On the unavailability of argument ellipsis in Kaqchikel
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore
mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Theodore Levin
University of Maryland
tedlevin@umd.edu
Form and Analysis in Mayan Linguistics 4, November 2016

1

Introduction“Argument Ellipsis” refers to the interpretation of empty nominal categories that require full-fledged structure at LF, as revealed by sloppy and quantificational readings of those null arguments (e)For example, Japanese null arguments can be interpreted with either strict or sloppy identity (1).
(1)

a.

b.

Taroo-wa [zibun-no musume-ga eigo-ohanasu to] omotteiru.
Taroo-TOP self-GEN daughter-NOM English-ACC speak C thinks‘Taroi thinks that hisi own daughter speaks English.’Ken-wa [e furansugo-o hanasu to] omotteiru.
Ken-TOP French-ACC speak C thinks(i) ‘Ken thinks that Taro’s daughter speaks French.’strict: e = ‘her’(ii) ‘Ken j thinks that his j own daughter speaks French.’sloppy: e = ‘his j own daughter’

However, overt pronominals cannot receive sloppy interpretations (2):(2)

Ken-wa [kanojo-ga furansugo-o hanasu to] omotteiru.
Ken-TOP she-NOM French-ACC speak C thinks
a. ‘Ken thinks that Taro’s daughter speaks French.’b. *‘Ken j thinks that his j own daughter speaks French.’strict: e = ‘her’*sloppy: e = ‘his j own daughter’

This suggests that null arguments cannot only be pro (identical to overt pronouns in all but pronunciation).
Previous work shows that argument ellipsis effects are also not attributable to...
• Verb-stranding VP-Ellipsis (e.g. Oku, 1998; Saito, 2004; Takahashi, 2008; contra Otani and Whitman, 1991)• A null indefinite pro (e.g. Saito, 2007; Takahashi, 2008; contra Hoji, 1998)
A particularly influential alternative has been to link the presence / absence of argument ellipsis in a given
language or construction to the presence / absence of φ -agreement, as in (3):(3)

Anti-Agreement Hypothesis for Argument Ellipsis: (Saito, 2007; Şener and Takahashi, 2010)
Argument ellipsis is possible only if the argument is not φ -agreed with.

TODAY: We demonstrate that the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis makes incorrect predictions for the interpretation of null arguments in Kaqchikel.
• Otaki et al. (2013) show that Kaqchikel lacks argument ellipsis for both subjects and objects. In lightof (3), they say this is explained because Kaqchikel verbs agree with both subjects and objects.
• However, we show that, in Agent Focus constructions, even arguments that are not Agreed withdisallow argument ellipsis.
• Data from Kaqchikel Agent Focus thus, in fact, provide empirical and conceptual evidence that theAnti-Agreement Hypothesis for the availability of argument ellipsis is wrong.

1

2

Background2.1

Argument ellipsis and Agree

Consider (1) again. The argument in (1bi) could be a null pronoun, pro, as in (2). But (1bii) is interpreted asif ‘self’s child’ is there but unpronounced:(4)

Argument ellipsis in (1bii):
Ken-wa [zibun-no musume-ga furansugo-o hanasu to] omotteiru.
Ken-TOP self-GEN daughter-NOM French-ACC speak C thinks

The same ambiguity appears with quantifiers (Takahashi, 2008):(5)

Quantificational argument ellipsis in Japanese:a. Hanako-ga taitei-no sensei-osonkeishiteiru.
Hanako-NOM most-GEN teacher-ACC respect‘Hanako respects most teachers.’
b. Soshite Taro-mo e sonkeishiteiru.
andTaro-also respect(i) ‘Taro also respects those teachers that Hanako respects.’
referential: e = ‘them’(ii) ‘Taro also respects most teachers.’
quantificational: e = ‘most teachers’

However, languages with null arguments vary in their the availability of argument ellipsis.
(6)

No argument ellipsis in Spanish:a. Maria creeque su propuesta sera aceptada.
Maria believes that her proposal will.be accepted‘Mariai believes that heri/ j proposal will be accepted.’b. Juan también creeque e sera aceptada.
Juan also
believes that will.be accepted(i) ‘Juan also believes that Maria’s proposal will be accepted.’strict: e = ‘it’(ii) *‘Juan j also believes that his j proposal will be accepted.’*sloppy: e = ‘his j proposal’• Japanese null subjects and objects can be pro (referential) or ellided arguments.
• Spanish and Italian null arguments are always pro (strict) (but see Duguine 2014).

