Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
New Chapter 4
4 OBC and UBC in Yaqui.
The purpose of this chapter is to present the a description and OT analysis ofOrdinary Balanced Coordination (OBC) and Unbalanced Coordination (UBC). It isimportant to point out that the third typological possibility, the Extraordinary BalancedCoordination (EBC) was not attested in Yaqui. In the first part I describe the OBC and theUBC., After that it is shown that the UBC should be classified at least as semanticcoordination because it fits to with several tests used in Yuasa and Sadock’s (2002)analysis: The construction respects the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), theconstruction is reversible and backward pronominalization is not allowed, among others. Inthe final part I present the OT constraints and analysis.
4.1 Verbal coordination.This section explores verbal conjuncts, i.e. verbs, and verb phrases, as well as
clausal conjuncts. We will see that it is difficult to separate verbal coordination fromsentence coordination because the language does not allow the conjunction of verbal heads.Next, the reader will find a description of the main characteristics of these types ofcoordinations.
4.1.1 Verbal Balanced Coordination.In what follows we can see that in general, verbal coordination could be consideredbalanced in Yaqui. Next, I define the term and present the evidence for the balancedness.
4.1.1.1 Definition of verbal balanced coordination.The concept of Verbal Balanced coordination as used here refers to a situation
where both coordinated verbs are inflected in the ordinary way by tense, aspect and mood,and various agreement features such as person and number. i.e. it is the opposite of theUnbalanced coordination of Johannessen (1998).
The nNext example [You could just do a search and replace for “Next example”,with ‘match case’ turned on, replacing it universally with ‘The next example’; this is acommon phrase in your writing… :)] illustrates ordinary balanced coordination. It showsthat both verbs (therey could be more) are inflected the same. Both are marked for pPasttense. Then, fFor this type of examples, coordination is balanced. The example containstwo intransitive verbs.
(1) U ili usi [chept-e-k into buit-e-k]DET small boy [jump-INTR-PST and run-INTR-PST]DET pequeño muchacho [saltar-INTR-PST y correr-INTR-PST]‘The boy jumped and ran’‘El niño saltó y corrió’
4.1.1.24.1.1.1 Yaqui coordination tends to be balanced for tense.
2
With respect to tense, Yaqui coordinated verbs can be inflected the same in the past(as above), present and future. The nNext example contains two bare verbs. A Yaqui verbwithout inflection signals a continuous present:
(2)(1) Yoi [bwika into ye’e](non-yaqui) man [sing:PTE and dance:PTE]Hombre (no yaqui) [cantar:PTE y bailar:PTE]‘The (non yaqui) man is singing and dancing’‘El hombre (no yaqui) está cantando y bailando’
The next sentence contains verbs in the future tense:
(3)(1) U uusi [chept-i-ne into buit-i-ne]DET boy [jump-INTR-FUT and run-INTR-FUT]DET muchacho [saltar-Intr-INTR-FUT y correr-INTR-FUT]‘The boy will jump and will run’‘El muchacho saltará y correrá’
Can the two verbs be inflected for different tenses? As in,
He arrived yesterday and he will leave tomorrow.However, as we will see in the section about verbal unbalanced coordination, tense
is the feature where is possible to find unbalancedness.
4.1.1.34.1.1.1 Yaqui verbal coordination is balanced for number.
In relation to other features such as person and number, Yaqui verbs, in general,don’t mark them. They don’t mark gender either. However, there are a set of suppletiveverbs for which are conditioned by number and some few verbs that use the reduplicationfor marking plurality., Tthose can be tested for to knowing discover how they behaveunder coordination. The nNext example indicates that verbal coordination is balanced inthis respect: Both conjuncts require being their plural forms:
(4)(1) Bempo torimme-u [{saja-k/ *siika} into3PL Torim-DIR {go:PL-PST/*go:SG:PST} and3PL Torim-DIR {ir:PL:PST/*ir:SG:PST} y
aman ko-kocho-k]there RED:PL-sleep-PST]ahí RED:PL-dormir-PST]‘They went to Torim and slept there’‘Ellos fueron a Torim y durmieron ahí’
4.1.1.44.1.1.1 Yaqui verbal coordination is balanced for aspect.
3
The following example indicates that the verbal coordination is balanced for aspecttoo. Each verb can be inflected by different aspectual suffixes. It is not the case that onedepends onf the other for aspectual interpretation. In the following example, the inceptivesuffix –taite ‘began’ does not affect the meaning of the first conjunct, showing that bothverbs have independent aspect.
(5) A maala-wa [hoara-u yepsa-k into aman jichik-taite-k]His mother-POS [house-DIR arrive:SG-PST and there sweep-INCEP-PST]Su mamá-POS [casa-DIR llegar:SG-PST y allá barrer-INCEP-PST]‘His mother arrived to the home and began to sweep there’‘Su mamá llegó a la casa y empezó a barrer allá’
4.1.1.5 Yaqui verbal coordination is balanced for mood.Mood is balanced too in verbal coordination. The example in what follows indicates
that the reduplication marks modality over the last conjunct but it does not affect themeaning of the first conjunct. I.e. the “decide” meaning introduced by the reduplicationdoes not spread to the first conjunct.
(6) Aapo pueplo betana yepsa-k into ji’i-bwa-ba-bae-kHe town from arrive:SG-PST and something-eat-RED:DECIDE-INTENT-PST
Él pueblo desde llegar:SG-PST y algo-comer-RED:DECIDE-INTENT-PST
‘He arrived from the town and decided to eat something’ (‘*He decided to arrivefrom the town and decided to eat something’)
‘El llegó del pueblo y decidió comer algo’(‘*El decidió llegar desde el pueblo ydecidió comer algo’)
4.1.1.6 Yaqui verbal coordination respects the CSC.Ross (1967) proposed the Coordinated Structure Constraint (CSC) which satates
that extraction can not occur from inside a coordinate structure. The exploration of yaquidata shows that the CSC is respected (See section 4.1.4.1.2).
4.1.2 Verbal Unbalanced Coordination.In this section we are going to see that Yyaqui verbal coordination has only one of
the two typological patterns (assigning and receiving types) proposed by Johannessen(1998): the receiving type. The assigning type is ruled out because the language does notallow verbal head coordination and therefore, it is not possible to find a situation where thefeatures of the objects enter in conflict.
4.1.1.14.1.2.1 Definition of verbal Unbalanced coordination.The descriptive concept of verbal unbalanced coordination that I use, is that
suggested by Johannessen (1998). It is split into two types of unbalancedness: TherReceiving type of UC and the assigning type of UC. The first one happens when “one verbis inflected in the ordinary way; by tense, aspect and mood, and various agreement featuressuch as person and number. The other conjunct(s) occur(s) in their base form, or in some orother non?infinite form” (Johannessen 1998:34).
Amharic (Johannessen 1998:34):(7) [yi-rramm_-inna yi-r_t’-al
3SG:M-walk-and 3SG:M-run-3SG.M:NON-PAST
3SG:M-caminar-y 3SG:M-correr-3SG:M:NON-PAST
4
‘He walks and (then) runs/will run.’‘El caminó y (entonces) corrió/correrá’
The second one happens when “the verbs in each conjunct have differentsubcategorization properties; they assign, e.g., different case to their complements”(Johannessen 1998:38).
German (Rolf Thieroff, cited in Johannessen 1998:38):(8) Maria [begrüsste und half] dem / *den Mann
María greeted and helped the:DAT/ *the.ACC manMaría saludó y ayudó al.DAT/ *al: AC hombre‘María greeted and helped the man’‘María saludó y ayudó al hombre’
(9) Maria [half und begrüsste] *dem / den MannMaría helped and greeted *the:DAT/ the:ACC manMaría ayudó y saludó *al:DAT/ al: AC hombre‘María helped and greeted the man’‘María ayudó y saludó al hombre’
4.1.2.1.1 Yaqui lacks the Assigning type of UBC.
With respect to the assigning type of UC, the data indicate that Yaqui does not seemto present case conflicts. The language marks nominative with zero marker and non-nominative singular with –ta (the plural –(i)m never co-occurs with –ta ‘NNom:Sg’). Twoclasses of ditransitive verbs (Escalante 1990) which could potentially enter in conflict wereanalyzed. Those requiring to mark the object marker with –ta ‘NNom:Sg’ vs. thoserequiring to mark the object with –ta-u ‘NNom:Sg-DIR’. The contrast is shown below:
(10) Inepo peo-ta bachi-ta miika-k1SG Peter-NNOM:SG corn-NNOM:SG gift-PST
1SG Pedro- NNOM:SG maíz- NNOM:SG regalar-PST
‘I gifted corn to Peter’‘Yo le regalé maíz a Pedro’
(11) Inepo peo-ta-u bachi-ta nenka-k1SG Peter- NNOM:SG-DIR corn- NNOM:SG sell-PST
1SG Pedro- NNOM:SG-DIR maíz- NNOM:SG vender-PST
‘I sold corn to Peter’‘Yo le vendí maíz a Pedro’
Under coordination each sentence gets its owns arguments,. I.e. each transitive verbmust have their its objects. There is never the a case where a single object could be“shared” by both verbs, suggesting that in Yyaqui, more than verbal coordination we have
5
clausal coordination [well, VP coordination, at least]. Moreover, the conjuncts could beconsidered as to be balanced:
(12) Inepo [peo-ta-u bachi-ta nenka-k] 1SG [Peter- NNOM:SG-DIR corn- NNOM:SG sell-PST]1SG [Pedro-NNOM:SG-DIR maíz- NNOM:SG vender-PST]
into [a-a=miika-k]and [3NNOM:SG-3NNOM:SG=gift-PST]y [3NNOM:SG-3NNOM:SG=regalar-PST]‘I sold and gifted corn to Peter’‘Yo le vendí y regalé maíz a Pedro’
(13) Inepo [peo-ta bachi-ta miika-k] into1SG [Peter- NNOM:SG corn- NNOM:SG gift-PST] and1SG [Pedro- NNOM:SG maíz- NNOM:SG regalar-PST] y
[a-w-a= nenka-k][3NNOM:SG-DIR-3NNOM:SG sell-PST][3NNOM:SG-DIR-3NNOM:SG regalar-PST]‘I gifted and sold corn to Peter’‘Yo le regalé y vendí maíz a Pedro’
In relation to tTransitive predicates, the following examples indicate that Yaquicoordinated verbs require both objects. In general, two transitive verbs can not becoordinated as like the two intransitives. Each verb requires its own object in overt syntax,so hence the following contrast. It shows too that coordination is balanced: each verbrequires its own tense marking and it’s object argument.
(14) Joan [karo-m jinu] into [am=nenka]John [car-PL buy:PTE] and [3NNOM-PL=sell:PTE]Juan [carro- PL comprar:PTE] y [3NNOM-PL=vender:PTE]‘John buys and sells cars’‘Juan compra y vende carros’
(15) *Joan karom jinu into nenka John car- PL buy:PTE and sell:PTE
Juan carros comprar:PTE y vender:PTE
(‘John buys and sells cars’) (‘Juan compra y vende carros’)
6
4.1.2.1.2 Yaqui has a Receiving type of U?BC. [sometimes you useUBC as the abbreviation, and sometimes UC; should beconsistent]
Yaqui has a verbal construction that can be classified as receiving type UBC. Ithappens in serial verb constructions as like the following one. IOn it, the verbs of the seriesare marked with the suffix –kai ‘SUB’ and only the last one is marked for tense. Let’s callthese kind of examples –kai-constructions.
(16) u yoi a karo-wa tucha-kai,DET (non-yaqui)man 3NNOM:SG car-POS stop-SUB
DET hombre(no-yaqui) 3NNOM:SG carro-POS parar-SUB
u-ka liacho-ta tobokta-kai,DET-NNOM:SG bag- NNOM:SG take-SUB
DET-NNOM:SG bolsa- NNOM:SG tomar-SUB
a kari-wa bicha wee-taite-kai3NNOM:SG house-POS toward go:SG-begin-SUB
3NNOM:SG casa-POS hacia ir:SG-emperzar-SUB
U-ka pueta-ta etapo-kai,DET-NNOM:SG door-NNOM:SG open-SUB
DET-NNOM:SG puerta-NNOM:SG abrir-SUB
a jubia-wa tebotua-k3NNOM:SG wife-POS greed-PST
3NNOM:SG esposa-POS saludar-PST
‘The man stopped his car, took the bag, went to his house, opened the doorand greeted his wife’‘El hombre paró su carro, tomó su bolsa, se fue a su casa, abrió la puerta ysaludó a su mujer’
4.1.3 Verbal chaining structures: –kai-construction.Because of their status as UBCUC? (Johannessen 1998) or as Pseudo-subordination
(Yuasa and Sadock 2002), the –kai-constructions deserve being to be described andanalyzed for their theoretical implications. For that reason, in what follows it is shown firstthat the –kai suffix can be considered to be a subordinator and second, that someconstructions where it appears are tied to what can be considered as coordination.
4.1.1.14.1.3.1 –kai as a subordinating particle.Most researchers of the language (Dedrick and Casad (199?), Escalante (…), Jelinek
and Escalante (…) a.o., treat –kai as a subordinating particle. My own data tend to confirmthis claim. But there are subtle uses that are important to clarify. The nNext exampleindicates a common use of -kai as subordinating particle; generally it has a gerundivemeaning:
(17) Maria tajkaim ya’a-su-kai am=bwa-kaMaria tortillas make-TERM-SUB 3SG:NNOM:PL=eat-PST
7
María tortillas hacer-TERM-SUB 3SG:NNOM:PL=comer- PST
‘After finishing making tortillas, Maria ate them’‘Después de terminar de hacer tortillas, María se las comió’
Even semantic cases where we can talk about pseudosubordination must be treatedsyntactically as adjoined clauses. Example (18) can be interpreted semantically ascoordinate or subordinate, but their syntactic marking is clearly subordinated (the Yaquilanguage does not have a copulative marker).
