Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives: Evidence from Mayan*

Hadas Kotek & Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
McGill University & National University of Singapore

1.

Introduction

Free (or headless) relatives (FRs) refer to clauses with an initial wh-word (in bold throughout the paper), which semantically denote arguments:(1)

English free relative:
I’ll buy [FR what you’re selling].
≈ ‘I’ll buy the thing(s) that you are selling.’

Free relatives as in the English (1) and similar structures in other languages have been
described as having definite or universal interpretation (Jacobson 1995, a.o.). They act as
DPs and are islands for extraction. We will refer to this type of free relative as definite FRs.
In addition to this cross-linguistically common definite FR construction, some languages also have a second free-relative construction that we will refer to as indefinite FRs(Pesetsky 1982, Izvorski 1998, Grosu & Landman 1998, Caponigro 2003, 2004, Grosu
2004, Šimı́k 2011, a.o.). Examples (1–1) exemplify definite and indefinite FRs in Hebrew:(2)

Hebrew definite FR:
Ahav-ti et [FR ma she-kara-ti].
liked-1sg ACC
what that-read-1sg‘I liked the thing I read.’(3)

Hebrew indefinite FR:
Yesh l-i[FR ma li-kro].
EXIST to-1sg
what INF-read‘I have something to read.’

The free relatives in (1–1) differ not only in interpretation but also in their syntax.
Compared to definite FRs, such indefinite FRs are nonfinite, lack an independent subject,and have a modal interpretation, which has led to their being called modal existential whconstructions (MECs) in some previous literature. For example, the example in (1) canbe paraphrased as meaning ‘I have something available to me to read.’ These and otherproperties of definite and indefinite FRs in Hebrew are summarized in (1):* We are grateful to Magdalena Torres for her time and patience in sharing her language with us. Forcomments and discussion we would like to thank Scott AnderBois, Ivano Caponigro, Lizzie Carolan, Jessica
Coon, Robert Henderson, David Pesetsky, Radek Šimı́k, and audiences at McGill University, LSA 2016, andNELS 46. Errors are each other’s.

Kotek & Erlewine(4)

Properties of definite and indefinite free relatives (in Hebrew):
Definite FR Indefinite FR = MEC
interpretation
definite
indefinite
nonfinite/subjunctive×
modal interpretation×no referentially independent subject
×transparent for extraction (not shown)×

The correlation between interpretive and structural properties of free relatives summarized in (1) holds in many languages, with few exceptions for some of the properties. We
refer to indefinite FRs with properties substantially similar to that of Hebrew (1) as MECs.
A common approach to such MECs is to say that they are structurally smaller than definite
FRs—either bare CPs (Izvorski 1998, Grosu & Landman 1998, Caponigro 2003, 2004,
Grosu 2004) or even sub-CP in size (Šimı́k 2011). The lack of a DP layer explains theirtransparency for extraction and limited distribution. The sub-CP size or restriction to nonfinite clauses explains the lack of independent subject and obligatory modal interpretation.
In this paper we describe indefinite FRs in Chuj, a Mayan language of Guatemala,which exemplifies a very different pattern from that of MECs summarized in (1) above.
Indefinite FRs in Chuj are full CPs, allowing independent subjects and all tense/aspects andlacking the modal interpretation characteristic of MECs. Indefinite FRs in Chuj nonethelesshave a limited distribution and are not islands for extraction.
We show that the properties of Chuj FRs follow straightforwardly from the analysis
of Caponigro (2003, 2004), where definite and indefinite FRs share a common core syntax, consisting of a CP with a wh-pronoun fronted to the edge of the clause. This CP isinterpreted as a derived predicate of type he,ti. To construct a definite FR, a DP layer isadded, yielding an argument of type e or hhe,ti,ti (1a). Indefinite FRs arise because certain
verbs in the language with existential semantics are able to take predicate CP complements
as their arguments (1b). This accounts for their meaning and limited distribution. See also
Izvorski (1998) and Grosu & Landman (1998) for precursors to this idea.
(5)

Proposed structures for Chuj FRs, following Caponigro (2003, 2004):a.