There is a Poverty of the Stimulus problem here. The (un)availability of argument ellipsis in a given
language or construction is not apparent from child-directed speech (e.g. Sugisaki, 2009; Ohtaki, 2014). The
availability of argument ellipsis must be predictable solely from independent properties of the language.
Note furthermore that availability of argument ellipsis is not simply a language-level parameter:(7)

Turkish null objects allow argument ellipsis:a. Can [pro anne-si]-nieleştir-di-0.
/
John his mother-3 SG-ACC criticize-PAST-3 SG‘Johni criticized hisi mother.’b. Mete-yse
e öv-dü-0.
/
Mete-however praise-PAST-3 SG(i) ‘But Mete praised John’s mother.’(ii) ‘But Mete j praised his j mother.’2

strict e = ‘her’sloppy e = ‘his j mother’Turkish null subjects do not allow argument ellipsis:a. Can [[pro oğl-u] İngilizce öğren-iyor-0/
diye] bil-iyor-0.
/
John his son-3 SG English learn-PRES-3 SG C
know-PRES-3 SG‘Johni knows [that hisi son learns English].’b. Mete-yse[e Fransızsa öğren-iyor-0/
diye] bil-iyor-0.
/
Mete-however French learn-PRES-3 SG C
know-PRES-3 SG(i) ‘But Mete knows [that John’s son learns French].’(ii) *‘But Mete j knows [that his j son learns French].’(8)

strict e = ‘him’*sloppy e = ‘his j son’φ -agreement is a position-specific parameter, allowing for intra-linguistic variability in the interpretation ofnull pronouns under the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis:
Anti-Agreement Hypothesis for Argument Ellipsis: (Saito, 2007; Şener and Takahashi, 2010)
Argument ellipsis is possible only if the argument is not φ -agreed with.

(9)

Under (9), subject argument ellipsis is not possible in Turkish because Turkish has subject φ -agreement.
Object argument ellipsis is possible because there is no object φ -agreement.
Note: If (28) is correct, languages like Spanish and Italian must have null object φ -agreement, while
Japanese has no φ -agreement at all.
Two predictions of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (Şener and Takahashi, 2010):• Argument that are exceptionally not agreed with should permit argument ellipsis (10–11).
• Argument that are exceptionally agreed with should deny argument ellipsis (12).
(10)

Subjects do not agree in Turkish ECM embeddings:
Pelin [ben-i/sen-i/on-u lise-yebaşla-yacak] san-ıyor-0.
/
Pelin I/you/(s)he-ACC high.school-DAT start-FUT
think-PRES-3 SG‘Pelin thinks I/you/(s)he will start high school.’(no agreement on ‘start’)(11)

Argument ellipsis is possible for these non-agreeing subjects:
a. Pelin [[pro yegen-i]-nilise-yebaşla-yacak] san-ıyor-0.
/
Pelin her niece-3 SG-ACC high-school-DAT start-FUT
think-PRES-3 SG‘Pelini thinks heri niece will start high school.’b. Suzan-sa[e ilkokul-abaşla-yacak] san-ıyor-0.
/
Susan-however grade.school-DAT start-FUT
think-PRES-3 SG(i) ‘But Susan thinks that Pelin’s niece will start grade school.’strict e = ‘him’(ii) ‘But Susan j thinks that her j niece will start grade school.’sloppy e = ‘her j niece’(12)