(18) U yoi tebe-ta-kai anukichiThe (non-yaqui) man tall-NNOM:SG-SUB liarEl hombre (no-yaqui) alto-NNOM:SG-SUB mentiroso‘That white man is tall and a liar/ that withe man, being tall, is a liar’‘Ese hombre blanco es alto y mentiroso/ ese hombre blanco, siendo alto, esmentiroso’
4.1.1.24.1.3.2 Characteristics of the –kai-construction.
This section describes the characteristics of –kai-constructions. The most salient arethe following: Tense is marked only in the final conjunct, the order of the conjuncts tend tobe fixed, the subject is shared between the conjuncts, the particle –kai is obligatory on eachverb of the series, the subjects are not repeated in the –kai-clause, the particle –kai onlyadjoins to predicates, –kai-constructions tend to be interpreted as a single event, thecoordinator can not occur between the –kai-clauses in a series (except some cases that wewill describe).
4.1.1.1.14.1.3.2.1 Tense is marked only in the final conjunct.
As we can see in the next example, only the final verb is inflected for tense,however, all the whole construction is understood as past tense. For Yuasa and Sadock(2002) this is an indication that we have a structure where only the tense feature in the lastconjunct percolates up to the mother node.
(19) U jamut jichi-kai, sankoa-ta nauDET:SG womansweep-SUB, garbage-NNOM:SG togetherDET:SG Mujer barrer-SUB, basura-NNOM:SG junta
toja-kai, mekka goota-kpick up- SUB, away throw- PST
recoger- SUB, lejos tirar- PST
‘The woman swept, pick up the garbage and threow it away’‘La mujer barrió, recogió la basura y la tiró lejos’
4.1.1.1.24.1.3.2.2 The order of the conjuncts tends to be fixed.Because chaining structures usually indicates narrative progression, the order of the
conjuncts tends to be fixed, as we can see in the following example, the –kai-clauses mustprecede the tensed one.
8
(20) Yoeme ye’e-kai, bwika-kai, jita(Yaqui) man dance-SUB , sing-SUB somethingHombre (yaqui) bailar- SUB, cantar-SUB algo
je’e-kai into kocho-ka-n u pasko-podrink-SUB and sleep-PST-CONT DET feast-LOC
tomar-SUB y dormir- PST-CONT DET fiesta-LOC
‘The yaqui man danced, sang, drank something and slept in the feast’‘El yaqui bailó, cantó, tomó algo y se durmió’
If we try to reverse the order, extrapossing the –kai-clauses, the sentence becomeshighly degraded:
(21) *Yoeme pasko-po kocho-ka-n, yi’i-su-kai(Yaqui) man feast-LOC sleep- PST-CONT dance-TERM-SUB,Hombre (yaqui) fiesta-LOC dormir- PST-CONT bailar-TERM-SUB,
bwik-su-kai, into jita je’e-su-kaising-TERM-SUB, and something drink-TERM-SUB,cantar-TERM-SUB, y algo tomar-TERM-SUB,(‘The yaqui man slept in the feast, after finishing dancing, singing anddrinking something’)
[What about if the postposed -kai clauses are intended to be cotemporaeous with the mainverb? That is, what if they get a ‘while’ interpretation? Maybe compare cases like ‘Shakingthe rattles, the deer dancer danced’ vs. ‘The deer dancer danced, shaking the rattles.’
Even under in split or discontinuous series the sentence is not totally acceptable.Therefore, there must be a pragmatic constraint playing a role that avoids the otherwise socommon discontinuous coordination (see nominal coordination).
(22) ?Joan pasko-po yi’i-su-kai kocho-k intoJohn feast-LOC dance-TERM-SUB, sleep- PST andJuan fiesta-LOC bailar-TERM-SUB, dormir- PST y
buik-su-kai into jita ji’i-su-kai.sing-TERM-SUB, and something drink- TERM-SUB,cantar-TERM-SUB, y algo beber- TERM-SUB,‘John finished dancing in the feast and slept, and finished singing andfinished drinking something’‘Juan terminó de bailar y se durmió y terminó de cantar y terminó de tomaralgo’
9
4.1.1.1.34.1.3.2.3 The subject is shared between the conjuncts.
The previous examples, as the next one, show that the suffix –kai is only used insubjectless missing constructions:
(23) Maala yoowe traste-ta baksia-kai, teopo-u siika Motherold dish-NNOM:SG wash-SUB church-DIR go:SG:PST
Mamá vieja traste-NNOM:SG lavar-SUB iglesia-DIR ir:SG:PST
‘The grandmother washed the dishes, and went to the church’‘La abuela lavó los trastes y fue a la iglesia’
So, the following example containing different subjects can not get the –kai suffix.Each verb is marked obligatorily for tense in the series. [and presumably the into isnecessary between these clauses? Earlier you said that the into could not co-occur with the -kai suffixes? So when you were testing the -kai variant here, I assume you left out theintos?]
(24) Maala yoowe traste-ta baksia-{k/*-kai}, umeMotherold dish-NNOM:SG wash-{PST/*-SUB}, DET:PL
Mamá vieja traste-NNOM:SG lavar-{PST/*-SUB}, DET:PL
ili usi-m into bu-busa-{k/*-kai}, into bem small child-PL and RED-get up-{PST/*-SUB}, and theirchicos niño-PL y RED-levantar-{PST/*-SUB}, y su
mala-wa into bem achai-wa teopo-u saja-kmother-POS and their father-POS church-DIR go:PL-PST
mamá-POS y su padre-POS iglesia-DIR ir:PL-PST
‘The grandmother washed the dishes, the children got up and their mother and theirfather went to the church’‘La abuela lavó los trastes, los niños se levantaron y su mamá y su papá fueron a laiglesia’
4.1.1.1.44.1.3.2.4 The particle –kai is obligatory on each verb of theseries.
The nNext example indicates that the particle -kai is obligatory over each clause. Anuninflected verb is not acceptable.
(25) Joan Peo-ta ji’osia-m jinu-ria-*(kai)John Peter-NNOM:SG book-PL buy-BENEF-SUB
Juan Pedro- NNOM:SG libro-PL comprar-BENEF-SUB
a-w-am bit-tua-k
10
3NNOM:SG-DIR-3NNOM:PL see-CAUS-PST
3NNOM:SG-DIR-3NNOM:PL ver-CAUS-PST
‘John bought a book for Peter and sent it to him’‘Juan le compró un libro a Pedro y se lo envió’
4.1.1.1.54.1.3.2.5 Subjects are not repeated in the –kai-clause.
The subject can not be repeated in the -kai-clause; however, if the person has anavailable clitic pronoun, this can occur (usually in the subject position of the tensed clause[can it occur as a clitic at all in the -kai clause?]).
(26) Inepo yeepsa-kai, yeste-kai, nim juubi1SG arrive:SG-PST sit:SG-SUB 1POS:SG wife1SG llegar:SG-PST sentar:SG-SUB 1POS:SG esposa
bitchu-su-kai, (nee) a tebotua-baesee-TERM-SUB, (1SG) her greet-INTENT
ver-TERM-SUB, (1SG) a ella saludar-INTENT
‘I will arrive, will seat down, will see my wife and I will greet her’‘Yo llegaré, me sentaré, terminaré de ver a mi esposa y la saludaré’
4.1.1.1.64.1.3.2.6 The particle –kai only adjoins to predicates.The particle –kai can be added to lexical words functioning as predicates. It is
important to note that only verbal constructions give rise to UBC, other -kai-predicatesseem to function like adjuncts. Examples:
(27) Verbal bwiika-kai ‘singing’Adjectival teebe-kai ‘being tall’Nominal chu’u-ta-kai ‘being a dog’Numeral goi-kai ‘being two’Adverbial mekka-kai ‘being far away’Determiner *hu’u-kaiPronominal *bempo-kai
The following example contains two adjectival –kai-clauses. As we can see, acoordinator is possible between those –kai clauses. That is not an allowed pattern in verbal–kai-chaining. [wow! this is really, really really surprising and interesting to me! Is it justpossible, or is it necessary with these adjectival -kai constructions? all the examples belowhave into in them…] Additionally, the tense interpretation in (30) does not depend onf thetensed verb; it has a gerundive meaning as usual in subordinated –kai-constructions [well,these are individual-level predicates, not stage-level predicates. To see any temporaldependence, I would expect that you would have to use stage-level predicates. For example,something like ‘Being weary and (being) hungry, they decided to go home’ <-- hunger andweariness are in the past (vs. ‘Being tired and being hungry, they are going home’, wherethe hunger and weariness are in the present. Interestingly, in English, ‘Being tired andbeing hungry, they will go home’ can only have the present-tense interpretation for the
11
adjuncts, not a future-tense interpretation… weird. But anyway, the tense is dependent onthe main verb to a degree, with stage-level predicates. I bet you could show that even verbal -kai constructions are temporally independentof the main verb if it’s an individual level verb, like e.g. ‘know’ — ‘Knowing English,Mary could talk to the border agent’, vs. ‘Knowing English, Mary will be able to talk to theborder agent.’ ).
(28) Te-tebe-kai into wa-wakila-kai emo tu’ure.RED:PL-tall-SUB and RED:PL-thin-SUB REFL like-PTE
RED:PL-alta-SUB y RED:PL-delgada-Sub REFL querer-PTE
‘Being tall and thin they believe that they are beautiful’‘Siendo altas y delgadas se creen bonitas’
(29) Aman mekka-le-kai into a obiachi-le-kai kaaThere far away-believe-SUB and 3NNOM:SG difficult-believe-SUB notAllá lejos-creer-SUB y 3NNOM:SG difícil-creer-SUB no
aman wee-baetThere go:SG-INTENT
Allá ir:SG-INTENT
‘B(He) believing that it is far away and believing that it is difficult, he willnot want to go there’‘(Él) Creyendo que allá está lejos y creyendo que eso está difícil no querráir’
4.1.1.1.74.1.3.2.7 –Kkai-constructions tend to be interpreted as a singleevent.
In the nNext example, where a clause is marked with –kai ‘SUB’ (and there is not anopen coordinator) can be considered as to be one event composed of two single sub-events.They are seen as occurring at the same time or one immediately after the other. This seemsto be a case of real subordination.
(30) Diana chu’u-ta ibakta-kai a=muk-tua-kDiana dog-NNOM:SG embrace-SUB 3NNOM:SG=die-CAUS-PST
Diana perro-NNOM:SG abrazar-SUB 3NNOM:SG-morir=CAUS-PST
‘Diana, embracing the dog, left it dead’‘Diana abrazando el perro lo dejó morir’
However, examples like the following contrast with the previous one. In the nextexample the clauses can not be seen as occurring at the same time, they only expresssequentiality of events. Because of that, the sentence can be translated as a coordinatestructure in English and Spanish. In other words, we have a different degree of unionbetween clauses. The status of subordinated is not easy to maintain in next example.
(31) Diana chu’u-ta bicha-kai a=ibakta-kaiDiana dog-NNOM:SG see-SUB 3NNOM:SG=embrace-SUB
12
Diana perro-NNOM:SG ver-SUB 3NNOM:SG abrazar-SUB
into a=muk-tua-kand 3NNOM:SG=die-CAUS-PST
y 3NNOM:SG=morir-CAUS-PST
‘Diana saw the dog, embraced it and left it dead’‘Diana vio el perro, lo abrazó y lo dejó morir’
huh… but here, you have an into between the -kai clause and the main verb—I thought intowas barred from sequences of verbal -kai constructions?? Maybe it can occur after the -kaisbut before the main verb? If that’s true, then this should maybe be included as one of thedistributional locations of into that you discuss in the previous chapters. Can otheradverbials appear in this position? If they do, do they take scope over the whole sequenceof -kai clauses?
There are examples where formally, the clause marked with –kai is subordinated,but semantically seem to be coordinated, givingen rise what Sadock and Yuasa (2002) callpseudosubordination:
(32) Aapo jikkaja-kai Maria-ta bitchu3SG hear-SUB Maria-NNOM:SG stare:PTE
3SG oir-SUB María-NNOM:SG ver fijamente:PTE
‘(S)he heards (something) and stared at Mary’‘El/ella oye (algo, no a María) y ve fijamente a María’
4.1.1.1.84.1.3.2.8 The coordinator can not occur between the –kai-clauses in a series.
The example (33) indicates that the suffix –kai ‘SUB’ can not appear between the -kai-clauses. However, it can appear between the last –kai-clause and the tensed one. Ah,ok.
(33) Inepo yeepsa-kai, (*into) yeste-kai, (*into) nim juubi1SG arrive-SUB, (*and) sit down-SUB, (*and) my wife1SG llegar-SUB, (*y) sentarse-SUB, (*y) mi esposa
bitchu-su-kai, (into) ne a= tebotua-baesee-TERM-SUB, (and) 1SG 3NNOM:SG greet-INTENT
ver-TERM-SUB, (y) 1SG 3NNOM:SG saludar-INTENT
‘I will arrive, (I) will sit down, (I) will see my wife and (I) will greet hHer’‘Yo llegaré, me sentaré, veré a mi esposa y la saludaré’
4.1.1.1.1.14.1.3.2.8.1 Interaction of -kai and the particle into ‘and’.
It is very common to have only the jyuxtaposition of –kai clauses, without the use ofthe particle into ‘and’. The nNext example is a case where the particle into ‘and’ can notoccur between them. As we saw before, the construction is grammatical only if the subjectis the controller of the series.