Definite FR:
DP
D

b.

CPhe,tiwhIndefinite FR:
VP
V∃

CPhe,tiwhλx... x ...

λx... x ...

In section 2 we provide some background on relevant properties of Chuj. We thenprovide data on free relatives in section 3 and present our proposal based on Caponigro(2003, 2004) in section 4. We provide further support for our analysis from extraction
facts and from the behavior of jun-free relatives. Finally, in section 5 we discuss parallel
constructions in other Mayan languages.

Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives
2.

Background on Chuj

Chuj is an understudied language of the Q’anjob’alan branch of the Mayan family. It is
spoken by approximately 40,000 people in the department of Huehuetenango in Guatemala
and an additional 10,000 people in Mexico. We study the San Mateo Ixtatán variety here.1
Chuj is verb-initial, with verbs exhibiting maximally two agreement markers with ergative/absolutive alignment. Following Mayanist tradition, we refer to the ergative agreement
marker as Set A and absolutive as Set B.
(6)

Simple intransitive and transitive sentences:a.
Ol-0-wa/ix Malin.
b.
Ix-0-in-wa/
ixim wa’il.
PROSP -B3-eat CL MariaPRFV -B3-A1s-eat CL tortilla‘Maria will eat.’‘I ate the tortilla.’

A-operators must move to a pre-verbal position, as exemplified through the wh-questionsin (2). A-movement of transitive subjects is marked on the verb with the Agent Focus (AF)morpheme and loss of Set A agreement, as in (2c) (see e.g. Stiebels 2006). Note also thatverbs show a transitivity suffix when they are final in their phonological phrase.
(7)

Simple wh-questions:a.
Intransitive subject:
Mach ix-0-ulek’-i?
/
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘Who came?’
Transitive subject:c.
Mach ix-in-il-an-i?
who PRFV-B1s-see-AF-ITV‘Who saw me?’b.

Transitive object:
Tas ix-0-a-man-a’?
/
what PRFV-B3-A2s-buy-TV‘What did you buy?’

Headed RCs are gapped clauses preceded by the nominal head they modify, whichis underlined here. There is no overt complementizer akin to English that and wh-words
cannot be used as relative pronouns.2(8)

Headed relative clauses:a.
ix unin [RC (*mach) ix-0-ulek’-i]/
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV
CL child‘the girl who came’b.
jun (ch’anh) libro [RC (*tas) ix-0-w-awtej]/
one CLbookwhat PRFV-B3-A1S-read‘the book that I read’

1 The following abbreviations are used: A = Set A (ergative), AF = Agent Focus, B = Set B (absolutive),

CL = classifier, DEF = definite determiner, IMPF = imperfective, ITV = intransitive verb, NML = nominal
suffix, PSV = passive, POSS = possession, PRFV = perfective, PROG = progressive, PROSP = prospective,
STAT = stative, SUB = subordinate, TOP = topic, TV = transitive verb. See Domingo Pascual (2007) on Chuj
orthographic conventions. All uncredited data is from the authors’ notes.
2 Similar facts are presented for the San Sebastián dialect of Chuj in Maxwell (1976).

Kotek & Erlewine
3.