Subject honorific agreement blocks argument ellipsis in Japanesea. Taroo-wa [zibun-no sensei-ga
eigo-oo-hanasi-ninaru to] omotteiru.
Taroo-TOP self-GEN teacher-NOM English-ACC HON-speak-HON C thinks‘Taroi thinks that hisi own teacher speaks English.’b. Hanako-wa [e furansugo-o o-hanasi-ninaru to] omotteiru.
Hanako-TOP French-ACC HON-speak-HON C thinks(i) ‘Hanako thinks that Taro’s teacher speaks French.’strict: e = ‘him/her’(ii) ?*‘H j thinks that her j own teacher speaks French.’?*sloppy: e = ‘her j own teacher’
3

2.2

Argument ellipsis in Kaqchikel

Kaqchikel has overt subject and object φ -agreement and null arguments. ⇒ It is a proving ground for
the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis.
Kaqchikel is an ergative-absolutive head-marking language. Set A markers cross-reference transitive subjects (and nominal possessors) and Set B markers cross-reference intransitive subjects and transitive objects.
(13)

Kaqchikel agreement and null arguments (Otaki et al., 2013)
a. X-e-ru-tïj
nimamaixku’ a Xwan, iwir.
PRF -B3 PL-A3 SG -eat apple
CL Juan yesterday‘Juan ate apples yesterday.’b. Po e man x-0-u-tïj/ta e wakami.
but NEG PRF-B3 SG-A3 SG-eat NEG now‘But (he) didn’t eat (it) today.’Otaki, Sugisaki, Yusa, and Koizumi (2013) check the interpretation of null subjects and objects in Kaqchikel
and report that Kaqchikel has no argument ellipsis.
(14)

Null subjects do not allow argument ellipsis:a. Ri a Xwan n-0-u-na’ojij/[chi ri ru-mes tikirel y-e-ru-chäpch’oy].
the CL X.
IMPF-B3sg-A3sg-know C the A3sg-cat can
IMPF-B3pl-A3sg-catch mice
‘Juani thinks hisi cat can catch mice.’
b. Chuqa’ ri a Kalux n-0-u-na’ojij/[chi e tikirel y-e-ru-chäpch’oy].
also
the CL K.
IMPF-B3sg-A3sg-know C
can IMPF-B3 PL-A3 SG-catch mice(i) ‘Carlos also thinks Juan’s cat can catch mice.’strict: e = ‘it’(ii) *‘Carlos j also thinks his j cat can catch mice.’*sloppy: e = ‘his j cat’(15)

Null objects do not allow argument ellipsis:a. Ri a Xwan x-0-u-kanoj/
ri r-ak’wal.
the CL X.
PRF -B3 SG -A3 SG -look.for the A3 SG -child‘Juan looked for hisi child.’
b. Chuqa’ ri a Karlux x-0-u-kanoj
/
e.
also
the CL K.
PRF -B3 SG -A3 SG -look.for(i) ‘Carlos also looked for Juan’s child.’(ii) *‘Carlos j also looked for his j child.’

strict: e = ‘him/her’*sloppy: e = ‘his j child’

They also show that Kaqchikel disallows quantificational argument ellipsis (cf (5)):(16)

Null objects do not allow quantificational argument ellipsis:a. Y-e-ru-kamelajoxi’ tijonela’ ri a Xwan.
IMPF -B3 PL -A3 SG -respect three teacher the CL Juan
‘Juan respects three teachers.’b. A Kalux chuqa’ n-0-u-kamelaj/e.
CL Carlos also
IMPF -B3 SG -A3 SG -respect(i) ‘Carlos also respects those teachers that Juan respects.’
referential: e = ‘them’(ii) *‘Carlos also respects three teachers.’*quantificational: e = ‘three teachers’

Otaki et al. (2013) take this data from Kaqchikel to support the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (28), because
Kaqchikel shows agreement with both subjects and objects. This is true in all of their examples:“The central claim from these observations is that the parameter of argument ellipsis should
relate the availability of argument ellipsis to the absence of overt agreement...”4

