Unifying definite andindefinite free relatives:
Evidence from Mayan
Hadas Kotek
McGill University

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

hadas.kotek@mcgill.ca

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Linguistic Society of America 90
January 2016

Free relatives

Many languages have free (or headless) relatives, with an initial wh-word:(1) English definite free relative:
I’ll buy [FR what you’re selling].
≈ I’ll buy the thing(s) that you are selling.
Such free relatives have definite or universal interpretation (Jacobson,
1995, a.o.), are DPs, and islands for extraction. Call these definite FRs.

2

Definite and indefinite free relatives
Some languages also have indefinite free relatives: (Pesetsky, 1982;
Izvorski, 1998; Grosu and Landman, 1998; Caponigro, 2003, 2004; Grosu,
2004; Šimík, 2011, a.o.)(2) Hebrew definite FR:(3) Hebrew indefinite FR:

Ahav-ti et [FR ma she-kara-ti].
liked-1sg ACC what that-read-1sg‘I liked the thing I read.’

Yesh l-i[FR ma li-kro].
what INF-read
EXIST to-1sg‘I have something (available
for me) to read.’• Compared to the definite FR (2), the indefinite FR (3) is nonfinite anddisallows an independent subject.
• The indefinite FR has a modal flavor and has also been called modal

existential wh-constructions (MECs).
• The indefinite FR is not an island for extraction.

3

Definite and indefinite free relatives
In many languages, these syntactic and semantic properties correlate:• Definite ⇔ structurally larger (DP)• Indefinite ⇔ structurally smallerSee Šimík (2011) for discussion of 16 languages (7 Balto-Slavic, 6Romance, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian).
Šimík (2011) concludes that indefinite FRs are fundamentally different
from definite FRs:
(4) Šimík’s Conjecture:
Indefinite FRs are all modal existential wh-constructions (MECs) of
sub-CP size.
a. Smaller structural size: explains nonfinite/subjunctive verb,
no independent subject
b. No DP layer: explains free extraction
4

Today: Chuj indefinite FRs

Today: Indefinite FRs that are more like definite FRs, in Chuj (Mayan;
Guatemala).
• Chuj indefinite FRs are the same size as definite FRs, allowing

subjects and all tense/aspects. They lack modal semantics of MECs.
• But they still have limited distribution and are not islands for

extraction.

5

In a nutshell
Definite and indefinite FRs share a common core syntax:
CP
wh

λx
... x ...

The CP is interpreted as a derived predicate of type ⟨e, t⟩ (Caponigro, 2003,
2004).
• Definite FRs: add a DP layer ⇒ type e or ⟨⟨e, t⟩, t⟩ argument• Indefinite FRs: certain verbs can take predicate CP complements

6

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Free relatives in Chuj
§3 Proposal§4 Jun free relatives§5 Conclusion

7

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
• Declaratives• Questions• Headed relative clauses§2 Free relatives in Chuj
§3 Proposal§4 Jun free relatives§5 Conclusion

8Chuj basics

Chuj is a verb-initial language.
(5) Simple declarative sentences:a. Intransitive:b. Transitive:Ol-∅-wa(ix.

Ix-∅-in-wa

ixim

wa’il.

PROSP-B3-eat CL.FEM

PRFV-B3-A1s-eat CL.GRAIN tortilla‘She will eat.’‘I ate the tortilla.’

Verbs show ergative/absolutive agreement alignment: Set A = ergative,
Set B = absolutive.

)9

A-movement: wh-questions☞ A-operators move to pre-verbal position.

(6) Simple wh-questions:a. Intransitive subject:b. Transitive object:

Mach ix-∅-ulek’-i?
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV

Tas ix-∅-a-man-a’?
what PRFV-B3-A2s-buy-TV‘Who came?’‘What did you buy?’

Verbs show a transitivity suffix when final in their phonological phrase.
()
A-movement of transitive subjects is marked on the verb with theAgent Focus (AF) morpheme and loss of Set A agreement.

10

A-movement: headed relatives
Headed relative clauses in Chuj are gapped clauses preceded by thenominal head that they modify.
(7) Headed relative clauses:
a. Ix

unin [RC (*mach) ix-∅-ulek’-i]
who
PRFV-B3-come-ITV

CL.FEM child‘the girl who came’b. Jun (ch’anh) libro [RC (*tas) ix-∅-w-awtej]
one CL.BOOK bookwhat PRFV-B3-A1S-read‘the book that I read’RCs show no overt complementizer akin to English that. Wh-words cannot
be used as relative pronouns.
11Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Free relatives in Chuj
• Definite free relatives• Indefinite free relatives§3 Proposal§4 Jun free relatives§5 Conclusion

12Definite and indefinite free relatives in Chuj

Chuj has two kinds of free relatives:(8) Chuj definite FR:(9) Chuj indefinite FR:

Ix-∅-in-mak [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
PRFV-B3-A1s-hit who PRFV-B3-come-ITV✓‘I hit the person who came.’* ‘I hit someone who came.’

