Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:10:34.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2018

JESSICA COON
JESSICA COON*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Author’s address: McGill University, 1085 Ave. Dr. Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 1A7, Canadajessica.coon@mcgill.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers an in-depth look at roots and verb stem morphology in Chuj (Mayan) in order to address a larger question: when it comes to the formation of verb stems, what information is contributed by the root, and what is contributed by the functional heads? I show first that roots in Chuj are not acategorical in the strict sense (cf. Borer 2005), but must be grouped into classes based on their stem-forming possibilities. Root class does not map directly to surface lexical category, but does determine which functional heads (i.e. valence morphology) may merge with the root. Second, I show that while the introduction of the external argument, along with clausal licensing and agreement generally, are all governed by higher functional heads, the presence or absence of an internal argument is dictated by the root. Specifically, I show that transitive roots in Chuj always combine with an internal argument, whether it be (i) a full DP, (ii) a bare pseudo-incorporated NP, or (iii) an implicit object in an antipassive. In the spirit of work such as Levinson (2007, 2014), I connect this to the semantic type of the root; root class reflects semantic type, and semantic type affects the root’s combinatorial properties. This work also contributes to the discussion of how valence morphology operates. In line with works such as Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer (2006), I argue that valence morphology applies directly to roots, rather than to some ‘inherent valence’ of a verb.

Keywords

Antipassiveargument structureChujMayanrootsvalence
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2019 , pp. 35 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

I am extremely grateful to Magdalena Torres for her patience and generosity in sharing her language; without her this work would have been impossible. Yuj wal dyos! Special thanks to Robert Henderson, Alan Bale, Itamar Kastner, David Basilico, and three anonymous reviewers for extended discussion and valuable feedback on this paper. Thanks also to Lizzie Carolan, Lauren Clemens, Henry Davis, Paulina Elias, Claire Halpert, Heidi Harley, Nick Hopkins, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Omer Preminger, Justin Royer, and to audiences at McGill, Minnesota, and CILLA VII. This work was supported in part by an SSHRC Connection Grant (Co-PI Pedro Mateo Pedro). Errors in data or interpretation are of course my own.