3

New data: Argument ellipsis in Agent Focus

Kaqchikel does not always agree with both subjects and objects! In particular, here we test for argument
ellipsis in Agent Focus clauses (see Stiebels, 2006; Preminger, 2014; Erlewine, 2016).
In Agent Focus, the verb has only a Set B marker. This Set B marker exhibits omnivorous agreement,
agreeing with one argument following a salience hierarchy (17) (Preminger, 2014).
(17)

1st/2nd > 3rd plural > 3rd singular(18) and (19) illustrate the behavior of omnivorous agreement in accordance with (17).
(18)

3rd plural arguments control agreement over 3rd singular arguments
a. Ja rje’ x-e/*0-tz’et-ö/rja’.
FOC them PRF -B3 PL /*B3 SG -see- AF him‘It was THEM who saw him.’b. Ja rja’ x-e/*0-tz’et-ö/rje’.
FOC him PRF -B3 PL /*B3 SG -see- AF them
‘It was HIM who saw them.’(19)

1st singular arguments control agreement over 3rd plural arguments
a. Ja rje’ x-i/*e-tz’et-öyïn.
FOC them PRF -B1 SG /*B3 PL -see- AF me‘It was THEM who saw me.’b. Ja yïn x-i/*e-tz’et-örje’.
FOC me PRF -B1 SG /*B3 PL -see- AF them
‘It was ME who saw them.’

Preminger (2014): There is only one φ -probe in Agent Focus verbs. The argument that is higher (18) is
Agreed with; the other argument is not Agreed with, at all.
This Agent Focus Person Restriction indicates that only one φ -probe is present:• In Agent Focus constructions at most one of the two core arguments can be 1st/2nd person (20a).
• When both arguments are overtly agreed with, no such restriction exists (20b).
(20)

The (un)availability of multiple local person arguments (Preminger, 2014)
a. *Ja rat
x-in/at/0-ax-an/yïn.
FOC you( SG) PRF -B1 SG /B2 SG /B3 SG -hear- AF me‘It was YOU that heard me.’b. Ja röj x-ix-qa-tz’et.
FOC us PRF -B2 PL -A1 PL -see
‘It was US who saw y’all.’

1st/2nd person arguments must be Agreed with (Béjar and Rezac, 2003).
• The ungrammaticality of (20a) indicates that there is only one φ -probe.
• If there were a second, null φ -probe in (20a), the string would be grammatical, just like (20b).
Recall: Argument ellipsis is correlated with (the lack of) agreement. In particular, arguments that are exceptionally not agreed with should permit argument ellipsis (if the presence / absence of φ -agreement is the sole
predictor of the (un)availability of argument ellipsis).

5

Let’s now consider null arguments that are not Agreed with.
Prediction: Just in case the object in an Agent Focus construction is not agreed with, i.e. it is the lower
argument on (18), it should permit argument ellipsis.
This prediction is not borne out!
First, we test the availability of sloppy interpretations for null possessed arguments:(21)

Non-Agreeing null object does not allow argument ellipsis:
A: Ja [ri ma Kab’la i ri ya Ixtoj] x-e-kano-n
ri k-ak’wal.
FOC the CL K.
and the CL I.
PRF -B3 PL -look.for- AF the A3pl-child‘It’s [KAB’LA AND IXTOJ]i that looked for theiri child.’
B: Manäq, ja [ri ma Q’anil i ri ya Nikte] j x-e-kano-ne.
no
FOC the CL Q.
and the CL N.
PRF -B3 PL -look.for- AF(i) ‘No, it’s [Q’ANIL AND NIKTE] that looked for Kab’la and Ixtoj’s child.’(ii) *‘No, it’s [Q’ANIL AND NIKTE] j that looked for their j child.’