13
(34) U ili jamut yepsa-kai jichik-taite-kDET small woman arrive-SUB browse-INCEP-PST
DET pequeño mujer llegar- SUB barrer-INCEP-PST
‘The woman, (after) arriving, began to browse’‘La mujer, llegando, empezó a barrer’
The sentence becomes ungrammatical if into ‘and’ appears between both verbs:
(35) *U ili jamut yepsa-kai into jichik-taite-kDET small woman arrive-SUB and browse-INCEP-PST
DET pequeña mujer llegar-SUB y barrer-INCEP-PST
(‘The woman arrived and began to browse’)(‘La mujer llegó y empezó a barrer’)
However, in serial constructions, when two or more sentences with –kai ‘SUB’ areput together the particle into ‘and’ can appear optionally between the final -kai clause adthe finite verbs.
(36) u achai jibwa-kai, joboa-kai, mam-baksia-kai (into) aDET father eat-SUB, full-SUB hand-wash-SUB (and) hisDET padre comer-SUB lleno-SUB mano-lavar-SUB (y) su
Ili usi-m-meu etejo-taite-kSmall child-PL-with talk-begin-PST
Pequeño niño-PL-con hablar-empezar-PST
‘The father eat, (became) full, washed his hands and began to talk to their children’‘El padre comió, se llenó, lavó sus manos y empezó a hablar a sus hijos’
Even with the same subject the language has the option of marking each verb fortense, but in that case -kai cannot appear, and into ‘and’ can appear between each conjunct.The tendency is to have in overt syntax only the last into ‘and’ in the series. [ok, good --very clear. is that last into mandatory, or can it be omitted?] The suffix –kai can not co-occur with any other tense marker, -k ‘PST’ for example.
(37) u achai jibwa-k(*-kai) (into) joboa-k (into) mam-baksia-kDET father eat-PST(*-SUB)(and) full-SUB (and) hand-wash-SUB
DET padre comer-PST(*-SUB)(y) lleno-SUB (y) mano-lavar-SUB
into a ili usi-m-meu etejo-taite-kand 3NNom:Sg Small child-PL-with talk-begin-PST
y 3NNom:Sg Pequeño niño-PL-con hablar-empezar-PST
‘The father eatate, (became) full, washed his hands and began to talk to theirchildren’
4.1.1.34.1.3.3 Some -kai clauses are adjoined in Yyaqui.
14
At the syntactic level, -kai constructions are subordinated., (Takano (2004: 171)reaches the same conclusion for similar constructions in Japanese) but as Youasa andSadock (2002) point out, they are coordinated at semantic level.
Takano shows that English verbal coordination poses a problem for conceptionsanalyses? where the verbal inflectional morpheme is located in T in syntax and mergedwith the adjacent verb in the phonological component, because it predicts that only theadjacent verb will fuse with the inflectional morpheme. This situation favors the idea thatthe inflectional morpheme is part of V. However, this researcher Takano considers thatboth types of verbal inflection happen in languages. The contrast between next twosentences shows that in the first case the construction involves a bare verb and an inflectedone. The second case has the first verb affixed with a gerundive particle whereas the secondverb is inflected with -ta.Takano (2004:171):
(38) a. John-ga sono ronbun-o kopiisi fairusitaJohn-NOM that paper-ACC copy filed
b. John-ga sono ronbun-o kopiisi-te fairusitaJohn-NOM that paper-ACC copy-ing filed‘John copied and filed the paper’
So for Japanese, after his analysis, he concludes that only sentence (38a) is an actualcoordination, while sentence (38b) is an example of a subordinated one. He suggests thatbare verbs are conjoined as follows:
(39) T’
VP T
DP V -ta
V1 and V2
In the representation V1 and V2 are bare verbs, and & is a phonetically nullconjunction. Since the tense morpheme is located in T, it will be attached to V2 and V1 willremain bare, given as output the sentence (38a).
The analysis of Yyaqui indicates that it is not possible to have a coordinated bareverb plus a verb marked morphologically for tense where the marked one gives the tensereading for all the whole construction:
(40) U ili uusi buite-k into chepte-kDET small boy run-PST and jump-PST
DET pequeño muchacho correr-PST y brincar-PST
‘The child ran and jumped’
15
‘El niño corrió y brincó’
(41) *U ili uusi buite into chepte-kDET small boy run and jump-PSTDET pequeño muchacho corre y brincar-PST(‘The child ran and jumped’)(‘El niño corrió y brincó’)
But as we saw before, serial verbs are marked with –kai and only the final verb ismarked for tense, giving the tense interpretation for all the verbs. Those cases can betreated as adjoined clauses, similar to (38b). The use of –kai, or into or both: -kai and intoseem to be related to event codification. They are ways in that which Yyaqui indicatesseparateness of events.
I repeat the following examples in order to show separateness of the events. In tThefirst one example, the two events areis more closely tied than the second one, as the glossesindicates. The first example can be a clear example of an adjoined clause, whereas thesecond one is an example of a coordinated one.
(42) Diana chu’u-ta ibakta-kai a=muk-tua-kDiana dog-NNOM:SG embrace-SUB it=die-CAUS-PST
‘Diana embracing the dog, left it died’‘Diana abrazando el perro, lo dejó morir’
(43) Diana chu’u-ta bicha-kai a=ibakta-kaiDiana dog-NNOM:SG see-SUB 3NNOM:SG=embrace-SUB
Diana perro-NNOM:SG ver-SUB 3NNOM:SG abrazar-SUB
into a=muk-tua-kand 3NNOM:SG=die-CAUS-PST
y 3NNOM:SG=morir-CAUS-PST
‘Diana saw the dog, embraced it and left it dead’‘Diana vio el perro, lo abrazó y lo dejó morir’
2.4.1.4 Some -kai clauses are coordinated in yaqui.There is evidence that some –kai clauses are coordinated., Tthe suffix –kai in this
case marks the jointness [cotemporaneousness? not sure what is meant by ‘jointness’] ofthe event. Let’s take the following example that indicates that the coordination of tworelative subordinated relative clauses can not be discontinuous:
(44) *Joan [bocha-reo-ta bicha-ka-me] o-’omte-k John [shoe-NMLZ-NNOM:SG see-PST-NMLZ] RED-aungry-PST
Juan [zapato-NMLZ-NNOM:SG ver-PST-NMLZ] RED-enojado-PST
[into maejto-ta bicha-ka-me][and teacher- NNOM:SG see-PST-NMLZ]
16
[y maestro-NNOM:SG ver-PST-NMLZ](‘John who saw the shoemaker and who saw the teacher was aungry’)
However, if we use the –kai ‘SUB’ marker instead of –me ‘Nmlz’ used forintroducing relative clauses, the sentence becomes grammatical. It has in addition theadverb ketchia ‘too’. In this case, it is hard to maintain that we have the extraposition of arelative coordinated relative phrase. Instead of that, we can claim that we have thecoordination of two sentencesclauses.
(45) Joan [bocha-reo-ta bicha-ka-me o-’omte-k]John [shoe-NMLZ-NNOM:SG see-PST-NMLZ RED-aungry-PST]Juan [zapato-NMLZ-NNOM:SG ver-PST-NMLZ RED-enojar-PST]
[into maejto-ta bicha-kai ketchia][and teacher-NNOM:SG see-PST-SUB too][y maestro-NNOM:SG ver-PST-SUB también]‘John who saw the shoemaker was aungry and (he) saw the teacher too’‘Juan quien vio al zapatero, estaba enojado y (él) vio al maestro también’
In that this case, the into ‘and’ particle can occupy other positions: the coordinatorcould be after a topicalized object in the second conjunct, or it could be even in finalposition. Those patters are attested in actual sentence coordination. The occurrence of theadverbial kechia ‘too’ support the idea that we have a coordinated sentence.
(46) Joan [bocha-reo-ta bicha-ka-me o-’omte-k]John [shoe-NMLZ-NNOM:SG see-PST-NMLZ RED-ungry-PST]Juan [zapato-NMLZ-NNOM:SG ver-PST-NMLZ RED-enojar-PST]
[maejto-ta into bicha-kai ketchia] [teacher-NNOM:SG and see-PST-SUB too]
[maestro-NNOM:SG y ver-PST-SUB también]‘John who saw the shoemaker was aungry and (who) saw the teacher too’‘Juan quien vio al zapatero, estaba enojado y (él) vio al maestro también’
(47) Joan [bocha-reo-ta bicha-ka-me o-’omte-k]John [shoe-NMLZ-NNOM:SG see-PST-NMLZ RED-ungry-PST]Juan [zapato-NMLZ-NNOM:SG ver-PST-NMLZ RED-enojar-PST]
[maejto-ta bicha-kai intoko] Here there’s no ‘ketchia’. Is [teacher-NNOM:SG see-PST-SUB and] ‘intoko’ taking the place of the
‘ketchia’ ?[maestro-NNOM:SG ver-PST-SUB and]‘John who saw the shoemaker was aungry and (who) saw the teacher too’‘Juan, quien vio al zapatero, estaba enojado y (él) vio al maestro también’
Another set of sentences that indicates that –kai constructions can be coordinated isthe following. IOn it, the order of the conjuncts tends to be fixed. It is not possible to switchplaces between conjuncts: -kai is always before into ‘and’. The coordinator in these cases is
17
obligatory: [These are nominal predicates… I guess like adjectival predicates, -kaicoordination is ok, even though with verbal ones it is not?]
(48) Malia [mala-wa-ta-kai into papá-wa-i]Mary [mother-POS-NNOM:SG-SUB and father-POS-i]María [mama-POS-NNOM:SG-SUB y papá-POS-i]
diana-ta betchi’ibo Can ‘diana-ta betchi’ibo’Diana-NNOM:SG for occur before the predicate, likeDiana-NNOM:SG para the clitic ‘au’ in 49 below? If so,‘Mary is mother and father for Diana’ these show very odd con-‘María es mamá y papá para Diana’ stituentcy facts!
(49) Malia achai-ta-kai into a-u mala-wa-iMary father-NNOM:SG-SUB and 3NNOM:SG-DIR mother-POS-i‘Mary is father and mother for him/her’‘María es padre y madre para él/ella’
4.1.1.44.1.3.4 –kai-constructions are coordinate at semantic level.In this section I show that we can consider that –kai-constructions are coordinate at thesemantic level. The criteria used for stating that claim are the following (Yuasa & Sadock(2002):a) The construction is reversible and tTruth conditions are preserved, b) Theconstruction obeys the CSC, c) Backward pronominalization is not allowed, d) Any numberof conjuncts can occur in coordinated constructions, e) Scope considerations: undersemantic coordination both conjuncts are affected (ex. by negation).
4.1.1.1.14.1.3.4.1 Analysis.Because –kai-constructions resembles in some aspects to the Japanese -te-
coordination, I applied the semantic criteria used by Yuasa & Sadock (2002) in order to seeif the construction can be considered coordinated (at least at semantic level).
In first place I checked if the construction is reversible and truth conditions arepreserved. As the following example indicates, it fulfills this requisite.
(50) u yoi1 a karo-wa tucha-kai,DET (non-yaqui) man 3NNOM:SG car-POS stop-SUB
DET hombre (no-yaqui) 3NNOM:SG carro-POS parar-SUB
A jubia-wa tebotua-k3NNOM:SG wife-POS greetd-PST
1 The concept yoi or yori is opossed to the concept yoeme. The last one is used for referring to the yaqui men,whereas the first is used for all non yaqui men. These were identified first with the white men that arrived firstto the Yaqui land. Actually, the term is used for all non yaqui person.
18
3NNOM:SG esposa-POS saludó- PST
‘The man stopped the car and greeted his wife’‘El hombre paró el carro y saludó a su esposa’
(51) u yoi a jubia-wa tebotua-kai,The (non-yaqui)man 3NNOM:SG wife-POS greetd-SUB,El hombre(no yaqui) 3NNOM:SG esposa-POS saludar-SUB
a karo-wa tucha-k,3NNOM:SG car-POS stop-PST
3NNOM:SG carro-POS parar-PST
‘The man greeted his wife and stopped the car’‘El hombre saludó a su esposa y paró el carro’
Another criterion for deciding if a –kai-construction is coordinate, is to look at ifit obeys the CSC., This principle states that “in a coordinate structure, no conjunct maybe moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct”Ross (1967:89). [Well, more accurately, it has a continuation which says: “…unless it ismoved out of all conjuncts.” In a sentence like “What did Mary cook and John eat”, it’sok to move ‘what’ out of each conjunct because it’s moved out of both conjuncts.] Wecan take the following –kai-sentence and check the results:
(52) Peo Maria-ta bicha-kai joana-ta jikaja-kPeter Maria-NNOM:SG see-SUB Juana-NNOM:SG hear-PST
Pedro Maria-NNOM:SG ver-SUB Juana- NNOM:SG oir-PST
‘Peter saw Mary and heard Juana’‘Pedro vio a María y escuchó a Juana’
As the following ungrammatical sentences indicate, it is not possible to extract anyof the objects. [But is it possible to extract both the objects, asking the equivalent of ‘Whodid Peter see and hear?’ In that case, the sentence would be obeying the coodinate structurecostraint. The other thing that is puzzling me about these sentences below is that they showwh-movement—the object ‘who’ is in first position—but I thought Hiaki wh-questionswere mostly in situ? is it possible to have movement? Surely it should be something like‘Peo jabeta bichakai Joanata jikajak?, or alternatively, ‘Peo Mariata bichakai javetajikajak’? Shouldn’t it? (Actually, if the -kai is an adjunct, one might expect that secondsentence/question to be grammatical…)]The symbol Ø indicates the site of possibleextraction:
(53) *Jabe-ta Peo Ø bicha-kai Joana-ta jikaja-k Who-NNOM:SG Peter Ø see-SUB Juana-NNOM:SG hear-PST
A quién-NNOM:SG Pedro Ø ver-SUB Juana-NNOM:SG oir-PST
(54) *Jabe-ta Peo Maria-ta bicha-kai Ø jikaja-k Who-NNOM:SG Peter Mary-NNOM:SG see-SUB Ø hear-PST
A quien-NNOM:SG Pedro Maria-NNOM:SG ver-SUB Ø oir-PST
19
Because there are some exceptions to the CSC2, Ross (1967) added to it the Acrossthe Board Exception (ABE) Ah, good. Glad you got to that. which allow some specificextractions. So the CSC holds …unless each conjunct properly contains a gap paired withthe same filler. Therefore, the ATE predicts that the following sentence would begrammatical. However, as we can see, the sentence is ungrammatical.
