Abstract
AbstractSome Mayan languages displayoptionalverbal agreement with 3plarguments (Dayley1985; Henderson2009; England2011). Focusing on novel data from Santiago Tz’utujil (ST), we demonstrate that this optionality is not reducible to phonological or morphological factors. Rather, the source of optionality is in the syntax. Specifically, the distinction between arguments generated in the specifier position and arguments generated in the complement position governs the pattern. Only base-complements control agreement optionally; base-specifiers control agreement obligatorily. We provide an analysis in which optional agreement results from the availability of two syntactic representations (DP vs. reduced nominal argument). Thus, while the syntactic operationAgreeis deterministic, surface optionality arises when the operation targets two different sized goals.
Highlights
Tz’utujil (Mayan) displays optional 3pl agreement in certain contexts: (1) Optional predicate agreement with plural ‘toys’1This work is licensed under the 330 | T
We discuss the role of phonotactics and phonological processes in deriving the above pattern. We recognize that both phonology and syntax might play a role in obtaining the surface pattern; it is syntax that determines the pattern of agreement optionality
We propose that the underlying difference between agreement with an argument that was generated in the specifier position vs. an argument that was generated in a complement position is the structure of such an argument
Summary
Tz’utujil (Mayan) displays optional 3pl agreement in certain contexts: (1) Optional predicate agreement with plural ‘toys’. A minimally different counterpart of this sentence in (1b) lacks e− but the sentence is well formed This agreement optionality does not hold across the board in Tz’utujil. B. *I–kὔiy abὔaj Ø–qὔeὔ–el–a chwech pl–many stone Ø–lean–pos.st–ss prep.3sg.a.rn wall. We will show that the same pattern of optionality obtains with Set A morphology, giving evidence, that the optionality involves a distinction between plural vs singular agreement. The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, we sketch relevant facts about Tz’utujil grammar and phonology, providing a brief overview of the literature on agreement optionality in Mayan. We restrict our data to inanimate agreement controllers; this choice is explained in the same section Based on these data, we show that a generalization arises distinguishing specifiers and complements; specifiers must agree, complements optionally do.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