strict*sloppy

In (21), the subject is plural, triggering third-plural Set B agreement. The third-singular object is not Agreed
with (cf. Example (19)):• The Set B probe agrees with the plural ‘Kab’la and Ixtoj’ in both A and B; ‘their child’ ri kak’wal
in A and e in B are not Agreed with. And yet, a null object in the same position (21B) cannot beargument ellipsis.
• This result runs contrary to the predictions of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis.
Note: It’s not possible to test null subjects in Agent Focus, because Agent Focus requires an extracted
transitive subject.
Next, we test the availability of quantificational interpretations for null arguments:(22)

Non-Agreeing null object does not allow argument ellipsis:
A: Ja rïn x-in-kano-noxi’ tijonel-a’.
FOC 1 SG PRF -B1 SG -look.for- AF three teacher- PL‘It’s ME that looked for three teachers.’
B: Manäq, ja rïn x-in-kano-ne.
no
FOC 1 SG PRF -B1 SG -look.for- AF(i) ‘No, it’s ME that looked for those teachers.’
referential: e = ‘them’(ii) *‘No, it’s ME that looked for three teachers.’
quantificational: e = ‘three teachers’

In (22), the subject is 1st singular, triggering Set B agreement. The 3rd plural object is not Agreed with (cf.
Example (20)):• The Set B probe agrees with the 1st singular argument ‘rïn’ in both A and B; ‘three teachers’ oxi’tijonel-a in A and e in B are not Agreed with. And yet, a null object in the same position (22B)
cannot be argument ellipsis.
• This result runs contrary to the predictions of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis.
The lack of argument ellipsis in Kaqchikel does not correlate with φ -agreement. If thepresence/absence of φ -agreement for a particular argument is the sole predictor of argument ellipsis,
Kaqchikel Agent Focus demonstrates that the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (28) is wrong.
64

Failure to Agree and the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis

Kaqchikel also provides a conceptual argument against the logic of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis.
(23)

The logic of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (Saito, 2007):
a. In argument ellipsis, the e position copies its antecedent DP at LF.
b. At PF, there is really nothing in the e position. φ -agreement with e will fail.
c. If φ -agreement probes do not successfully Agree, they crash.

See also Takahashi (2013) for a derivation of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis under a PF-Deletion approachto argument ellipsis. The basic logic (especially ingredients b and c) is the same as (23).

Recall that in Kaqchikel Agent Focus (more generally in K’ichean), the Set B marker follows a saliencehierarchy (24). Restated in terms of a φ -probe, Preminger (2014) proposes the following logic:(24)

1st/2nd > 3rd plural > 3rd singular

=(17)

(25)

The logic of K’ichean Set B (based on Preminger, 2014):
a. Probe for a 1st or 2nd person DP (not agreed with Set A), Agree with it. If not found...
b. Probe for a plural DP (not agreed with Set A), Agree with it. If not found...
c. Set B is default/null = 0/This result is natural because third-singular DPs do not have any φ -features (Harley and Ritter, 2002).
In other words, if both arguments are third-singular, the Set B probe does not Agree with anything. This
result is grammatical with 0/ Set B:(26)

No Set B agreement, but grammatical:
Ja ri a Xwan x-0-kano-n/
ri r-ak’wal.
FOC the CL X.
PRF -B( DEFAULT)-look.for- AF THE A3 SG -child‘It’s JUAN that looked for his child.’(27)

Conclusion of Preminger (2014):
φ -agreement probes can fail to Agree, without triggering ungrammaticality.

Now recall the logic of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (28), especially part c: If φ -agreement probes do
not successfully Agree, they crash.
Kaqchikel AF—and phenomena in other languages, see Preminger (2014)—shows that the failure of Agreedoes not lead to a crash (26). This undermines the logic of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (27).
But an alternative explanation is needed for the apparent correlation between argument ellipsis and nonagreement in Turkish and Japanese.

7

5Conclusion: Towards a better account of argument ellipsis

Today:• Otaki, Sugisaki, Yusa, and Koizumi (2013) show that Kaqchikel null subjects and objects cannot beargument ellipsis; they lack sloppy and quantificational readings. They claim this supports the AntiAgreement Hypothesis.
(28)

Anti-Agreement Hypothesis for Argument Ellipsis: (Saito, 2007; Şener and Takahashi, 2010)
Argument ellipsis is possible only if the argument is not φ -agreed with.

• In Kaqchikel Agent Focus clauses, only one argument is Agreed with. We show that arguments thatare not Agreed with similarly disallow argument ellipsis (cf the exceptional argument ellipsis with
non-Agreeing subjects in Turkish (11)).
• Furthermore, Person Restrictions in K’ichean AF shows that (a) third-person DPs do not need to be
φ -Agreed with and (b) the Set B φ -probe will not crash if it does not find a goal. This undermines
Saito’s logic of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis.

Lessons for the theory of argument ellipsis:
Recall: Argument ellipsis poses a Poverty of the Stimulus problem. We want a reliable, independent, crosslinguistically available predictor of the presence/absence of argument ellipsis effects.
Kaqchikel can inform alternatives to the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis as well.
(i) Arguement Ellipsis and free word order
The presence/absence of argument ellipsis has been connected to free word order (Oku, 1998; Saito, 2004;
Takahashi, 2008).
• Free word order languages allow selectional requirements to be satisfied at LF.
• In these languages, argument positions can be empty in overt syntax and filled by LF-copying.
• LF-copying yields argument ellipsis effects.
This cannot be correct for Kaqchikel, because Kaqchikel has free word order (e.g. England, 1991; Broadwell,2000; Otaki et al., 2013)(29)

Kaqchikel word order variability (exx Otaki et al., 2013)
a. X-0-u-b’a/
ri tz’i’ ri me’s.
PRF -B3 SG -A3 SG -bit the dog the cat(i) ‘The cat bit the dog.’ (VOS)(ii) ‘The dog bit the cat.’ (VSO)
b. Ri tz’i’ x-0-u-b’a/
ri me’s.
the dog PRF -B3 SG -A3 SG-bite the cat‘The dog bit the cat.’ (SVO)

8

(ii) Argument Ellipsis and (non-)fusional case morphology
The presence/absence of argument ellipsis has been connected to case morphology (Otaki, 2012; Neeleman
and Szendrői, 2007; Ohtaki, 2014).
• K0 , the locus of case morphology, triggers ellipsis of its complement.
• If K0 must fuse to its complement for exponence, ellipsis will render the case morpheme without ahost, triggering ungrammaticality.
• If K0 is non-fusional, no ungrammaticality will arise under argument ellipsis.
This cannot be correct for Kaqchikel, because Kaqchikel has no (overt) case morphology.
(30)

Arguments are unmarked in Kaqchikel (exx Preminger, 2014)a. Ratx-0-aw-ax-aj/
ri achin.
you(SG) PRF-B3 SG -A2 SG-hear-ACT the man‘You heard the man.’b. Ri achin x-a-r-ax-aj
rat.
the man PRF -B2 SG -A3 SG-hear-ACT you(SG)‘The man heard you.’c. Ri achin x-0-uk’lun.
/
the man PRF -B3 SG-arrive‘The man arrived.’
d. Ratx-at-uk’lun.
you(SG) PRF -B2 SG-arrive‘You arrived.’(iii) Arguement Ellipsis and nominal size
The presence/absence of argument ellipsis has been connected to the NP/DP distinction in argument size(e.g. Tomioka, 2003, 2014; Cheng, 2013; Bošković, to appear).
• In general, elements of type <e, t>, e.g. VP and NP but not DP, can undergo ellipsis.
• Only those languages/constructions which permit NP-arguments will display argument ellipsis.
This might be on the right track for Kaqchikel. The data presented above involve attempts to elide DPs,
as indicated by the determiner ri in the antecedent. ⇒ Argument ellipsis is predicted to be blocked.
Future direction: Identify environments in which NP-arguments can be generated in Kaqchikel and test theavailability of argument ellipsis in those constructions/positions.
Such environments may include the incorporation antipassive (García Matzar and Rodríguez Guaján, 1997;
Ajsivinac and Henderson, 2011; Heaton, 2016; see also, e.g., Coon 2010 on Ch’ol VOS word order) and -oj
nominalization (Imanishi, 2014).
(31)-oj nominalization only allows bare NP objects (Imanishi, 2014):
a. X-0-qa-cäp/[choy-oj che’].
PRF -B3 SG -A1 PL -begin [cut- AP tree]‘We began to cut trees.’[choy-oj ri / nojel / oxi’ che’].
b. *X-0-qa-cäp/
PRF -B3 SG -A1 PL -begin [cut- AP DET / all/ three tree]‘We began to cut the / all / three trees.’9Acknowledgments
We thank Oriana Kilbourn-Ceron, Masha Polinsky, Omer Preminger, Juan Esteban Ajsivinac Sián, and the attendeesof the 2016 University of Maryland Summer Field School in Técpan, Guatemala for helpful comments and criticisms
at various stages of this project. We also thank Gladys, Pedro Manuel Garcia Lopez, Victoriana Lopez, Ana Lopez deMateo, Juan Esteban Ajsivinac Sián, and Victoria Socop for sharing their language with us. All errors are each other’s.