(55) *Jabe-ta Peo Ø bicha-kai Ø jikaja-k Who-NNOM:SG Peter see-SUB hear-PST
A quien-NNOM:SG Pedro ver-SUB oir-PST
The only way to ask in Yaqui for the objects is using Wh-words in each conjunct.But in that case, the use of the coordinator into ‘and’ becomes obligatory and it has to be insecond position. The wh-words are not in situ because they occupy the first position in theconjuncts? hmm -- they look like they’re in the canonical position to me, that is the order ofthe objects with respect to the declarative in 52 is exactly the same. THe only differencebetween 52 and 56 below is that the subject, Peo, has been postposed to the final position ofthe sentence, and has acquired the determiner ‘ju’ (and of course the ‘into’ has popped up).,which is not a canonical position of the object, we have to remember that the language isSOV.
(56) Jabe-ta bicha-kai jabe-ta into jikaja-kWho-NNOM:SG see-SUB who-NNOM:SG and hear-PST
quién-NNOM:SG ver-SUB quién-NNOM:SG y oir-PST
ju Peo?DET Peter?DET Pedro? ‘Who does Peter saw and heard?’‘¿A quién vio y escuchó Pedro?’
(57) *Jabe-ta bicha-kai into jabe-ta jikaja-kWho-NNOM:SG see-SUB and who-NNOM:SG hear-PST
quién-NNOM:SG ver-SUB y quién-NNOM:SG oir-PST
ju PeoDET PeterDET Pedro(‘Who does Peter saw and heard’)(‘A quién vio y escuchó Pedro’)
It is important to point out that even full tensed coordinate sentences have the samesyntactic pattern: It is not possible to extract the object.; Eeach Wh-question occurs in its
2 The CSC have been questioned by researchers working in approaches that avoid the use of empty elements(ex. Sag et al 2003), because it is usually violated. However, Yuasa and Sadock (2002) use it only as a testthat we are faced to semantic coordinated constructions.
20
conjunct. [I think this is consistent with the assumption that Yaqui is a wh-in-situ language,no?] Therefore, the behavior of the –kai-construction is not particular of to it. Rather, i, ithas to be explained by general principles of the Yaqui syntax.
(58) Jabe-ta bicha-k into jabe-ta jikaja-kWho-NNOM:SG see-PST and who-NNOM:SG hear-PST
A quien ver-PST y a quien-NNOM:SG oir-PST
ju PeoDET PeterDET Pedro‘Who does Peter saw and who does he heard’‘A quién vio y a quién escuchó Pedro’
Again, to me, this looks like wh-in-situ, with question words in their canonical objectposition, plus postposing of the subject.
One way to ‘extract’ a non WH-object from a –kai-construction a non WH-object isby postpositing or preposing it. The canonical position for the object is occupied by aresumptive pronoun. In such case, we can not talk about movement.
(59) Jume libro-m, Joan am= ji’oste-kai am= nenka-kThe book-PL, John them= write-SUB them= sell-PST
El libro-PL, Juan los= escribir-SUB los= vender-PST
‘John wrote the book(s) and sell sold it (them)’‘Juan escribió el libro(s) y lo(s) vendió’
(60) Aapo am= nenka-kai juchi aman am= poa-k(S)He them= sell-SUB again there them= pick up-PST
Él(la) las= vender-SUB otra vez allá las recoger-PST
jume na’aso-m3
the orange-PL
las naranja-PL
3 This construction contains a potential problem for the backward pronominalization test. In order to avoid theproblem we require to must propose that the extraposition movement left the nominal in a higher positionwhere it c-commands the pronouns. The nNext examples support the view that the noun must be in a higherposition that the pronoun: Why? need more discussion here…
(1) Joan jume librom ji’oste-kai am= nenka-kJohn the book(s) write-SUB them= sell-PSTJuan los libro(s) escribir-SUB los= vender-PST‘John wrote the book(s) and sold it (them)’‘Juan escribió el/los libro(s) y lo(s) vendió’//‘Juan, escribiendo el/los libro(s), lo(s) vendió’
(2) *Joan am= ji’oste-kai jume librom nenka-k
21
‘The oranges, She/He sold them and again (come back to) pick up more there’//‘The oranges, selling them, he come back to pick up more there’.‘Las naranjas, él/ella las vendió y regresó por más allá’// ‘Las naranjas, vendiéndolas, regresó por más allá’
But even the use of resumptive pronouns is not able to improve the grammaticalityof a –kai-construction (even a coordinate sentence with full tense marking over the verbs isungrammatical) containing an extracted WH-question:
(61) *Jabetai Peo ai= bicha-kai (into) ai= jikaja-k Who Peter him see-SUB (and) him hear-PST A quien Pedro lo ver-SUB (y) lo oir-PST
The analysis of simple sentences of Yaqui indicates that we have a contrast betweeninterrogative and declarative sentences. An preposed object WH-question never combineswith a pronoun in the canonical position, whereas in a declarative sentence thepostextraposed object can be coindexed with such pronoun. [What about a preposed objectof a declarative clause? Can it be coindexed with a pronoun?] Therefore, the sameprinciples are playing a central role in the coordinate sentences above.
(62) Jabe-ta Joan kesum (*a=) maaka-kWho-NNOM:SG John chess (him/her=) give-PST
A quién Juan queso (le=) regalar-PST
‘Who does John gave chess’‘A quién le regaló queso Juan’.
Ah, this is the example I wanted to see, showing that extraction of an object wh-word isindeed possible in Yaqui at all… :)
(63) Joan keesum a= maaka-k u-ka maria-taJohn chess him/her= give-PST the-NNOM:SG Maria-NNOM:SG
Juan queso le= regalar-PST la-NNOM:SG María-NNOM:SG
‘John gave chess to Maria’‘Juan le regaló queso a María’.
The nNext test is called bBackward pronominalization., Aas the name suggest, in acoordinated structure, a nNominal referential expression can not be coindexed with apronoun in a previous conjunct. The contrast between the below sentences confirm that theprinciple is respected in Yaqui -kai constructions.
(64) Yoeme ye’e-kai, bwika-kai intoyaqui man drink-SUB sing-SUB andhombre yaqui beber-SUB cantar-SUB y
kocho-k u pajko-posleep-PST the feast-LOC
22
dormir-PST la fiesta-LOC
‘The yaqui man drank, sang and slept in the feast’‘El hombre yaqui bebió, canto y durmió en la fiesta’Hmm, I don’t think this shows what you need it to -- what you need to show is
that a full DP in a leftmost conjunct can antecede a pronoun in a rightmost conjunct,and then that the reverse isn’t possible. The second example below shows the latter, butthis first example doesn’t show the former, because there is no pronoun in any of thelater conjuncts. To be parallell with the example below, it should be ‘Yoeme ye’ekai,bwika-kai into aapo kochok u pajkopo.’ Is that grammatical? Alternatively you coulduse object pronouns in earlier and later conjuncts, which might be easier, somethinglike ‘Maria, folding two tortillas, ate them.’ vs. ‘Maria, folding them, ate two tortillas.’
(65) *aapoi ye’e-kai, bwika-kai into He drink-SUB sing-SUB and Él beber-SUB cantar-SUB y
Yoemei kocho-k u pajko-poyaqui man sleep-PST the feast-LOC
hombre yaqui dormir-PST la fiesta-LOC
(‘Hei drank, sang, and the yaqui mani slept in the feast’)(‘Éli bebió, canto y el hombre yaquii durmió en la fiesta’)
We can see that in this case, the –kai construction behaves as a real coordination thatforbids backward pronominalization. As expected, that is the case too in full tensedconjoined sentences:
(66) *Aapoi aman siika Peoi into aman ji’ibwa-k He there went Peter and there eat-PST
(Hei went there and Peteri ate there). (Eli fue allá y Pedroi comió allá)Should also show that forwards pronominalization is ok, if it is: “Peo went there
and he ate there.”; ‘Peo aman siika aapo into aman ji’ibwak’. If this isn’t ok, thenbackwards pronominalization isnt really a useful test, I think.
The subsequent criterion appliedthat I apply f to discover or knowing if –kai -constructions are coordinated, requires that any the potential number of conjuncts occuringin the construction is unlimited. This is a central property of coordination. As the exampleindicates –kai-constructions fulfill this requisite.
(67) Joan tienda-u buite-kai, biba-ta jinu-kai,John store-to run-SUB, cigar-NNOM:SG buy-SUBJuan tienda-a correr-SUB, cigarro-NNOM:SG comprar-SUB,
into pesio-u bicha siika.
23
And Hermosillo-DIR toward go:PSTy Hermosillo-DIR hacia ir:PST‘John run to the store, bought a cigar, and went to Hermosillo’‘Juan corrió a la tienda, compró un cigarro, y se fue a Hermosillo’
Some of your examples above, with four or even five -kai phrases, would be even betterexamples there..
Finally, looking at scope considerations, the requirement is that under semanticcoordination both conjuncts be affected by negation. In the following sentence the negationaffects both conjuncts:
(68) Ka tua ke kowi-ta nenka-kaiNo true that pork-NNOM:SG sell-SUBNo verdad que cerdo-NNOM:SG vender-NNOM:SG
uUka wakas-ta jinu-k ju peotThe:NNOM:SG cow-NNOM:SG buy-PST the PeterLa:NNOM:SG vaca-NNOM:SG comprar-PST el Pedro‘It is not true that Peter sold the pork and bought the cow’
Hmm! Negation seems to have an interesting structure in Yaqui…This (from the gloss, adwith the ‘tua’), doesn’t really seem to be negation in just the regular sense, like in 69 below,does it? Does the subject have to be postposed, again?
Aditionally, as in –te-constructions analyzed by Yuasa and Sadock (2002), when thesubordinator -kai introduces a real subordinated clause in semantics, the negation does notaffect it:
(69) Kat= nee kokos-ayu-k, weche-kaiNot= I hurt-be-PST fall-SUBNo= yo herido-ser-PST caer-SUB‘I did not hurt, when I felt down’‘No me lastimé, cuando me caí’
This section has shown that the –kai construction meets the criteria for beingconsidered semantically coordinated, in spite that some of the conjuncts are marked withthe subordinator –kai.
4.1.4 OT analysis of Yaqui verbal structures.This section presents an analysis of the main properties of Yaqui coordination
previously described. I use the OT framework. The characteristics that are explained aresummarized here: a) related to balanced coordination: Balancedness for Tense, Number andMood and non-violation of CSC; b) related to unbalanced coordination(pseudosubordination): The tense marking occurs in final conjunct; the order of theconjuncts tends to be sequential, but reversibility is possible; the construction makesreference to a same subject and it is not repeated; the suffix -kai appears on each verb; theconstruction makes reference to a single event; in a semantic coordinated chain, into ‘and’
24
can not occur between –kai clauses; the CSC is respected. In the final part of this section Ipresent an overview of pseducoordination, pseudosubordiantion and coordination.
4.1.1.14.1.4.1 Constraints for explaining Balancedness.This section explores some constraints useful in explaining balancedness in Yaqui.
Tense, mood and number are the characteristics explained here.4.1.1.1.14.1.4.1.1 Tense, number, and mood balancedness.
The constraints used for explaining balancedness in tense, number and mood are basedon economy considerations. The subjacent main? underlying? don’t think you mean‘subjacent’ idea here is that is more economical to avoid morphological tense, number andmood marking than inserting it. The constraints are defined as follows:
(70) *Tense marking: Avoid morphological tense marking.(71) *Number marking: Avoid Morphological Number marking.(72) *Mood marking: Avoid morphological mood marking.
These constrains are beat by a constraint requiring feature satisfaction. I assume thatlexical items in the input carry information of the type shown in (77). Those features mustbe morphologically (or semantically) satisfied:
(73) Satisfy Feature: Feature lexical feature requirements must be morphologicallysatisfied.So, given an input as in (74), some of the most viable candidates are shown in
(74a,b,c):(74) Ranking: Sat-Feat, Faith-I-O >> *Tense, *Number, *Mood
Input: [ye’e, <Tns:PTE> <Num: _> <Mood:IND>
into, <and>
buika] <Tns:PTE> <Num: _> <Mood:IND>
Sat-Feat Faith-I-O *Tense *Number *Mood
a) Φ Ye’e into buika <PTE, IND, __> and <PTE, IND, __>
**
b) Ye’e into buika-k <PTE, IND> and <PST, IND>
** !* *
c) Ye’e into buika <PTE, IND> and <PTE, IND>
** !*
In the previous tableau, we can see that there is not way in Yaqui to satisfy thedemand of the constraint Sat-Feat because there is not a morphological affix for markingindicative present tense. [So on this view, there is no zero-morpheme on this form, i.e. this
25
form is truly unmarked? Might be worth mentioning]. The single verbal single root marksindicative present tense [huh? but you just said that indicative present tense was NOTmarked, which is why ‘ye’e’ and ‘buika’ violate ‘Sat-feat’. If the single verbal root DOESmark indicative present tense, then ‘Sat-feat’ is not violated… no?] and it does not conveyinformation about number. Therefore, all the candidates violates the Sat-Feat constraint.However, the candidate (77a) respects Faith-I-O whereas candidates (77b) and (77c) do not.Faith-I-O is violated in (77b) because the second conjunct have has a different tensemarking than the one required in the input. The candidate (77c) does not bear theindeterminacy for number present in candidate (77a), therefore, it is not optimal too and(77a) emerges as the optimal one.