Free relatives in Chuj

The two kinds of free relatives in Chuj—definite and indefinite—are exemplified in (3–3).
We will show that both types of FRs have the same structural size and lack the modal interpretation of MECs, but differ in their distribution. We begin by discussing definite FRs andthen discuss indefinite FRs.
(9)

Chuj definite FR:

(10)

Ay

X ‘I hit the person who came.’* ‘The person came.’
X ‘Someone came.’* ‘I hit someone who came.’
3.1

Chuj indefinite FR:

Ix-0-in-mak’/[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/
PRFV -B3-A1s-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVEXIST[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVDefinite free relatives

Definite FRs are full, indicative clauses. They allow an independent disjoint subject as in(3.1) and allow all tense/aspect specifications. Example (3.1) shows a FR in the progressive,
which has been argued to be syntactically larger than other aspects (?).
(11)

Definite FR with an independent DP subject:
Ko-gana [FR tas ix-0-s-man/
waj Xun ].
A1p-likewhat PRFV-B3-A3-buy CL Juan
‘We like [what Juan bought].’(12)

Definite FR with progressive tense:
A ix Malini s-0-gana/ixi s-0-il-a/[FR tas lan hin-k’ul-an-i].
TOP CL Maria IMPF -B3-want CL IMPF-B3-see- TV
what PROG A1s-do-SUB-ITV‘Maria wants to see [what I am doing].’

Definite FRs may occupy any argument position. Example (3.1a–b) show a post-verbal
object and subject, respectively, which are disambiguated by agreement on the verb. Example (3.1c) shows a pre-verbal subject topic.
(13)

Definite FR in object and subject positions:a.

Ix-0-in-mak’/[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/
PRFV -B3-A1s-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘I hit [the person who came].’b.

Ix-in-s-mak’[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/
PRFV -B1s-A3-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘[The person who came] hit me.’c.

[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i]/ix-in-s-mag-a’.
TOP
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B1s-A3-hit-TV‘[The person who came]i , theyi hit me.’A(=3)

Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives
Finally, definite FRs may be used as the domains of quantifiers. Here we show examples
with jantak ‘many.’ Notice that the FR can again appear pre- or post-verbally. Example(3.1a) has jantak with a definite FR domain in post-verbal position. This quantificational
DP is topicalized in (3.1b) with no change in meaning.
(14)

3.2

Quantifiers taking definite FRs:a.

/
Ix-0-w-il/[jantak [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i]].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVPRFV -B3-A1s-see manyb.

[Jantak [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i]]/ix-0-w-il-a’.
/many
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B3-A1s-see-TV‘I saw the many people who came.’

Indefinite free relatives

We now turn to indefinite FRs in Chuj. Recall that indefinite FRs in many languages havebeen described as modal existential wh-constructions (MECs), described as interpretedwith an existential modal and analyzed as structurally smaller than definite FRs. We willshow that indefinite FRs in Chuj lack these properties entirely and instead are structurally
much more like their definite counterparts. We begin by observing that Chuj indefinite FRs
can have an independent subject (3.2) and allow all tense/aspects (3.2).3(15)

Indefinite FR with an independent DP subject (cf 3.1):
Ay[FR tas ix-0-s-man/
waj Xun ].
EXISTwhat PRFV-B3-A3-buy CL Juan
‘Juan bought something.’
literally ‘There exists [what Juan bought].’(16)

Indefinite FRs with prospective and progressive aspect (cf 3.1):a.

[FR tas ol -0-k-aplej].
/
what PROSP-B3-A1p-try‘We will eat something.’
literally ‘There exists [what we will eat].’
Ay

EXIST

b.

[FR mach lan -in
y-il-an-i].
EXIST
who PROG-B1s A3-see-SUB-ITV‘Someone is watching me.’literally ‘There exists [who is watching me].’Ay

Notice that these free relatives lack the modal semantics associated with MECs, as in the
Hebrew (1). Instead, they pattern with definite FRs: they are full indicative finite clauses
with independent subjects and tense/aspect specifications.
However, unlike definite FRs, indefinite FRs have a limited distribution. An indefinite
FR must be the complement of one of a small set of predicates with existential force:
3 Evidence from second position clitics suggests that an alternative hypothesis whereby the wh-word forms

a constituent with ay is unsustainable.

