On the unavailability of argument ellipsis in Kaqchikel
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE

Theodore LEVIN

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

tedlevin@umd.edu

Argument ellipsis (AE)

Background: Agreement and argument ellipsis in Kaqchikel (Otaki et al. 2013)

Some null arguments allow non-pronominal (sloppy) readings:

Kaqchikel (Mayan; Guatemala) has null arguments, and transitive verbs agree with both objects (Set B marker) and subjects (Set A marker) :(1) Turkish null objects allow sloppy readings (=argument ellipsis)a.
Can [pro anne-si]-nieleştir-di-Ø.
John his mother-3SG-ACC criticize-PST-3SG‘Johni criticized hisi mother.’b.
Mete-ysee öv-dü-Ø.
Mete-howeverpraise-PST-3SG(i)‘But Mete praised John’s mother.’= strict(ii) ‘But Metej praised hisj mother.’= sloppy(5) Kaqchikel agreement and null arguments (Otaki et al. 2013)
a. X-e-ru-tïj
nimamaixku’ a Xwan, iwir.
PRF-B3PL-A3SG-eat
apple
CL Juanyesterday‘Juan ate apples yesterday.’(2) … but Turkish disallows subject AE (Sener & Takahashi 2010).
a.
Can [[pro oğl-u] İngilizce öğren-iyor-Ø diye] bil-iyor-Ø.
John his son-3SG English learn-PRS-3SG Cknow-PRS-3SG‘Johni knows [that hisi son learns English].’b.
Meye-yse[e Fransızsa öğren-iyor-Ø diye] bil-iyor-Ø.
Mete-howeverFrenchlearn-PRS-3SG C
know-PRS-3SG(i) ‘But Mete knows [that John’s son learns French].’= strict(ii) * ‘But Metej knows [that hisj son learns French].’= *sloppy

b. Po eman x-Ø-u-tïjbut
NEG PRF-B3SG-A3SG-eat‘But (he) didn’t eat (it) today.’tae, wakami.
NEG
now

Otaki et al (2013): (agreeing) null subjects and objects cannot be argument ellipsis, as predicted by the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (3).
(6)

Null subjects do not allow AEa.

Ri a Xwan n-Ø-u-na’ojij [chi ri ru-mes tikirel y-e-ru-chäpch’oy].
the CL X.
knows
C
the A3SG-cat canIMPF-B3PL-A3SG-catch mice

‘Juani thinks hisi cat can catch mice.’b.

Chuqa’ ri a Karlux n-Ø-u-na’ojij [chi e tikirel y-e-ru-chäp
also
the CL K.
knows
CcanIMPF-B3PL-A3SG-catch(i)‘Carlos also thinks Juan’s cat can catch mice.’(ii) * ‘Carlosj also thinks hisj cat can catch mice.’ch’oy].
mice= strict= *sloppy(7)

Null objects do not allow AEa. Ri a Xwan x-Ø-u-kanoj
ri r-ak’wal.
the CL X.
PRF-B3SG-A3SG-look.for the A3SG-child‘Juani looked for hisi child.’
b. Chuqa’ ri a Karlux x-Ø-u-kanoje.
also
the CL K.
PRF-B3SG-A3SG-look.for(i) ‘Carlos also looked for Juan’s child.’= strict(ii) * ‘Carlosj also looked for hisj child.’= *sloppy

The Anti-Agreement Hypothesis

Argument ellipsis (sloppy null arguments) are unavailable in Kaqchikel even when those arguments are not Agreed with.
This contradicts predictions of the prominent Anti-Agreement Hypothesis for argument ellipsis (3) (Saito 2007).

Question: How can you learn if a language has AE or not?
• Not unambiguous in child-directed speech (Sugisaki 2009).
• AE must correlate with some other factor that is observable.

Kaqchikel lacks exceptional AE(3) Anti-Agreement Hypothesis for Argument Ellipsis (Saito 2007)
Argument ellipsis is possible iff the argument is not ϕ-Agreed with.
For example, Japanese lacks subject and object agreement and indeed
allows argument ellipsis for both subjects and objects (cf Turkish (2)).
Φ-agreement is observable and position-specific.
(3) predicts availability of AE if a DP is exceptionally not Agreed with.
Turkish ECM subjects are not Agreed with and permit AE!
(4) Exceptional AE in Turkish ECM (cf (2))
a. Pelin [[pro yegen-i]-nilise-yebaşla-yacak]san-ıyor-Ø.
Pelin her niece-3SG-ACC high.school-DAT start-FUT
think-PRS-3SG‘Pelini thinks heri niece will start high school.’b. Suzan-sa [e ikokul-abaşla-yacak] san-ıyor-Ø.
Susan-butgrade.school-DAT start-FUT
think-PRS-3SG(i) ‘But Susan thinks [Pelin’s niece will start grade school].’= strict(ii) ‘But Susanj thinks [herj niece will start grade school].’= sloppy(Turkish examples from Şener & Takahashi 2010)

NB: Japanese also disallows AE with subject-honorific agreement.

Against the logic of Anti-Agreement

In Agent Focus, just one argument is agreed with (e.g. Preminger 2014).
(8) Kichean Agent Focus ‘salience’ hierarchy (Dayley 1978)
1st / 2nd person > 3rd person plural > 3rd person singular(9) 3rd plural controls agreement over 3rd singulara. Ja rje’ x- e / *Ø -tz’et-örja’.
FOC them PRF-B3PL/*B3SG-see-AFhim‘It was THEM who saw him.’b. Ja rja’ x- e / *Ø -tz’et-örje’.
FOC him PRF-B3PL/*B3SG-see-AF
them‘It was HIM who saw them.’(11) The logic of the Anti-Agreement Hypothesis (Saito 2007):Set B = subject (3pl)

Set B = object (3pl)

Unlike Turkish (4), arg’s that aren’t agreed with still disallow AE!
The 3rd singular null object in (10b) is not agreed with due to Agent Focus,
but still disallows the sloppy (AE) reading!
(10) A: Ja[ri ma Kab’la iri ya Ixtoj] x-e-kano-n
FOC the CL K.
and the CL I.
PRF-B3PL-LOOK.FOR-AF

Kaqchikel provides a conceptual argument against (5) as well.

ri k-ak’wal.
the A3PL-childa. In AE, the e position is unaccessible to ϕ-probing.
b. Its semantic content has yet to be copied or it’s already elided.
c. If ϕ-agreement probes do not successfully Agree, they crash.

BUT in AF at most one argument is Agreed with. AF with two participant
DPs is ungrammatical (12), as one of the two arguments is not Agreed with,in violation of Person Licensing (Béjar & Rezac 2003).
(12) AF ungrammatical with two participants; only Agrees with one* Ja rat
xin / at / Ø -ax-an yïn.
FOC you.SG PRF-B1SG/B2SG/B3SG-hear-AF me‘It was YOU that heard me.’(Preminger 2014)To capture (8), Preminger concludes that 3rd singular DPs are not Agreed
with; they lack ϕ-features entirely (Harley & Ritter 2002).

B: Manäq, ja [ri ma Q’anil iri ya Nikte] x-e-kano-ne.
No
FOC the CL Q.
and the CL N.
PRF-B3PL-LOOK.FOR-AF(13) Lack of agreement is grammatical:
Ja ri a Xwan x-Ø-kano-n
FOC the CL X.
PRF-B(DEFAULT)-look.for-AF‘It’s JUAN that looked for his child.’(i) ‘No, it’s [Q. AND N.] that looked for K. and I.’s child.’(ii) * ‘No, it’s [Q. AND N.]j that looked for theirj child.’à If failure to Agree does not induce a crash, (13), the logic of the AntiAgreement Hypothesis (11c) fails apart.

‘It’s [KAB’LA AND IXTOJ]i that looked for theiri child.’= strict= *sloppy

ri r-ak’wal.
the A3SG-child