Because Yaqui allows the union of VP’s with different tense markings, we have toallow coordination with different tense values. For a sentence like (78), we must have averbal input as that indicated in (79).
(75) Ian buika-k into yooko yi’i-neToday sing-PST and tomorrow dance-FUT
Hoy cantar-PST y mañana bailar-FUT
‘(He) sang today and will dance tomorrow’‘Cantará hoy y bailará mañana’
(76) Ranking: Sat-Feat, Faith-I-O >> *Tense, *Number, *MoodInput: [buika-k, <Tns:PST> <Num: _> <Mood:IND>
into, <and>
yi’i-ne] <Tns:FUT> <Num: _> <Mood:IND>
Sat-Feat Faith-I-O *Tense *Number *Mood
a) Φbuika-k into yi’i-ne <PST, IND, __> and <FUT, IND, __>
**
b) buika into ye’e <PTE, IND> and <PTE, IND>
!** **
c) buika-k into yi’i-ne <PST, IND> and <FUT, IND>
!** **
The tableau indicates that the candidate (79a) satisfies both Sat-Feat and Faith-I-O.Therefore, it wins against candidate (79b) which violates both of them. It wins too againstcandidate (c) which only violates the higher ranked constraint Faith-I-O.
26
4.1.1.1.24.1.4.1.2 The Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC).
Yaqui data indicates that the language does not allow extraction from any conjunct.[I guess I’m still wondering if it allows true wh-extraction at all…(as opposed to justtopicalization, say] Therefore, we can establish that this behavior is produced by the higherranking of a constraint regulating extraction. The CSC (Ross 1965) is seen here as auniversal, violable constraint. The definition in OT is as follows:
(77) *Extraction: Extraction from a conjoined structure is not allowed.
The constraint avoids extraction from any conjunct, as indicated in the nextexamples:(78) Joan Paola atea-k Maria into Peo-ta tebotua-k.
John Paola meet-PST Maria and Peter-NNOM greet-PSTJuan Paola encontrar-PST María y Pedro saludar-PST‘John found Paola and Mary greeted Peter’‘Juan encontró a Paola y María saludo a Pedro’
(79) *Jabe-ta Joan atea-k Maria into Peo-ta tebotua-k.Who-NNOM John meet-PST Maria and Peter-NNOM greet-PSTA quien Juan encontrar-PST María y Pedro saludar-PST(‘Who did John find and Maria greeted Peter’)(‘A quien encontró Juan y María saludo a Pedro’)
(80) *Jabe-ta Joan Paola atea-k Maria into tebotua-k.Who-NNOM John Paola meet-PST Maria and greet-PSTA quien Juan Paola encontrar-PST María y saludar-PST(‘Who did John find Paola and Maria greeted?’)(‘A quién Juan encontró a Paola y María saludo?)
It is not possible either to have Across the Board Extraction, as indicated by thefollowing ungrammatical sentence:
(81) *Jabe-ta Joan atea-k Maria into tebotua-k.Who-NNOM John meet-PST Maria and greet-PSTA quien Juan encontrar-PST María y saludar-PST(‘Who did John find and Maria greet?’)(‘¿A quién encontró Juan y María saludó?’)
[I wonder if this is because movement of an object DP to the left in Yaqui istopicalization, but WH-words automatically are focussed elements, and hence cannot betopicalized. Can one say something like ‘Peota Joan ateak into Maria tebotuak’, tomean, ‘Peter, John met and Mary greeted’? , with a topicalization reading? Maybe youcovered this in the last chapter, but I’ve forgotten already.. :) ]
27
The only way to ask for the objects is to by having a Wh-question inside eachconjunct. Therefore, the constraint *Extraction is not violable in the language:
(82) Jabeta Joan atea-k into jabeta Maria tebotua-k.Who John meet-PST and who Maria greet-PSTQuien Juan encontrar-PSTy quien Maria encontrar-PST‘Who did John find and who did Maria greet’‘A quien encontró Juan y a quién saludó María.
Indeed, a neat way to test if wh-words can be topicalized in Yaqui would be to see if 82above is grammatical with ‘jabeta’ preceding the ‘into’, since that is the slot for topicalizodelements in coordination…
The previous example could be explained if we consider that the constraint *Extractioninteracts with a constraint that forbids coordination of non-maximal projections. Thisconstraint is supported for theoretical and empirical data. OIn the theoretical side there is acommon view that languages coordinate maximal projections (Kayne 1994, …).Empirically Yyaqui shows that the language only license the coordination of VP’s but notV’s (see section 4.1.2.1.1). The constraint is defined as follows:
(83) *Coordination of non-maximal projections (*Coord-non-max). Coordination ofheads is not allowed.
In addition to the previous constraint, we have the presence of a constraint based on theobservation that in coordinate structures we have the distribution of grammatical functions(Peterson (2004)). I.e. the This constraint forces the reduction of lexical material to theminimal amount required for covering the functions in a coordinate structure. For example,in the Spanish sentence (84) the grammatical functions of subject and object are distributedbecause they appear just once, but they are interpreted as the subject and object of eachverb.
(84) El maestro abrió y cerró la puertaThe teacher opened and closed the door.‘The teacher opened and closed the door’
The constraint is defined as indicate next:
(85) DGF (Distribution of grammatical functions)The attributes of grammatical functions must be distributed in a coordinatestructure.
The example (82) can be explained the by the interaction of these constraints. Asindicated in the tableau (86), the input is unordered. The most viable candidates are(86a,b,c). Among them, the candidate (89a) is optimal because it does not violate the higherranked constraint *Extraction, whereas the candidate (86b) and (86c) does. It is interestingto note that the candidate (86b) shows the distribution of the grammatical functions subject
28
and object, l. Like the example (84) in Spanish and English. However, it does not emerge asoptimal because the constraint *Extraction is higher in the hierarchy.
(86) Tableaux with the ranking *Extraction >> DGF, *Coord-non-max.Input: {Jabeta, joan, ateak, into, jabeta, a,tebotuak}
*Extraction
DGF *Coord-non-max
a.Φ Jabeta joan ateak into jabeta a tebotuak **b. Jabeta Joan ateak into tebotuak !* *c. Jabeta Joan ateak into a tebotuak !* *
but in b, also, there is a violation of a faithfulness constraint -- the a in the input is notreaized in the output. That should be bad, as well, right? Also, one wonders if you needanother constraint to rule out ‘Jabeta joan ateak jabeta into a tebotuak’, along the ‘Wh =+focus’ argument I suggested above?
The nNext section will treat some of the most important characteristics of what wecall here –kai-constructions.
4.1.1.24.1.4.2 Constraints for explaining unbalanced coordination.
This section explores the constraints that are required for explaining the most salientproperties of chaining constructions in Yyaqui which can be classified as coordinated andthat present the challenge of the tense unbalancedness, among others properties that areexplored here.
4.1.1.1.14.1.4.2.1 The properties of –kai construction in OT.We saw that tense unbalancedness in verbal Yyaqui constructions occur in chained
constructions what I call –kai constructions. The construction is licensed under veryspecific conditions. The most salient properties were explained in the section (4.1.3.2.), .).they They are summarized below., Ttheir explanation will cover the answer to the questionof why Yaqui exhibits this type of unbalancedness.
4.1.1.1.1.14.1.4.2.1.1 The tense marking occurs in final conjunct.
Following Yuasa and Sadock (2002) I agree that pseudosubordination of this type,could be explained if we assume that syntactically the -kai clauses are subordinated. Tenseis in the final conjunct in Yaqui because the head parameter is involved here. Theseresearchers conclude that there are basically two possibilities for structures, depending iflanguages are head-left or head-right. Yaqui is a SOV, therefore, being head-right it ispredicted that the tensed clause will be in final position, as it actually is. Languages that arehead-left, present the tensed clause at the beginning.
4.1.1.1.1.1.14.1.4.2.1.1.1 The structure of the wining candidate.Therefore, the structure of a Yyaqui subordinated –kai clause like (87) is represented in
(88):
29
(87) Joan yepsa-kai, Maria-ta tebotua-kJohn arrive-SUB, maria-NNOM:SG greet-PSTJuan llegar-SUB, Maria-NNOM:SG saludar-PST‘John arriving greeted Mary/ ??John arrived and greeted Mary’‘Juan, llegando, saludó a María/ ?? Juan llegó y saludó a María’
Adapted from Yuasa and Sadock (2002:98):(88) CP[+Fin]
CP[-Fin] CP[+Fin]
NP VP[-Fin] NP VP[+Fin]
Joan1 yepsa-kai, pro1 Maria-ta tebotua-k
can pro be optionally changed to a coreferential overt pronoun here? If it can’t seems like itmight perhaps be more like this:
[TP+Fin Joani [VP [CP-Fin [NP PROi] [VP-Fin yepsakai]] [VP [NP Mariata] [V tevotua]]] [T-k]]but I guess that’s equivalent to the non-coordinated, adverbial structure for the -kai phrase,and prob isn’t what you need here.
For a chained pseudosubordinated clause, where the into ‘and’ particle can optionallyoccur between the last –kai clause and the tensed one, the optimal candidate will have thefollowing structure.
(89) CP[+Fin, Coord]
CP[-Fin] CP[+Fin, Coord]
V-kai CP[-Fin] CP[+Fin, Coord]
V-kai, (into) CP[+Fin]
V-tnsThe optionally of into ‘and’ indicated in (89) is related to the chain. It can never
occur with just one –kai clause, but it can occur before the tensed clause with two or moresequential –kai-clauses4
4 The structure that I am interested here is the one where the coordinator can optionally occur before thetensed clause, as in example (89) (V-kai, V-kai (into) V-tns). Those are the examples of pseudo-subordination. The –kai clauses can be themselves joined by a coordinator, but in that case they are clearlysubordinate to the tensed clause ([V-kai into V-kai], V-tns). In such case, into ‘and’ can never occur betweenthe coordinate V–kai and V-tns clause (* [V-kai into V-kai] into V-tns). The subordinated status comes fromthe evidence that in such cases, the coordinate V-kai clauses are understood as gerundive. They are not
30
4.1.1.1.1.1.24.1.4.2.1.1.2 Tense in final position: the winningcandidate.
Given the fact that in Yaqui the tensed clause occurs in final position, we need to allowat least the following two closer competing candidates (90) and to rule out the non-optimalone (90b).
(90) a) V-kai, V-kai, V-kai V-tns.b) *V-tns, V-kai, V-kai, V-kai.
The constraints responsible of the alternation are head-right and head-left. They aredefined as follows.
(91) Head-Left: the head of a construction must be at the left edge of it.(92) Head-Right: the head of a construction must be at the right edge of it.
As usual in OT, the input is unordered, and the constraints will evaluate a set ofcompetitors. However, only two closer competitors are presented in the tableau. Thecandidate (93a) wins the battle against candidate (93b) because in Yaqui Head-Rigth isover Head-left. The inverse order of the constraints will produce the pattern found in Head-left languages, i.e. the candidate (93b) would be the winner.
They Constraint are ranked as indicated; they interact in the following way:
(93) Ranking: Head Right >> Head-leftInput: [V-kai, V-kai, V-kai, V-tns] Head-Right Head-Lefta) Φ V-kai, V-kai, V-kai, V-tns *b) V-tns, V-kai, V-kai, V-kai. !*
4.1.1.1.1.1.34.1.4.2.1.1.3 Possibility of inserting into ‘and’ in achain.
Remember that one subordinate –kai clause cannot co-occur with into ‘and’, asillustrated in (94). I.e. into ‘and’ can optionally occur before the tense clause if we have achain. The representation in (94) shows the position of into ‘and’.
(94) a) V-kai (*into) V-tns. (subordination)b) V-kai, V-kai, V-kai, (into) V-tns. (pseudosubordination)
We can see that this alternation really is at the border between subordination andcoordination. It could explain too why a –kai chain can be considered semanticallycoordinated but syntactically subordinated. I propose that –kai has the features [+SUB, -TNS], so, the non-occurrence of into ‘and’ in (94a) is expected (because of theinconsistency of the [+SUB] feature and the [+COORD] feature introduced by into ‘and’).
interpreted as containing the same tense than the final tensed-clause. Good -- this footnote is helpful forunderstanding why the structure I suggest above is not the right one for these cases.
31
However, sentences with the structure (94b) indicate that into ‘and’ can occur before thetensed verb. For that reason, it seems that it can be considered a marker that the chain isabout finishingto finish. Then the constraint responsible of this alternation seems to bepragmatic, more than syntactic (it could be a cooperative Graicean constraint).
(95) Comm(unicate): Communicate that you will end your chaining.
The constraint can be fulfilled by the introduction of into ‘and’ or by a simple pausebetween the relevant elements. The constraint enters into play when more than two clausesare in the input. I assume that it is violated if into ‘and’ is present in a candidate that it isnot a chain. As usual in OT, the nature of the input is important for the generation of viablecandidates by Gen. An input can contain, or not, a coordinator. Therefore, if into ‘and’ is inthe input, it has to appear in the output (by the Faith-I-O constraint), if it is not, thecandidate with the pause will be the winner.
An additional constraint is required for explaining the alternation: the one thatavoids contradictory features. The constraint avoid the combination of the features [+SUB]and [+COORD]. It is defined as follows:
(96) Avoid-Contradictory-features: Don’t mix [+SUB] and [+COORD].
The nNext tableau explains the subordinated structures as in (94a). The candidate (97a)does not violate any of the three proposed constraints, whereas candidate (97b) violates allof them. For that reason the candidate (97b) with the coordinator into ‘and’ can is not beoptimal. The winner is candidate (97a):
(97) COMM, FAITH-IO>>AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
Input: [V-kai, V-tns] COMM FAITH-IO AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
a) Φ V-kai V-tnsb) V-kai into V-tns !* * *
The nNext tableau indicates that if we allow into ‘and’ in the input, we still have aswinner the candidate without a coordinator (98a) because we are using a mechanism formarking a chain where there is not a chain. So the candidate (98b) can never emerge asoptimal.
(98) COMM, FAITH-IO>>AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
Input: [V-kai, into, V-tns]
COMM FAITH-IO AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
a) Φ V-kai V-tns *b) V-kai into V-tns !* *
The following next tableau shows the situation in (94b) when into ‘and’ occurs in thecandidate. We have to keep in mind that when we have a chain, there are two ways to markthat it is about to finishing: by a pause or by the occurrence of into ‘and’ before the final(tensed) clause. The nNext tableau indicates the competition between both candidates. Ifinto ‘and’ is in the input, it appears in the output. In such a case, the candidate (99b) withthe pause loses in the competition because it violates the Faith-I-O constraint.
32
(99) COMM, FAITH-IO>>AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
Input: [V-kai, V-kai, V-tns] COMM FAITH-IO AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
a) Φ V-kai, V-kai into V-tns *b) V-kai, V-kai, V-tns !*
When into ‘and’ is not in the input, the candidate with the pause will be the winner.[Should the pause itself be included in the input? That is, in non-chained sentences with -kai, like the winning candidate in 97 above, is there a pause in the output before V-fin? Ifnot, why not? How does the pause appear in the multiple-kai case if it does not appear inthe single-kai case? Is it a non-linguistic way to satisfy ‘COMM’? Because if there is no‘pause’ in the input, then I don’t see how the candidate 100b below satisfies ‘COMM’,since the end-of-chain point is not marked in the output.] As the tableau (99) indicates, thecandidate (99a) violates the constraint Fait-I-O and the constraint Avoid-Contr-Feat,whereas candidate (99b) does not violate them. Therefore, it emerges as the optimal one.
(100) COMM, FAITH-IO>>AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
Input: [V-kai, V-kai, V-tns] COMM FAITH-IO AVOID-CONTR-FEAT
a) V-kai, V-kai into V-tns !* *b) Φ V-kai, V-kai, V-tns
In the tableaux (99) and (100) above, both candidates satisfy COMM by theintroduction of into ‘and’ or by a pause… which comes from where? ; but the winner ineach case is decided by the lower ranked constraints Faith-I-O and Avoid-Contr-Feat.
4.1.4.2.1.2 The oOrder of the conjuncts tends to be sequential, butreversibility is possible.
This characteristic is due to the nature of the narration of events’ narration. Thechains (initiated by the –kai clauses) are conformed by a set of sub-events, where they arepresented according to the speaker’s intention. The constraint again could be a pragmaticone (again in the Gricerian sense):
(101) BE-ORDERED: present the eventive information in sequential order.// Present the eventive information in cardinal order.
Sequential order could be interpreted as in equivalent to cardinal order, if the inputhas predicates with indices that indicate the order of the events. (This order could be alteredby other constraints that forces changes in the order). The idea here is that we have severalsub-events which give rise to an entire eventive set. (Camacho (2003) talks about thecoordination of eventive phrases, I propose to talk about eventive features in the predicate,that are brought by the predicates and that have a reflex in the order of them)
So an input would contain the features and indices that will produce the order of thepredicates.
In relation with to the possibility of reversibility, I assume that it is a logicalproperty of Gen. Gen can posit any structure; therefore, commutation must be a property ofit. I did not explore the situation under which a conjunct can be commuted without an
33
apparent change in meaning. There are some sentences where the order of presentation insome contexts does not seem to be important (John and Mary are tall, Mary and John aretall). That is a topic which needs to be explored. Right now, I assume that the speakerpresents the information by respecting this constraint:
(102) Tableau with the constraint Be-Ordered choosing the optimal candidate.Input: [V1, V2, V3] BE-ORDEREDa) Φ V1, V2, V3
b) V2, V1, V3 !*c) V3, V2, V1 !*
4.1.4.2.1.3 –Kai: a same subject construction and non repetition ofsubject.
As we saw before, -kai-constructions make reference to a the same subjectthroughout, and it the subject is may not be repeated in the construction. In what follows, Isuggest that we need to use the constraints used by Blutner and Zeevat (2004): Subj(ect)and Drop-Topic. They are defined as in (106) and (107) respectively. The first one forcesthe occurrence of the subject in a preverbal position. The second one demands thatcorrefential arguments be unrealized. The constraint of Ddrop Ttopic avoids the use of aSame Subject Condition or any constraint of such type. [But it implies that if an object is atopic, then it could antecede a kai-clause and be construed as the subject of a kai-verb. Isthis true? That is, could I say the equivalent of, ‘Mary, singing, he kissed?’ to mean thatMary, the object, was singing, not he, the subject? If this is not possible (it is not inEnglish), then you need another constraint to prevent the object or anything else frombecoming the topic which could then be dropped — i.e. you need a ‘Topic=Subject’constraint, so you end up with the equivalent of a ‘Same Subject Condition’ or similar. ]
Blutner and Zeevat (2004:4).(103) SUBJ “The highest A-specifier in an extended projection must be filled”(104) DROP-TOPIC “Arguments coreferent with the topic are structurally unrealized”
For Blutner and Zeevat (2004), the subject, beingen the topic, tends to be dropped.[right… but the crucial testing examples would be ones where something besides thesubject became the topic]. So the Yaqui chain (108) can be analyzed as containing severalcorreferential arguments with the subject (the topic in this construction):
(105) u yoi a karo-wa tucha-kai,The man:withe his car-POS stop-SUBEl hombre:blanco su carro-P0S parar-SUB
u-ka liacho-ta tobokta-kai,The-NNOM:SG bag-NNOM:SG take-SUBLa-NNOM:SG bolsa-NNOM:SG tomar-SUB
34
a kari-wa bicha wee-taite-kaihis house-POS toward go:SG-begin-SUBsu casa-POS hacia ir:SG-emperzar-SUB
U-ka pueta-ta etapo-kai,The-NNOM:SG door-NNOM:SG open-SUBLa-NNOM:SG puerta-NNOM:SG abrir-SUB
a jubia-wa tebotua-khis wife-POS greed-PSTsu esposa-POS saludar-PST‘The man stopped his car, took the bag, went to his house, opened the door andgreeted his wife’‘El hombre paró su carro, tomó su bolsa, se fue a su casa, abrió la puerta ysaludó a su mujer’
For analyzing this characteristic, we need to use again the constraint of FAITH-I-O,which requires that elements in the input be preserved in the output. In order to simplify therepresentation, I only put the subjects and predicates of the previous chain (105), (again: theinput is not constituted by sentences, but unordered elements). The table does not giveevidence of the ranking of SUBJECT, but it is assumed that all the candidates in the tablerespect it.
(106) Table that shows the winner in a chain.Input: [Joani tucha-kai, Joani tobokta-kai, Joani wee-taite-kai Joani etapo-kai, Joani tebotua-k]
SUBJECT DROPTOPIC
FAITH-IO
a) Joani…tucha-kai, proi… tobokta-kai, proi..wee-taite-kai, proi…etapo-kai, proi…tebotua-k
*
b) Joani…tucha-kai, Joani… tobokta-kai, Joani..wee-taite-kai, Joani…etapo-kai, Joani…tebotua-k
!*
Some of the advantages of establishing the constraint Drop-topic are the following:There is not need of a Same Subject Constraint. The work is done by drop-topic. Inaddition, it is predicted that this constraint can is not be specific to coordinate structures.The prediction seems to hold when we see other sides of the grammar. For example, aswhen we have some subordinated clauses with a correferential subject. Let’s take the nextexample of Yyaqui:
(107) Joan inien ea [kari-ta jinu-pee-sime]John this way think:PTE [house-NNOM:SG buy-DESID-Go:SG:PTE]Juan así piensa [casa-NNOM:SG comprar-DESID-ir:SG:PTE]
35
‘John thinks that he is going to buy a house’‘Juan piensa ir a comprar una casa’
In the previous sentence, the subject of the subordinated clause does not appear. Theaccount could be the same that as the one for the coordinated structure. However, apronoun can appear in that subordinated clause, suggesting that pronoun licensing has to dowith pragmatic constraints too.
(108) Joani inien ea [a-ui kari-taJohn this way think:PTE [him-to house-NNOM:SGJuan así piensa [él-a casa-NNOM:SG
jinu-pee-sime]buy-DESID-go:SG:PTE]comprar-DESID-ir:SG:PTE]‘Johni thinks that hei is going to buy a house// to buy a house’‘Juani piensa ir a comprar éli una casa’
Although Yyaqui does not have infinitive forms (and the pronoun can be licensed intheoretically standard terms),. Spanish have has constructions with infinitive verbs that canlicense nominative pronouns, suggesting that the constraint of DROP-TOPIC is violatedunder certain conditions;. consider Spanish example below, (with the pronoun the sentencehas the meaning that he is going to buy it by using his own means or resources, without anyhelp, without using a third person for treading. It is a stressed pronoun.)5:
(109) Juani piensa ir a comprar (éli) una casaJohn thinks to go to to buy (he) a house‘John thinks to go to buy (he) a house’ (Help: what could be a good translation?)How about: ‘Joan plans to go buy a house’
4.1.4.2.1.4 -kai on each verb.
As seen before, the assumption is that –kai ‘SUB’ is in the input., This the suffix hasthe following features [+SUB, TENSE: _ ] (unspecified for tense). The constraints are theones seen before too. FAITH-IO, which requires that features in the input be in the output,*TENSE, that indicates an aversion to morphologically mark tense, and SAT-FEAT whichstates that lexical features must be morphologically fulfilled. Because in a chain the V-kaiclauses must be interpreted with the features of the tensed clause, the following constraintis needed:
5 This behaviour of Spanish is not weird, even an interrogative main clause can license a nominative pronoun,as illustrated (the tensed version is available too):
i. Ganar-le tú a Michael Jordan?. No lo creo.To win-him you to Michael Jordan?. Not it believeWill you beat Michael Jordan? I do not believe it.
Because this issue is beyond of coordination, I just point out that an infinitive form in Spanish does not blocknominative licenseingment. Other factors are present here and need to be analyzed (for example, the verbmust be fronted).
36
INTERPRET-UNSP: Unspecified features must be interpreted with the features ofthe host clause.
If we take the example in (105) the input will have five verbs, however, forsimplicity of exposition, I use only three of them.
(110) Ranking: INTERPRET-UNESP, SAT-FEAT >>FAITH-IO. >> *TENSE,Input: [tuchakai, <+SUB, TENSE:_> toboktakai,<+SUB, TENSE:_> tebotuak]<TENSE:PST>]
INTERPRET-UNESP SAT-FEAT FAITH-IO *TENSE
a) Φ tuchakai, <+SUB,TENSE:PST> toboktakai,<+SUB, TENSE:PST> tebotuak< TENSE:PST>
* ***
b) tuchakai,<+SUB, TENSE:_>
toboktakai,<+SUB, TENSE:_>
tebotuak<TENSE:_>
!* ***
c) tuchakai,<+SUB, TENSE:PTE>
toboktakai,<+SUB, TENSE:PTE>
tebotuak<TENSE:PST>
!* * ***
d) tucha,<+SUB, TENSE:PTE>
tobokta,<+SUB, TENSE:PTE>
tebotuak<TENSE:PST>
!* * * *
The candidates (110b,c,d) violate INTERPRET-UNSP because the features are notinterpreted with the PST tense feature. All candidates, except (110d) satisfy SAT-FEATbecause they are marked with the morpheme –kai which is unspecified in the input. (Iassume that the structure is a coordinated one as indicated before). Tense, beingmorphologically marked in candidates (110a, b, c), incur in a triple violation of *TENSE.
37
Finally, the constraint FAITH-IO only is respected by candidate (110b). Therefore, thewinner is the candidate (110a).
4.1.4.2.1.5 The construction makes reference to a single event.
In this section, following Progovac (1999) I assume that “single coordinations (withand) are unspecified with respect to single vs. multiple event readings, rather than beingspecified for a single event interpretation” Progovac (1999:fn, 3, 144).
The assumption seems necessary under given the following contrast:
A balanced coordination could be one event or two events, with SS or DS.SS, one event/two events.
(111) Joan buika-k into ye’e-kaJohn sing-PST and dance-PST‘John sang and danced’
DS, one event/two events.(112) Joan buika-k Maria into ye’e-ka
John sing-PST María and dance-PST‘John sang and Maria danced’
SS, two events (only reading).(113) Joan tuuka buika-k into yooko yi’i-bae
John yesterday sing-PST and tomorrow dance-INTENT‘John sang yesterday and will dance tomorrow’
DS, two events (only reading).(114) Joan tuuka buika-k Maria into yooko yi’i-bae
John yesterday sing-PST María and tomorrow dance-INTENT‘John sang yesterday and Maria will dance tomorrow’
With a SS subordination and pseudosubordination (-kai constructions), the readingis may only involve one event:It’s not clear to me how this is only one event. Above, I have been understanding ‘oneevent’ and ‘two events’ to mean simultaneous vs. sequential occurrences of the event. Butin this sentence, in the first translation, anyway, it seems to imply that first, Maria made thetortillas, then she ate them, i.e. sequential events, i.e. two events. The second translation, onthe other hand, seems to imply that she ate the tortillas while she was making them, i.e.simultaneous occurrence, i.e. one event. If the second translation is more correct, theneliminate the first one; if the first translation is indeed an available reading, then it’ll beimportant to explain what your ‘event-counting’ criteria are such that this counts as onlyone event even though the two parts occur sequentially.