References

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. York Papers in Linguistics 2.10, 1–21.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68.1, 43–80.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith, England, Nora C. & Maldonado, Roberto Zavala (eds.). 2017. The Mayan languages (Routledge Language Famliy Series), New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, doi:10.1515/9783110197723.4.187.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Borer, Hagit & Schäfer, Florian (eds.). 2014. The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.4, 737–778; doi:10.1023/A:1025533719905.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Grant. 2015. Non-verbal predicate constructions in Yucatec Maya. Ms., University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In Coon et al. (eds.), 111–134.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20.2, 219–251.Google Scholar
Baquiax, Barreno Modesto, Mateo, Rigoberto Juárez, Mejía, Fernando Rodríguez & Pérez, María Magdalena. 2005. Yaq’b’anil stxolilal ti’ Q’anjob’al: Gramática descriptiva Q’anjob’al. Guatemala: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 2012. The antipassive and its relation to scalar structure. In Cuervo, María Cristina & Roberge, Yves (eds.), The end of argument structure?, 75–104. UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Coon, Jessica & Henderson, Robert. 2016. Introduction to Mayan linguistics. Language & Linguistics Compass 10.10, 453–454.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Implicit arguments. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993. On Ergativity and Ergative Unergatives. In Phillips, Colin (ed.), Papers on case and agreement II, vol. 19 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), 45–88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16.1, 1–41.Google Scholar
Buenrostro, Cristina. 2004. El sufijo -an en el Chuj de San Mateo Ixtatán. Anales de Antropología 38, 255–267.Google Scholar
Buenrostro, Cristina. 2013. La voz en Chuj de San Mateo Ixtatán. Ph.D. dissertation, El Colegio de México, Mexico.Google Scholar
Carolan, Elizabeth. 2015. An exploration of tense in Chuj. In Pomerleau, Marc & Gendron-Pontbriand, Eve-Marie (eds.), Revue de l’édition 2014 de VocUM. Montreal, QC: Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A.. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambidge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren Eby. 2014. Prosodic noun incorporation and verb-initial syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambidge, MA.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren Eby & Coon, Jessica. To appear. Deriving verb initial order in Mayan. Language.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2010. Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Doctoral, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2012. Split ergativity and transitivity in Chol. Lingua 122, 241–256.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2016. Mayan morphosyntax. Language & Linguistics Compass 10.10, 515–550.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2017. Little-v agreement and templatic morphology in Ch’ol. Syntax 20.2, 101–137.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Carolan, Elizabeth. 2017. Nominalization and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan. Glossa 2.1, 1–35.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane & Travis, Lisa (eds.). 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Mateo Pedro, Pedro & Preminger, Omer. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14.2, 179–242.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Preminger, Omer. 2009. Positional roots and case absorption. In Avelino, Heriberto, Coon, Jessica & Norcliffe, Elisabeth (eds.), New Perspectives in Mayan Linguistics: Proceedings of SSILA 2008 (The Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas), 35–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1979. The antipassive and Jacaltec. In Martin, Laura (ed.), Papers in Mayan linguistics, vol. 1, 139–164. Lucas Brothers.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1986. Jacaltec noun classifiers. Lingua 70, 241–284.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81–95. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 1997. Deep unaccusativity and zero syntax in St’át’imcets. In Mendikoetxea, A. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology–syntax interface (Supplements of the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology), 55–96. Bilbao: ASJU.Google Scholar
Day, Christopher. 1973. The Jacaltec langauge, vol. 12 (Language Science Monographs), Indiana University.Google Scholar
Dayley, Jon. 1981. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2, 3–82.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Domingo Pascual, Pascual Martín. 2007. Stzolalil stz’ib’chaj ti’ Chuj/Gramática normativa Chuj. Guatemala: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.Google Scholar
England, Nora. 1983. A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora. 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57, 446–486.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 2004. Adjectives in Mam. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 125–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. & Zavala, Roberto. 2013. Mayan languages. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford bibliographies in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 429–492.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & de Swart, Henriëtte. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
García Pablo, Gaspar & Pascual Martín Domingo Pascual. 2007. Gramática descriptiva Chuj. Guatemala: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.1, 39–100.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Sánchez, Pedro. 2004. Las clases de verbos intransitivos y el alineamiento agentivo en el Chol de Tila, Chiapas. MA thesis, CIESAS, México.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale & Keyser (eds.), 53–109.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicates. In Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Complex predicates, 29–66. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Hale & Keyser (eds.), 111–176.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40.3, 225–276.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2017. The ‘bundling’ hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In D’Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene & Gallego, Ángel (eds.), The verbal domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1994. ‘Te xa setel xulem’ [The buzzards were circling] – Categories of verbal roots in (Zinacantec) Tzotzil. Linguistics 32.4–5, 691–741.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert. 2012. Morphological alternations at the intonational phrase edge: The case of K’ichee’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.3, 741–787.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert. 2016. Mayan semantics. Language & Linguistic Compass 10.10, 551–588.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert. 2017. The roots of measurement. Ms., University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Nicholas. 1967. The Chuj language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Nicholas. 2012a. A dictionary of the Chuj Mayan Language. Tallahassee, FL: Jaguar Tours.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Nicholas. 2012b. Noun classifiers of the Chuchumatán Mayan languages: A case of diffusion from Otomanguean. International Journal of American Linguistics 78.3, 411–427.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2, 251–299.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 77–138.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Phillips, Colin (eds.), Papers on Case and Agreement I, vol. 18 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), 149–172. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39.1, 55–101.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Lisa. 2007. The roots of verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Levinson, Lisa. 2014. The ontology of roots and verbs. In Alexiadou et al. (eds.), 208–229.Google Scholar
Lois, Ximena. 2011. Roots and patterns in Yucatecan languages. In Shklovsky, Kirill, Mateo Pedro, Pedro & Coon, Jessica (eds.), Proceedings of FAMLi: Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics. Cambidge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lois, Ximena & Vapnarsky, Valentina. 2006. Root indeterminacy and polyvalence in Yukatekan Mayan languages. In Lois, Ximena & Vapnarsky, Valentina (eds.), Lexical categories and root classes in Amerindian languages, 69–115. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Agreement and agreement projections. In Laka, Itziar & Mahajan, Anoop (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: Functional heads and clause structure, 217–252. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegen, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa & Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC 21), vol. 4.2 (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics), 201–225. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Martínez Cruz, Victoriano. 2007. Los adjetivos y conceptos de propiedad en Chol. MA thesis, CIESAS, México.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19.1, 153–197.Google Scholar
Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2011. The acquisition of unaccusativity in Q’anjob’al Maya. Ms., Harvard University.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Judith M. 1976. Chuj intransitives: Or when can an intransitive verb take an object? Journal of Mayan Linguistics 1, 128–140.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60, 847–894.Google Scholar
Nash, Lea. 1996. The internal ergative subject hypothesis. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi (ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS 26), 195–210. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 4), 157–189. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Piedrasanta, Ruth. 2009. Los Chuj, unidad y rupturas en su espacio. Guatemala City, Guatemala: Amrar Editores.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Antipassives. In Coon et al. (eds.), 308–331.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Doctoral, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head–complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18.2, 267–310.Google Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2016. Classifiers, pronouns, and referentiality in Chuj (Mayan). BA Honours Thesis, Concordia University.Google Scholar
Royer, Justin. To appear. Noun and numeral classifiers in Chuj (Mayan). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions. In England, Nora (ed.), Papers in Mayan linguistics, 169–187. The Curators of the University of Missouri.Google Scholar
Spreng, Bettina. 2006. Antipassive morphology and case assignment in Inuktitut. In Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane & Ndayiragije, Juvenal (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 247–270. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Vázquez Álvarez, Juan J.2011. A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas Austin, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1992. Kompositionsprinzipien und grammatische Struktur. In Suchsland, Peter (ed.), Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache, 175–248. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory), Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15.1, 181–227.Google Scholar
Zavala, Roberto. 2000. Multiple classifier sytems in Akatek (Mayan). In Senft, Gunter (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 114–146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar