dtrs

⟨[invariant-lxm

]⟩]

45

dequeue-distal-cxt ⇒

mtr 1 !

form⟨Fdistal( 2 , 3 )

⟩deq-d 3

dtrs

⟨1

form⟨

2

⟩deq-d none

⟩

A.6 Example Listemes

det-lxm

form⟨le⟩

syn

select[pred −

]mrkg leend-q speech-sit

al-noun-lxmform

⟨bu’ul

⟩

pron-lxm

form⟨lela’

⟩

syn

cat[agr-b 3sg

]enq-d a’deq-d a’

pron-lxm

form⟨tèech

⟩syn

[cat

[agr-b 2sg

]]

amm-lxm

form⟨ts’o’ok

⟩arg-st

⟨[status inc

]⟩

strict-tv-lxmform

⟨jats’

⟩a-lxm

form⟨in⟩

syn[agr-a 1sg

]

adjective-lxmform

⟨uts⟩

cmv-lxm

form⟨tàal

⟩

amm-lxm & sbj-c-lxm

form⟨mukaj

⟩syn

[cat

[agr-b 1

]]arg-st

⟨[agr-a 1

]⟩

46

A.7 Abbreviations

S =

syn

cat

[pred +

set-a +

]val 〈〉gap 〈〉enq-d 1

deq-d 1

NP =

syn

cat

nounpred −set-a +

val 〈〉

Xa =[role agent

]

Xo =[role other

]

VP =

syn

cat

[verbset-a +

]val 〈〉

47

References[1] Scott AnderBois. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Natural language semantics,

20(4):349–390, 2012.

[2] Scott AnderBois. Personal communication, January-February 2017.

[3] Scott AnderBois and Grant Armstrong. On a transitivity-based split in Yucatec Maya control. BrownUniversity and University of Wisconsin, unpublished.

[4] Grant Armstrong. On Copular Sentences in Yucatec Maya. In Proceedings of the Conference on Indige-nous Languages of Latin America-IV., 2009.

[5] Grant Armstrong. Vocabulary & Grammar Packet — Level II. In Yucatec Maya Summer Institute.UNC-Duke Consortium for Latin American Studies, 2014.

[6] Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag, editors. Sign Based Construction Grammar. Center for the Study ofLanguage and Information Publications, 2012.

[7] Jürgen Bohnemeyer. The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya. Lincom Europa, 2002.

[8] Jessica Coon. When Ergative = Genitive: Nominals and Split Ergativity. In Proceedings of the 27thWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 99–107, 2008.

[9] Jessica Coon. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford University Press, 2013.

[10] Marshall Durbin and Fernando Ojeda. Basic word order in Yucatec Maya. Papers in Mayan linguistics,pages 69–77, 1978.

[11] Colette Grinevald and Marc Peake. Ergativity and voice in Mayan: A functional-typological approach.Ergativity, valency and voice, pages 15–49, 2012.

[12] Rodrigo Gutierrez-Bravo and Jorge Monforte y Madera. On the nature of word order in Yucatec Maya.Information structure in indigenous languages of the Americas, pages 139–170, 2010.

[13] Javier Abelardo Gómez Navarrete. Diccionario Introductorio. Español-Maya, Maya-Español. Universi-dad de Quintana Roo, 2009.

[14] Edward Keenan and Bernard Comrie. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. LinguisticInquiry, 8(1):63–99, 1977.

[15] Christian Lehmann. Possession in Yucatec Maya. Second, revised edition. Universität Erfurt, 2002.

[16] Philip H. Miller and Ivan A. Sag. French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement. 1995.

[17] Elisabeth Norcliffe. Head Marking in Usage and Grammar: A Study of Variation and Change in YucatecMaya. Stanford University, 2009.

[18] Elisabeth Norcliffe. Revisiting Agent Focus in Yucatec. Stanford University, 2009.

[19] Mike Reape. Domain union and word order variation in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. J.Pollard, editors, German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, page 151–197. Stanford University:CSLI Publications, 1994.

[20] Elisabeth Verhoeven. Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya. John Benjamins Publishing Company,2007.

48

Documents

Yucatecan Control and Lexical Categories in SBCG ka’ansik \teach" I tuxtik \send" I sajak \fear" I kanik \learn" I k’at \want" I ojel \know (how to)" I motion verbs: I bin \go"