SS, Subordination, one event:(115) María tajkaim ya’asu-kai am bua-ka
María tortillas make-TERM-SUB them eat-PST
38
‘María made tortillas and ate them’ Ah! good -- this is the sentence I waslooking for earlier, showing that forwards pronominalization (with objects) is possiblewith -kai constructions. The inverse sentence, with am first an tajhaim second, wouldbe a good one to show the badness of backwards pronominalization.
‘Doing tortillas, María ate them’
SS, Pseudosubordination, one event:(116) U yoeme.. see example (105)…
On it the event is complex, composed by five predicates. Again, here, the events aresequential. How can it be firmly asserted that there is only one event? How does one countone vs. many events? Can one put independent temporal adverbials on the differentmembers of the -kai chain? (e.g. ‘At exactly 2:00 John arrived, opening his door at 2:03,entering the house at 2:04, sitting in his chair at 2:05, and greeting Maria at 2:06.” Ifdistinct temporal moments counts as indicating distinct events, then there are 5 separateevents here…)
Therefore, it seems that Progovac’s (1999) claim about unspecification is correct. InOT we can consider that the input is unspecified, and that the constraints will give theavailable reading(s).
Progovac, talking about nominal conjunction, concludes that “what gives rise to amultiple-event interpretation is the physical presence of an extra conjunction marker”Progovac (1999:145). For her the “multiplicity of events is encoded syntactically;moreover, it is actually encoded in an iconic way, by an increased number of conjunctionmarkers” Progovac (1999:145).
In a more recent paper, De Vries (2005:87) assumes: “that every coordinatestructure has DistP as its maximal projection, for the simple reason that every coordinationis interpreted either collectively or distributively”
It seems that actually every NP (maybe every CP) must have a DistP. It isunspecified in the input and it is specified by semantic (as when adverbials are introducedin sentence conjuncts, ex (113), (114) or by pragmatic constraints (as when the backgroundspecifies if the conjuncts must be understood as distributed or not). The nNext exampleindicates that a single sentence with a plural subject is unspecified for the distributivefeature:
(117) Hu-me maejto-m libro-m jinu-kDET-PL teacher-PL book-PL buy-PST‘The teachers bough a book’ (collectively/distributively)
But it can get the specification from a quantifier adverbial:(118) Chikti maejto-m libro-m jinu-k
Each teacher-PL book-PL buy-PST‘Each teacher bought a book’ (distributively).
Assumption: DistrP’s are in the input.Constraints:
The nNext constraint will force the appearingappearance, if possible, of unspecifiedforms.
39
(119) *EVENT-SPECIFICATION: Avoid event specification.
However, specification will emerge if adverbials, different grammatical tenses orother factors force the specification of the DistP. Let’s call this constraint EVENTINTERPRETATION (surely this would be a family of constraints).
(120) EVENT-INTERPRETATION: Every form in the candidates must beinterpreted.
HERE IT IS NEEDED A FINER SET OF CONSTRAINTS THAT BELONG TOEVENT INTERPRETATION.
Ranking: EVENT-INTERPRETATION>>*EVENT-SPECIFICATION.Input: [Joan, buikak,
into, ye’e-ka <DISTR: __>](See ex. 38)
EVENT-INTERPRETATION *EVENT-SPECIFICATION
a) <DISTR: __>b) <DISTR: + > !*c) <DISTR: - > !*
Ranking: EVENT-INTERPRETATION>>*EVENT-SPECIFICATION.Input: [Joan, tuuka, buikak,into, yooko, yi’i-bae <DISTR: __>]
EVENT-INTERPRETATION *EVENT-SPECIFICATION
a) <DISTR: __> !*b) <DISTR: + > *c) <DISTR: - > *
Because we want (b) as the winner, it is done with a constraint over interpretation ofdifferent adverbial tenses:
ADV-INTERP: Adverbials with different tense reference are distributed.
Ranking: EVENT-INTERPRETATION, ADV-INTERP>>*EVENT-SPECIFICATION.Input:[Joan,tuuka,buikak,into,yooko,yi’i-bae
EVENT-INTERPRETATION ADV-INTERP *EVENT-SPECIFICATION
40
<DISTR:__>]a)<DISTR:__>
!*
b)<DISTR:+ >
*
c)<DISTR: ->
!* *
4.1.4.2.1.6 Lack of into ‘and’ between –kai clauses.Need to work more here…Next constraint is based in the economy of pronunciation, reminiscent of
TELEGRAPH (Pesetsky (1998:344)), do not pronounce function words).
Progovac (1999:39):(121) MINIMIZE PRONUNcTIATION: do not pronounce that which is
recoverable.
4.1.4.2.1.7 CSC is respected.
We saw before that the CSC is highly respected in Yaqui. Therefore, the constraintmust be ranked high. The constraint was defined as a ban on extraction. If extraction from aconjunct happens, it the constraint is violated. The explanation is summarized here:
(122) *Extraction: Extraction from a conjoined structure is not allowed.
Because Yaqui has a syntactic requirement that not heads cannot be conjoined, theconstraints were defined as follows:
(123) *Coordination of non-maximal projections (*Coord-non-max). Coordination of heads is not allowed.
(124) DGF (Distribution of grammatical functions). The attributes of grammaticalfunctions must be distributed in a coordinate structure.
The candidate (125a) is optimal because it does not violate the higher rankedconstraint *Extraction, whereas the candidate (125b) and (125c) does.
41
(125) Tableaux with the ranking *Extraction >> DGF, *Coord-non-max.Input: {… Jabeta, joan, ateakai, into,jabeta, a, tebotuak}
*Extraction
DGF *Coord-non-max
a.Φ …Jabeta joan ateakai into jabeta atebotuak
**
b. Jabeta Joan ateakai into tebotuak !* *c. Jabeta Joan ateakai into a tebotuak !* *
4.1.4.2.1.8 Any number of conjuncts can occur.That This is a property of the input. The constraint Faith-I-O requires that elements
in the input be present in the output. Therefore, the members of a conjoined structure mustappear in the output. All the examples seen here have this property. We can look at thetable (125) for exemplification.
4.1.4.3 Reflection about pseudocoordination, pseudosubordination andcoordination.
In this section I present a reflection about the field of coordination which in theliterature can be found split in these three areas of research: pseudocoordination,pseudosubordination and coordination.
Pseudocoordinations are constructions that look like VP coordinations, as in thenext example from LØudrup (2002:121):
(126) Han sitter og skriver dikt.He sits and writes poems.‘He is writing poetry’
And is usual that in these constructions the Coordinated Structure Constraint (CSC)be violated:
LØudrup (2002:122):(127) Hva sitter han og skriver?
What sits hHe and writes?‘What is hHe writing?
Therefore, their status as coordinate constructions has been questioned. For LØudrup(2002) a group of what is called peudocoordination (PCO) must be treated as biclausalsubordination whereas another group must be analyzed as monoclausal structures. Thisposition is contrary to De Vos (2004) who claims that PCO is coordination. Onecharacteristic of the construction is that “truth conditional semantics of pseudocoordinationis the semantics of coordinations. Han sitter og skriver dikt ‘he sits and write poems’ is trueiff he sits and he writes poems” (LØudrup (2002, fn.3: 127)
LØudrup’s (2002) analysis of PCOs states that they are grammatically diverse:control, raising and monoclausal constructions. A simplified monoclausal functional
42
structure is given in (128). The two verbs together constitute one predicate that takes oneset of syntactic arguments within one clausal domain..
LØudrup’s (2002:125)(128) En mann sitter og skiver dikt
A man sits and writes poems
SUB “man”PRED “sit-and-write”OBJ “poems”
And a constituent structure is shown in (129a-b):
(129) a) (han har sittet og skrovet dikt(he has) sat and written poems
b) VP
V IP
sat I VP
and V NP
written poemsIn the account, LØudrup (2002) assumes that the grammatical marker og ‘and’ heads
the IP and that all pseudocoordination have has the same basic constituent structure, whichthey share with (ordinary) control and raising constructions, (c.f. 4).
By On the other hand, De Vos (2004) states the following properties for PCO (inEnglish): a) the first conjunct is restricted to limited number of verbs, b) it allowssystematic violations of CSC, c) it yields aspectual interpretations (notably durativity), aswell as ‘surprise’ and pejorative readings, d) both verbs must have the same morphologicalform (De Vos 2004:181).
According to De Vos (2004), PCO is not subordination for the following reasons: a)coordinated verbs do not behave like auxiliaries (Pollock (1994)): they can not be modifiedby a both and they can not raise across negation to T, b) the subject of the embedded clausecannot be licensed: it can not be PRO because V is not an infinitive; it can not be probecause English is not a pro-drop language (counterintuitive <- - not sure what you meanhere..?); it is not a trace of raising because the V can assign case to the “moved” NP and theexpletive can not occur with it; it is not a trace of ATB because PCO would be a garden-variety-coordination.
The proposal of De Vos (2004) states that PCO are complex heads derived in thesyntax itself (i.e. the construction is not a compound). The account unifies the behavior ofPCO and what hHe calls Reduplicative Coordination (ReCo). And example of ReCo isgiven in (130):
De Vos (2004:185)(130) What did John read up and read up on?
43
The proposed structure is the following:
De Vos (2004:189):(131) …
VP
Spec V
V0 XP
V & verbal complement
read & Vsitgo and read
The proposal, according to De Vos (2004), has the following advantages: a)extraction is allowed, therefore, not CSC violation happens, b) only a single subject isprojected by the complex predicate, c) V&V PCO and ReCo pattern alike with lexical verbsin subject-aux-inversion and V to T raising, d) both is not tolerated in PCO and ReCobecause it contrast two entire events.
For this researcher the particle and marks a transition between the two stages and itis a two-place ‘sameness’ operator. In addition, “ReCo/PCO and is identical in its lexicalspecifications to the garden-variety coordinator and” (De Vos (2004:189)). Therefore, atthe semantic level and takes ‘same’ categories and at syntactic level “the sole differencebetween them is that garden varietyes and projects an entire XP of its own, ReCo/PCO andprojects only a head label” (De Vos (2004:189)).
Yaqui does not have pseudocoordinate structures. The language only havehas, interms of De Vos (2004) garden-variety-coordination and pseudosubordination. However, itis interesting to analyze why Yaqui lacks that kind of structures and it is important toanalyze the structures used for coordination.
First, there are not PCO because conjoined transitive verbs must have their objectsin overt syntax their objects:
(132) U ili jamut lapis-ta jinuk into a nenka-kDET small woman pencil buy-PST and it sell-PST‘DET pequeña mujer lápiz comprar-PST y lo vender-PST’‘The girl bought a pencil and sold it’‘La muchacha compró un lápiz y lo vendió’ This is also a good exampleshowing forward pronominalization in regular VP coordination.
Second, it is not possible to extract the object from a conjunct; therefore, there is notCSC violation. The nNext example of ReCo shows that we must repeat the Wh-question ineach conjunct if we want to have a grammatical coordinate sentence:
(133) Jitá bwiika into jitá bwiika ju joan
44
What sing:PTE and what sing:PTE DET JohnQué cantar:PTE y qué cantar:PTE DET Juan‘What does (the) John sings and sings’‘Qué canta y canta el Juan’
(134) *Jitá bwiika into bwiika ju joanWhat sing:PTE and sing:PTE DET JohnQué cantar:PTE y cantar:PTE DET Juan‘What does (the) John sings and sings’‘Qué canta y canta el Juan’
There are alternative resources for expressing repetition (i.e. alternatives to ReCo).The main one is reduplication.
(135) Aapo ji’os-ji’oste-su-kai lotte-kHe read:book-read:book-TERM-SUB be tired-PSTÉl leer:libro-leer:libro-TERM-SUB estar cansado-PST‘He read and read until he was tired’// ‘He is tired after being reading andreading (book(s))’‘Él leyó y leyó hasta que se cansó’// ‘Él se cansó después de haber leído y leído(libro(s))’
But, we have too the conjunction of reduplicated verbs, as indicated in nextexample:
(136) Malia jitá ji-jinu-ka-n into jitá ji-jinu-kanMaría what RED-buy- and what RED-buy-‘What did María buy into and :) buy?’‘¿Qué compró y compró María?’
Another resource in the language is the repetition of the object:
(137) Joan dulsem into dulsem jiba bwaeJohn candies and candies always eatJuan dulces y dulces siempre come‘John always eat candies and candies’‘Juan siempre come dulces y dulces’
The previous data indicates that it no PCO was not attested PCO (neither nor ReCo)in Yaqui. However, the literature shows that we have to look at Pseudocoordination,Garden Variety-Coordination and Pseudosubordination if we want to have a betterexplanation of the coordination phenomenon.
In first place, we have the observation that this classification lies mainly in twoparameters: a syntactic and a semantic one. Syntactically, pseudocoordination emerges withtwo (or more) conjuncts joined by a coordinator, but semantically it violates the CSC(Munn 1993, suggests that the CSC is a semantic constraint), although the truth conditionsare those of coordinated structures (LØudrup (2002, fn.3: 127)). Pseudocoordination,syntactically is a subordinated clause, but semantically it behaves as a coordinated one: it
45
respects the CSC (Yuasa and Sadock (2002). A garden-variety-coordination syntacticallyhas two (or more) conjuncts joined by a coordinator and syntactically tend to respect theCSC.
The nNext table shows that CSC is a violable constraint in some languages likeSpanish but not in languages like Yaqui. Therefore, if it exists, the CSC must be a softconstraint:
Table 1:Pseudocoordination Garden-Variety
CoordinationPseudosubordination
PCO ReCoObey the CSC? (Yaqui)
Notattested
Not attested Yes Yes
Obey the CSC?(English)
Not Not Yes/not ??
Obey the CSC?(Spanish)
Not Not Yes/not Not attested
Examples:Yaqui:
PCO and ReCo were not attested.
A garden-variety-coordination respects the CSC.
(138) Jabe-ta bicha-k into jabe-ta jikaja-kWho-NNOM:SG see-PST and who-NNOM:SG hear-PSTA quien ver-PST y a quien-NNOM:SG oir-PST
ju Peothe Peterel Pedro ‘Who does Peter saw and who does he heard’‘A quién vio y a quién escuchó Pedro’
(139) *Jabe-ta bicha-k into jikaja-k ju PeoWho-NNOM:SG see-PST and hear-PST the PeterA quien ver-PST y oir-PST el Pedro(‘Who did Peter see and hear’)(‘A quién vio y escuchó Pedro’)
46
A pseudosubordinated construction also respects too the CSC:
(140) Jabe-ta bicha-kai jabe-ta into jikaja-kWho-NNOM:SG see-SUB who-NNOM:SG and hear-PSTAquien ver-SUB a quien-NNOM:SG y oir-PST
ju Peo?the Peter?el Pedro?‘Who does Peter saw and who does (he) heard?’‘¿A quién vio y a quien escuchó Pedro?’
(141) *Jabetai Peo bicha-kai (into) jikaja-k Who Peter see-SUB (and) hear-PST A quien Pedro ver-SUB (y) oir-PST
(142) *Jabetai Peo ai= bicha-kai (into) ai= jikaja-k Who Peter him see-SUB (and) him hear-PST A quien Pedro lo ver-SUB (y) lo oir-PST
English:Both PCO and ReCo violate the CSC, as indicated below:
PCO (De Vos (2002:181)):(143) What has John sat and done all day?
ReCo (De Vos (2002:185)):(144) What did John read up and read up on?
It’s not clear how this one violates the CSC to me. couldn’t it be a case of (ATB) right-node-raisig of the PP complement ‘on what’, followed by extraction?
A garden-variety-coordination does not violate the CSC:
(145) John saw Maria and Peter heard Juana’(146) *Whom did John see and Peter heard Juana?(147) *¿Whom John saw Mary and did Peter heard?
But ATB extraction is possible, therefore the CSC is violated:
(148) Whom did John see and Peter hear?
But if the conjuncts make reference to a single subject, the CSC is violated: ??what? I don’t understand this point either. Why isn’t this just ATB from coordinated VPs??
(149) What does Maria buys and sells?
47
What happens with chains are do they conform to pseudosubordination?
(150) ??
(151) ??
Spanish:It is not clear that Spanish has PCO because the attested examples do not fit to the
characteristics of English PCO (De Vos (2004)). SpeciallyIn particular, in Spanish the firstconjunct is not restricted to a limited number of verbs, it does not yield special aspectualinterpretations nor have it ‘surprise’ and pejorative readings. However the following kindof Spanish examples share the following properties with the PCO in English: it violates theCSC, it shows too systematic violations of the CSC and it requires that both verbs have thesame morphological form. Next example could be placed in the Garden-variety-coordination.
PCO(152) ¿Qué pensó e hizo Juan todo el día?
What thought and did John all the dayWhat did John think and did all day?
ReCo(153) ¿Qué leyó y leyó Juan?
What read and read John?‘What did John read and read?’
Again, I don’t see why the above is not just an ex. of ATB extraction?A garden-variety-coordination does not violate the CSC. Next examples indicate
that not extraction is possible, if the sentences contain different subjects:
(154) Juan vio a María y Pedro escuchó a JuanaJohn saw to María and Peter heard to Juana‘John saw Maria and heard Juana’
(155) *¿A quien vio Juan y Pedro escuchó a Juana. To whom saw John and Peter heard to Juana
(156) *¿A quien vio Juan a María y escuchó Pedro? To whom saw John to Mary and heard Peter?
But ATB extraction is possible, therefore the CSC is violated:
(157) ¿A quien vio Juan y escuchó Pedro? To whom saw John and heard Peter? ‘Whom did John see and Peter heard?
But if the conjuncts make reference to a single subject, the CSC is violated:
(158) ¿Qué compra y vende Maria? What buy and sell Maria?
48
What does Maria buy and sell?
Again, I don’t understad the above point.
In relation to pseudosubordination, it seems that Spanish does not have it. Thefollowing chaining structure contains conjoined gerundive verbs that do not allowextraction from them but allow extraction from the tensed clause:
(159) Analizando a Maria, oyendo a Juana,Looking to Maria, hearing to Juana,
El marido supo el secreto.The husband knew the secret.‘Looking Maria, hearing Juana, the husband knew the secret’
Extraction from the adjunct:(160) *A quien Analizando, oyendo a Juana,
To whom looking, hearing to Juana,
El marido supo el secreto.The husband knew the secret.‘Looking Maria, hearing Juana, the husband knew the secret’
Extraction from the main clause:(161) Qué, Analizando a Maria, oyendo a Juana,
What looking to Maria, hearing to Juana,
supo el marido.knew the husband.‘What, looking at Maria, hearing Juana, did the husband know?’
Conclusion. The CSC is used as a test for coordinated constituency. It is central inthe above classification. However, the data shows that CSC is just one of the severalconstraints interacting in the make up of coordinate constructions. In addition, the datashows that is not easy to establish the line between coordination and subordination.
The occurrence of PCO is an argument against conjunction reduction because wecan not say that sentence (162a) is the source of sentence (162b):
(162) a) John went and John drinks beer.b) John went and drinks beer.
The semantic distinction is a reflex of a syntactic distinction.
Another characteristic that is worth to noticenoticing is that pseudocoordination isreduced to sentences where the same subject (grammatical or logical) is involved, the samehappens in yaqui with pseudosubordination (this fact is different for Japanese because thete-constructions can contain different subjects (Yuasa and Sadock (2002)): they are controlstructures. The same subject is understood in all the clauses of the chain.
49
Table 2:Pseudocoordination Garden-Variety
CoordinationPseudosubordination
PCO ReCoSame subject SS *DS
(English)(Spanish?)
SS *DS(English)(Spanish)
SS, DS(Yaqui)(English)(Spanish)
SS, *DS(Yaqui)
Other characteristics between those constructions are summarized in the following table. Itdoes not refer only to Yaqui.
Table 3:Pseudocoordination Garden-Variety
CoordinationPseudosubordination
PCO ReCo
*Backwardpronominalization
Yes:*Hei has satand Johni
done all hishomework?
Yes:*Hei read upand Johni readup on?
Yes:(English)(Spanish)(Yaqui)
Yes:(Yaqui)
Any number ofconjuncts can occur
Not(English)/Yes(Spanish)Que pensó,dijo e hizoJuan todo eldía?
Yes:(English)(Spanish)Juan rezó,rezó y rezóhasta que secansó.
Yes:(English)(Spanish)(Yaqui)Pedro trabajó,estudió, e hizola tarea.
Yes(Yaqui)
Reversibility NotEnglish/Yes:(Spanish)
Qué hizo,dijo y pensóJuan todo eldia?
Yes(English)(Spanish)??
Yes(English)(Spanish)(Yaqui)
Yes(Yaqui)
Scope (both affectedby negation)
Yes(English?)(Spanish)No es ciertoque compróy vendió elburro.
Yes(English)(Spanish)
Es falso queleyó y leyóhasta que secansó.
Yes(English)(Spanish)(Yaqui)
Yes(Yaqui)
50
y vendió elburro.
leyó y leyóhasta que secansó.
SemanticSort
Reduced tosome verbsin English.Commoncoordinationin Spanish
Any verb canbecoordinated inthis way(English)(Spanish)
Any verb(English)(Spanish)(Yaqui)
Any verb(Yaqui)
SamenessConstraint
CategorialSort
Main verbs(English)(Spanish)
Main verbs(English)(Spanish)
Main andauxiliary verbs(English)(Spanish)
Main verbs.(Yaqui)
Syntactic structure coordinate coordinate coordinate subordinated
From the table we can deduce various observations:
(163) a) The three languages have garden-variety-coordination.b) English and Spanish have PCO whereas Yaqui does not have it.c) English and Spanish does not have pseudosubordination, whereas
Yaqui has it.d) There are several aspects that occur cross linguistically: Any number
of conjuncts can occur, reversibility, scope of negation and thesameness constraint.
We have seen the analysis in the previous analysis that the CSC is considered a violableoneconstraint. It must be understood as a barrier against the extraction. It constraintsmovement. The comparison of Yaqui, English and Spanish showed that extraction in yaquiis not possible from a coordinate construction. The following chart indicates the situationbetween the languages. The CSC was defined as a ban on extraction.
(164) *Extraction: Extraction from a conjoined structure is not allowed.
Because Yaqui has a syntactic requirement that not heads can be conjoined, theconstraint is defined as follows:
(165) *Coordination of non-maximal projections (*Coord-non-max). Coordinationof heads is not allowed.
(166) DGF (Distribution of grammatical functions)The attributes of grammatical functions must be distributed in a coordinatestructure.
51
The candidate (167a) is optimal because it does not violate the higher ranked constraint*Extraction. Remember that it is not violated in Yaqui. The candidates (167b) and (167c)lose because they violate it.
(167) Tableaux with the ranking *Extraction >> DGF, *Coord-non-max.Input: {Jabeta, joan, ateak, into, jabeta, a,tebotuak}
*Extraction
DGF *Coord-non-max
a.Φ Jabeta joan ateak into jabeta a tebotuak **b. Jabeta Joan ateak into tebotuak !* *c. Jabeta Joan ateak into a tebotuak !* *
For languages like English and Spanish where we have reduction of grammaticalroles and coordination of heads is allowed, the ranking will be reversed. In such case thecandidate with the structure (167b) or (167c) will emerge as optimal, depending on thenature of the input and the interrelation within other ranked constraints.
One aspect of PCO is that it seems to be licensed bye the coordination of heads.This aspect is related too with to the possibility of having RNR structures in thoselanguages.
We saw that it would be difficult to say that Yyaqui has PCO. In a similar way, wepredict that Yaqui will not have RNR structures. At first sight, that seems to hold in Yaqui,however, if we compare the kind of data introduced by Cann et al (2005) with similarconstructions in Yaqui, we find that similar problems are recreated:
The nNext example shows a typical example of RNR. But in Yaqui, an overtpronoun is required in the canonical position, whereas in English and Spanish it is notrequired:
(168) Ume ili usim ka=ai tu’ure amak intoThe:PL small boy not=it like sometimes and
ket ka=ai wantaroa [ame-u o’omti-wa-ko] i
too not=it support them-to ungry-PAS-when‘Children do not like and sometimes they do not support the anger towardsthem’ ???Check translation.‘A los niños no les gusta y a veces tampoco aguantan que se enojen conellos’*‘A los niños no les loi gusta y a veces tampoco loi aguantan que se enojencon ellos’
The following example shows that there can be more than one right dislocatedexpresión, gliving rise to apparent non-constituent coordination.
(169) Joan yew=am go’ota-k, Peo into ye=amJohn out=them trow-PST Peter and HO=them
52
maka-k ume maestro-ta ji’oste-im jabe-tamake-PST the:PL teacher-NNOM writing-PL who-NNOM
ama a wanta uni’i.there it like even
‘John copied and Peter give the teacher’s writings to whaotever asks forthem’
‘Juan copió y Pedro regaló los apuntes del maestro a quien los pidiera’*‘Juan los copió y Pedro los regaló, los apuntes del maestro a quien lospidiera’
The following example shows that the dependency occurs into a strong island:
(170) Joan a jinu-pea Peo into juneaJoan it buy-want Peter and know
Jaisa teak uka karro-ta 1980 ne-nenka-me.hHow name the:NNOM car-NNOM 1980 RED-sell-RSUBJ
‘John wants to buy and Peter know the name of the person who is selling a1980 car1980’‘Juan quiere comprar y Pedro conoce cuál es el nombre de quien vende uncarro 1980’*‘Juan quiere comprar y Pedro conoce cuál es el nombre de quien vende uncarro 1980’
But not every pronoun could give rise to a structure that we can consider RNR. Thefollowing example, has translations that indicates that they are grammatical in English andSpanish and are not RNR.
(171) Jose aman pasillaoa-pea ta a beasJose there visit-want but it really
kopti-la-wa a samai-wa-ta jo’aka-poforget-PAST-PAS his aunt-POS-NNOM live-in‘Jose want to visit there, but he really forgot where does his aunt lives in’‘José quiere visitar allá pero él de verdad olvido donde está la casa de su tío’
(172) Jose a-u pasillaoa-pea ta a beasJose him-to visit-want but it really
kopti-la-wa [a samai-wa-ta] jo’aka-poforget-PAST-PAS [his aunt-POS-NNOM] live-in‘Jose want to visit him, but he really forgot where does his aunt live in’‘José quiere visitar allá pero él de verdad olvido donde está la casa de su tío’
53
I don’t cover this topic in the OT framework, but point out at some interesting areasof research in the Yaqui language. It clear that it is not by hazard that Yyaqui language doesnot allow pseudocoordination. The explanation of the three phenomena by using the sameset of constraint with different ranking seem to be promising.
I would find this last section re PCO perhaps more relevant to the overall discussion if itwas comparing the properties of the CSC in Yaqui with the properties of the CSC inanother head-final language, e.g. Japanese. Does Japanese allow ATB extraction at all (e.g.in topicalization? I would guess that you couldn’t tell from wh-mvt. because Japanese onlyhas wh-in-situ — though if only a single wh-in-situ phrase could cover 2 objects at once,that would be very very surprising and interesting… It might even be the case that onewould expect the CSC to be irrelevant in Japanese, in the same way that it’s irrelevant inthe English echo question, “You bought what and sold shoes?”, which is fine as an echoquestion… Hmm! )