Ay [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVEXIST* ‘The person came.’✓‘Someone came.’☞ Both FRs have the same syntactic size and no modal meaning.

13

The size of definite FRs
Definite FRs are full clauses:(10) Independent DP subject in the definite FR:
Ko-gana [FR tas ix-∅-s-man
waj Xun ].
A1p-likewhat PRFV-B3-A3-buy CL.NAME Juan
‘We like [what Juan bought].’(11) Definite FR with progressive:
A ix

Malin s-∅-ganaixs-∅-il-a

TOP CL.FEM Maria IMPF-B3-want CL.FEM IMPF-B3-see-TV[FR tas lan hin-k’ul-an-i].
what PROG A1s-do-AP-ITV‘Maria wants to see [what I am doing].’(Progressive is larger than other aspects; Coon and Carolan 2015.)

14

Definite FRs are arguments
Definite FR can be in any argument position:(12) Definite FR in object and subject position:a. Ix-∅-in-mak[FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV-B3-A1s-hit‘I hit [the person who came].’(=8)[FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
b. Ix-in-s-mak
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV-B1s-A3-hit‘[The person who came] hit me.’(13) Preverbal topic position is ok too:
A [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]ix-in-s-mag-a’.
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B1s-A3-hit-TV

TOP‘[The person who came]i , theyi hit me.’15

Definite FRs with quantifiers
Definite FRs may be used as the domains of quantifiers:(14) Quantifiers taking definite FRs:a. [Jantak [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]]ix-∅-w-il-a’.
many
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B3-A1s-see-TVb. Ix-∅-w-il[jantak [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV-B3-A1s-see many
‘I saw the many people who came.’(15)

a. [Juntzan [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]]ix-∅-w-il-a’.
certain
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B3-A1s-see-TVb. Ix-∅-w-il[juntzan [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV-B3-A1s-see certain‘I saw these people who came.’
16Indefinite free relatives
Recall the properties of indefinite FRs discussed in the literature:(16) Properties of indefinite FRs, cross-linguistically:a. narrow-scope indefinite
b. must be argument of verb with existential force
c. nonfinite/subjunctive
d. interpreted w/ existential modal of availability
e. no independent subject
f. transparent for extraction
These properties should go together, if Šimík’s Conjecture is true:indefinite FRs are all modal existential wh-constructions (MECs) of sub-CP
size, structurally smaller than definite FRs.
17

The structure of free relatives in Chuj
Against this prediction, Chuj indefinite FRs are not nonfinite; for example,
they show full tense/aspect contrasts:(17) Indefinite FRs with prospective and progressive aspect:a. Ay [FR tas ol -∅-k-aplej].
what PROSP-B3-A1p-try
EXIST‘We will eat something.’
literally ‘There exists [what we will eat].’b. Ay [FR mach lan -in y-il-an-i].
who PROG-B1s A3-see-SUB-ITV
EXIST‘Someone is watching me.’literally ‘There exists [who watching me].’18

The structure of free relatives in Chuj

(18) Indefinite FR with subject:
Ay [FR tas ix-∅-s-man
waj Xun ].
what PRFV-B3-A3-buy CL.NAME Juan

EXIST

‘Juan bought something.’
literally ‘There exists [what Juan bought].’
Their interpretations lack the modal semantics associated with modal
existential wh-constructions.
☞ Indefinite FRs are full clauses—full tense/aspect, independent
subject—and have no modal meaning, just like definite FRs.

19

Existential verbs
An indefinite FR must be the complement of a small set of predicates, withexistential force.
(19) Existential predicates in Chuj:
a. Ay jun uum sat
te’ mexa.
EXIST one book surface CL table‘There is a book on the table.’b. Malajch’anh uum sat
te’ mexa.
book surface CL table

NOT.EXIST CL‘There is no book on the table.’c. Ch’ok ch’anh uum sat
te’ mexa.
OTHER CLbook surface CL table‘There is a different book on the table.’20

Existential verbs
An indefinite FR must be the complement of a small set of predicates, withexistential force.
(20) Indefinite FR with existential predicates:
a. Ay [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV
EXIST‘Someone came.’(= 9)b. Malaj[FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘No one came.’
NOT.EXISTc. Ch’ok [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV
OTHER‘Others came.’
21

Other existential verbs
In addition to these basic existential predicates, some other verbs that
express the existence of their internal argument can license indefinite FRs:
(21) Indefinite FRs with predicates with an existential component:a. Aj-nak [FR mach famoso].
born-STAT who famous‘Someone famous was born.’ (e.g. 30 years ago)b. Ix-∅-chash [FR mach ol-∅-po-anke’n hin-carro].
PRVF-B3-find
who PROSP-B3-fix-AF CL.METAL A1s-car‘Someone was found who will fix my car.’c. Ko-say-an[FR tas ∅-ko-k’ulej].
A1p-look.for-SUB what B3-A1p-do‘We are looking for something to do’(Hopkins, 1967, 158)
22

Summary☞ Indefinite and definite FRs in Chuj have equal clause size, against
the claim that indefinite FRs are always modal existential whconstructions (MECs) (Šimík, 2011).
The internal syntax of Chuj indefinite FRs is instead exactly what ispredicted if they are full CPs (as in FRs of Caponigro, 2003, 2004, a.o.).

interpretation
nonfinite/subjunctive
modal interpretationno independent subject
narrow-scope indefinite
must be argument of existential verb

Def FR
def
×
×
×
N/A
N/A

MEC
indef
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝

Chuj indef FR
indef
×
×
×
⃝
⃝
23

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Free relatives in Chuj
§3 Proposal• Accounting for the distribution of definite and indefinite FRs• Evidence from extraction and jun free relatives§4 Jun free relatives§5 Conclusion

24

Proposal

We follow the analysis of indefinite FRs in Caponigro (2003, 2004).
Definite and indefinite FRs have a common CP core:(22) J[CP machi [TP ixulek’i ti ]]K = λx . x came

Abstraction over movement of the wh pronoun generates a predicate
denotation, type ⟨e, t⟩.

25

Proposal: indefinite FR

Indefinite FRs are the complement of existential verbs, e.g.:(23) JEXIST (ay)K = λP⟨e,t⟩ . ∃x P(x)(cf analyses of English there is; Milsark, 1974; McNally, 1998; a.o.)☞ This explains the limited distribution of indefinite FRs.

26

Proposal: definite FRs
Definite FRs are formed by adding a D-layer to the FR.
The addition of a ι D forms a definite FR of type e:(24) Ix-in-s-mak [DP ι [CP mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]].
PRFV-B1s-A3-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘[The person who came] hit me.’(=12b)

Other D quantifiers form ⟨et, t⟩ quantificational DPs:
(25) [DP tzijtum [CP tas tz-∅-chonh-nax]]
manywhat IMPF-B3-sell-PASS‘many things that are sold’(Buenrostro, 2009)☞ The DP layer makes definite FRs available in any argument position.
27

Proposal

Definite and indefinite FRs are similar internally but different externally:• A subject is always possible, because these are CPs.
• No tense/aspect restrictions.
• No modal component to indefinite FRs.
• Different licensing environments lead to differences in distribution.

28

Extraction islands
Support for this proposal comes from extraction.
Headed relative clauses in Chuj are islands for extraction:(28)* Mach [TP ix-∅-y-awtej
waj Xun
PRFV-B3-A3s-read CL Juanwho
[DP jun libro [RC {ix-∅-s-tz’ib’ej,
ix-∅-tz’ib’-an(-i)}
one book{PRFV-B3-A3s-write, PRFV-B3-write-AF-ITV}]]]?

Intended: ‘Who did Juan read a/one book that wrote?’(Two variants are tested, with and without Agent Focus morphology.)29Extraction from indefinite FRs

It is possible to extract out of indefinites FRs:
waj Xun].
(29) Ay [FR tas ix-∅-s-man
what PRFV-B3-A3s-buy CL.MASC Juan
EXIST
‘Juan bought something.’(30) Mach [TP ay [FR tas ix-∅-s-man-a’
EXIST
who
what PRFV-B3-A3s-buy-TVbaseline]]?

‘Who bought something?’

30

Extraction from definite FRs

However, it is not possible to extract out of definite FRs:
(31)

Ix-∅-y-il
waj Xun [FR mach ix-∅-mak-an-poj
te’ mexa].
who PRFV-B3-hit-AF-break CL table
PRFV-B3-A3-see CL Juan
‘Juan saw [the person who broke the table].’(32)

baseline

waj Xun [FR mach ix-∅-mak-an-(poj)* Tas ix-∅-y-il
what PRFV-B3-A3-see CL Juan who PRFV-B3-hit-AF-break].

Intended: ‘Whati did Juan see [the person who broke iti ]?’31

Summary

It is possible to extract out of indefinite free relatives but not out of
definite free relatives.
☞ This is in line with Šimík’s (2011) findings for free relatives
cross-linguistically.
Our explanation: An indefinite FR is a (special kind of) CP complementwith no DP layer, therefore not an island.

32

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Free relatives in Chuj
§3 Extraction§4 Jun free relatives§5 Conclusion

33

Jun free relatives

Chuj has a hybrid FR construction, with an indefinite meaning but
definite-like distribution: the indefinite jun free relative.
(33) A jun free relative:[jun [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]]one
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘one/a person who came’34Jun free relatives
The jun-FR can be the argument of existential predicates:(34) Indefinite free relative, repeated:
Ay [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV

EXIST‘Someone came.’ (possibly plural)(= 9)(35) A jun free relative, as the argument of ay:
Ay jun [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV

EXIST one

‘One/a person came.’

35Jun free relatives
Jun-FR can appear in any argument position:(36) Jun FR as object of ‘see’:Ix-∅-w-il[jun [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV-B3-A1s-see one‘I saw one/a person who came.’(37) Jun FR as pre-verbal subject topic:[Jun [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]]ix-∅-w-il-a’.
one
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B3-A1s-see-TV‘[One/a person that came]i , I saw themi .’☞ Jun creates indefinite DP free relatives.
36Jun free relatives
The addition of jun is crucial. Without it, the FR is interpreted as definite:(36) Jun FR as object of ‘see’:Ix-∅-w-il[jun [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i]].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV-B3-A1s-see one‘I saw one/a person who came.’(38) FR without jun as the object of ‘see’ must be definite:
Ix-∅-w-il
PRFV-B3-A1s-see[FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘I saw the person/people who came.’(cf 36)37

Extraction out of jun free relatives☞ In contrast to indefinite FRs without jun, it is not possible to extract
out of jun-FRs:(39)* Tas [TP ay [jun [FR mach ix-∅-awt-an(-i)
what EXIST one
who PRFV-B3-read-AF]]]?

Intended: ‘What did someone read?’(40)* Mach [TP ix-∅-y-awtej
waj Xunwho
PRFV-B3-A3-read CL.MASC Juan[jun [FR tas ix-∅-tz’ib-an(-i)
one what PRFV-B3-write-AF-ITV]]]?

Intended: ‘Whoi did Juan read [something thatwrote]?’
38

Extraction out of jun free relatives
Recall our earlier observation: indefinite FRs (w/o jun) allow extraction.
Two hypotheses:
1

Indefinite FRs lack the DP layer of other FRs.

2

It’s generally easier to extract out of RCs on indefinites.
Much literature on Scandinavian languages—see e.g. Engdahl (1997);
and see also Kuno (1976); McCawley (1981); Chung and McCloskey(1983) on English.

☞ Extraction correlates with syntactic structure:
It is possible to extract out of a FR only if they do not have a D layer; it
is not indefiniteness that allows exceptional extraction.

39

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Free relatives in Chuj
§3 Proposal§4 Jun free relatives§5 Conclusion

40

FRs vs MECs
Today we investigated indefinite free relatives in Chuj, which have asubset of the properties previously thought to hold for indefinite FRs
cross-linguistically.

interpretation
nonfinite/subjunctive
modal interpretationno independent subject
narrow-scope indefinite
must be argument of existential verb
transparent for extraction

Def FR
def
×
×
×
N/A
N/A
×

Chuj indef FR
indef
×
×
×
⃝
⃝
⃝

MEC
indef
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝

☞ Not all indefinite FRs are modal existential wh-constructions(MECs) of sub-CP size, contra Šimík’s Conjecture.
41

Nominal domains
An additional difference: Definite FRs may include overt nominal domains.
(41) Nominal domains are possible with definite FR:
Ix-∅-w-ilelta
PRFV-B3-A1s-meet[FR mach winh unin ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who CL.MASC boy PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘I met the boy who came.’
In contrast, indefinite FRs (including jun-FRs) may not include domains.
(42) No nominal domain with indefinite FR:* Ay (jun) [FR mach winh unin ix-∅-ulek’-i].
one EXIST
who CL.MASC boy PRFV-B3-come-ITV
Intended: ‘Some boy came.’
This seems to track indefiniteness, not syntactic size, and remains an
open question. (See more in the Appendix.)42Indefinite FRs across Mayan

A similar construction is observed in Yucatec (AnderBois, 2012;
Guttiérrez-Bravo, 2013, a.o.):(43) Indefinite free relative in Yucatec:(AnderBois, 2012, 361)

Yan [FR máax t-u
yuk’-ajle sa’-o’].
exists who PRFV-A3 drink-STATUS the atole-DISTAL‘Someone drank the atole.’

43Indefinite FRs across Mayan
And similarly in Kaqchikel (Erlewine, to appear):(44) Indefinite FR in Kaqchikel:
K’o
EXISTS[FR x-oj-tz’et-ö
roj].
COM-B1p-see-AF 1pl‘Someone saw us.’(45) Not an island for extraction:
Achike [TP k’o [FR x-∅-tz’et-ö
who
EXISTS
COM-B3s-see-AF]]?

‘Who did someone see?’But this construction is not clearly a FR. There is no wh-word at the edge.
44Indefinite FRs across Mayan

A wh appears when it pied-pipes material (here, a relational noun):(46) K’o[FR [achoj che] x-∅-in-ya-wï
ri pastel].
whose RN COM-B3s-A1s-give-WI the cake‘I gave the cake to someone.’literally ‘There exists [[to whom] I gave the cake].’
EXISTS

We hypothesize that these existential constructions in Kaqchikel are also
indefinite FRs, but in most cases with no pronounced wh-word.

45

A simple proposal
Definite and indefinite FRs share a common core syntax:CP⟨e,t⟩whλx... x ...

☞ Both are full CPs, with subject and full tense/aspect, as in Caponigro(2003, 2004) and contra Šimík (2011).
• Definite FRs: add a DP layer• Indefinite FRs: complement of existential predicates

An open question: Why doesn’t this happen more frequently, given how
simple the analysis is?
46

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
We thank Magdalena Torres for her time and patience in sharing her
language with us. For comments and discussion we would like to thankJessica Coon, Ivano Caponigro, Scott AnderBois, Radek Šimík, Lizzie
Carolan, and the audience at NELS 46. Errors are each other’s.
Handouts and slides at http://hkotek.com & http://mitcho.com.
See also Kotek and Erlewine (2015) for this and other data.

47

References I
AnderBois, Scott. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions.
Natural Language Semantics 20:349–390.
Buenrostro, Cristina. 2009. Chuj de San Mateo Ixtatán. El Colegio de México.
Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives andwh-words cross-linguistically. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at
Los Angeles.
Caponigro, Ivano. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts:
Evidence from free relatives crosslinguistically. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed.
Robert Young, 38–55.
Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey. 1983. On the interpretation of certain
island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14:704–713.
Coon, Jessica, and Elizabeth Carolan. 2015. Nominalizations and the structure of
progressives in Chuj Mayan. Manuscript, McGill University.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. In Working papers
in scandinavian syntax, volume 60, 51–79.

48

References II
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. to appear. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel
Agent Focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory URL
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001841/current.pdf.
Grosu, Alexander. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential whconstructions. In Balkan syntax and semantics, 405–438.
Grosu, Alexander, and Fred Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind.
Natural Language Semantics 6:125–170.
Guttiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2013. Free relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. STUF:
Language Typology and Universals 66:22–39.
Hopkins, Nicholas A. 1967. The Chuj language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Chicago.
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1998. Non-indicative wh-complements of existential andpossessive predicates. In Proceedings of NELS 28, ed. Pius N. Tamanji andKiyomi Kusumoto, 159–173.

49

References III
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of free relatives. In
Quantification in natural langauges, ed. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika
Kratzer, and Barbara Hall Partee. Springer.
Kotek, Hadas, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2015. Non-interrogative
wh-constructions in Chuj. Manuscript, McGill University and National Universityof Singapore.
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject, theme, and speaker’s empathy: A reexamination ofrelativization phenomena. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li and Sandra A.
Thompson, 417–444.
McCawley, James D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses.
Lingua 53:99–139.
McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification.
Linguistics and Philosophy 21:353–392.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral Dissertation.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

50References IVŠimík, Radek. 2011. Modal existential wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation,
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

51

Echo questions
Non-fronted questions exist, but they are interpreted as echo questions.
(47) Non-fronting questions are echo questions; can’t be embedded:a.

Ix-∅-ulek’mach?
PRFV-B3-come who‘Who came?’ (echo question)b.

(cf 6a)* K-ojtak [ix-∅-ulek’mach].
A1p-know PRFV-B3-come who
Intended: ‘We know who came.’c.

K-ojtak [mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
A1p-know who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘We know who came.’52