References
Ajsivinac, Juan, and Robert Henderson. 2011. Agent focus morphology without a focused agent: Restrictions on
objects in Kaqchikel. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics (FAMLi).
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics:
Theory and acquisition.
Bošković, Željko. to appear. On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunctcondition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review .
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2000. Word order and markedness in Kaqchikel. In Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference.
Cheng, Hsu-te Johnny. 2013. Argument ellipsis, classifier phrases, and the DP parameter. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Coon, Jessica. 2010. VOS as predicate fronting in Chol. Lingua 120:354–378.
Duguine, Maia. 2014. Argument ellipsis: A unitary approach to pro-drop. The Linguistic Review 31:515–549.
England, Nora C. 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57:446–486.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 34:429–479.
García Matzar, Pedro, and José Obispo Rodríguez Guaján. 1997. Rukemik ri Kaqchikel chi’: Gramática Kaqchikel.
Guatemala City: Cholsamaj.
Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric analysis. Language
78:482–526.
Heaton, Raina. 2016. How many ‘antipassives’ are there? A typology of antipassive-like constructions in Kaqchikel.
Presented at SSILA.
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29:127–152.
Imanishi, Yusuke. 2014. Default ergative. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Neeleman, Ad, and Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry
38:671–714.
Ohtaki, Koichi. 2014. Ellipsis of arguments: Its acquisition and theoretical implications. Doctoral Dissertation, UConn.
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. LF copy analysis of Japanese null arguments. In Proceedings of CLS 34, ed. M. Catherine Gruber,
Derrick Higgins, Kenneth S. Olson, and Tamra Wysocki, volume 1, 299–314.
Otaki, Koichi. 2012. Argument ellipsis arising from non-fusional case morphology. In Online Proceedings of GLOWin Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011, 247–261.
Otaki, Koichi, Koji Sugisaki, Noriaki Yusa, and Masatoshi Koizumi. 2013. The parameter of argument ellipsis: theview from Kaqchikel. In Studies in Kaqchikel grammar. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Otani, Kazuyo, and John Whitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22:345–358.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. Nanzan Linguistics 1:21–50.
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43:203–227.
Şener, Serkan, and Daiko Takahashi. 2010. Argument ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish. In Proceedings of WAFL 6, ed.
Hiroki Maezawa and Azusa Yokogoshi, number 61 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent Focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24:501–570.
Sugisaki, Koji. 2009. The acquisition of argument ellipsis in Japanese. Nanzan Linguistics 5:61–73.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2008. Noun phrase ellipsis. In The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 394–422. Oxford.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2013. Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis. Presented at NINJAL.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, 321–339. John Benjamins.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2014. Remarks on missing arguments in Japanese. In Proceedings of FAJL 7, 251–263.

10