Kotek & Erlewine(17)

Existential predicates in Chuj:4 (18)

Indefinite FR with existential pred.:

a. Ay

a. Ay

jun uum sat te’ mexa.
EXIST one book on CL table‘There is a book on the table.’[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/
EXIST
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘Someone came.’(=3)/
ch’anh uum sat te’ mexa. b. Malaj [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
NOT
.
EXIST
who
PRFV
-B3-come-ITV
NOT. EXIST CL
book on CL table‘No one came.’‘There is no book on the table.’b. Malajc. Ch’ok [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/c. Ch’ok ch’anh uum sat te’ mexa.
OTHER
who PRFV-B3-come-ITVOTHER CLbook on CL table‘There is a different book on the table.’ ‘Others came.’
In addition to these basic existential predicates, some other verbs that express the existence of their internal argument can also license indefinite FRs:
(19)

3.3

Indefinite FRs with predicates with existential semantics:a.

Aj-nak[FR mach famoso].
born-STAT
who famous‘Someone famous was born.’ (e.g. 30 years ago)b.

Ko-say-an[FR tas 0-ko-k’ulej].
/
A1p-look.for-SUB
what B3-A1p-do‘We are looking for something to do’(Hopkins 1967, p. 158)

Summary

We have seen that indefinite and definite FRs in Chuj contain full, indicative clauses of
equal size and lack the modal interpretation of modal existential wh-constructions (MECs).
In particular, the behavior of Chuj indefinite FRs is incompatible with a view where indefinite FRs are necessarily structurally reduced clauses, as proposed for example in Šimı́k(2011). Our findings are summarized in the table below.
(20)

Comparing Chuj indefinite FRs with definite FRs and MECs: (cf 1)
Def FR MEC Chuj indef FRinterpretation
def
indef
indef
nonfinite/subjunctive
××
modal interpretation
××
no independent subject
××
narrow-scope indefinite
N/A
must be argument of existential verb
N/A

4 The noun sat is used to introduce surfaces and can also mean ‘face’ (Hopkins 2012). In examples suchas (3.2), sat is underlyingly the possessed s-sat, which undergoes a productive simplification into sat (Buenrostro 2009). Sat te’ mexa is thus literally “[on] the surface of the table.”Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives
4.

Proposal

The properties of FRs in Chuj are consistent with the idea that definite and indefinite
FRs have a common CP core, with movement of a wh-pronoun to the edge of the clause(Izvorski 1998, Grosu & Landman 1998, Caponigro 2003, 2004). Abstraction triggered by
the movement of the wh-pronoun generates a predicate denotation of type he,ti (4).5zr(21)[CP machi [TP ixulek0 i ti ]] = λ x : x animate . x cameIndefinite FRs are the complement of existential verbs, which take a complement oftype he,ti and assert its existence. An example denotation for the basic existential verb,
ay, is given in (4), based on the analysis of English there constructions as in Milsark(1974), McNally (1998), and others. The computation in (4) successfully derives the truthconditions of the basic indefinite FR example in (3). Few verbs can take CP complementsof type he,ti, explaining the limited distribution of indefinite FRs.
(22)

JEXIST(ay)K = λ Phe,ti . ∃x P(x)(23)

Jay mach ixulek’i (3)K = JayK (Jmach ixulek’iK)= λ Phe,ti . ∃x P(x) (λ x : x animate . x came)= ∃x . x animate and came

Definite FRs are formed by adding a D-layer to the FR (see also Izvorski 1998, Grosu &Landman 1998, Caponigro 2003, 2004, Citko 2004). The addition of a definite (ι) D forms
a definite FR of type e, while other determiners yield het,ti DPs. In Chuj, this determiner
is null.6 The DP layer makes definite FRs available in any argument position, explaining
their free distribution.
(24)

(25)

Ix-in-s-mak’[DP ι [CP mach ix-0-ulek’-i]].
/
PRFV -B1s-A3-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘[The person who came] hit me.’
[DP tzijtum [CP tas tz-0-chonh-nax]]/
manywhat IMPF-B3-sell-PASS‘many things that are sold’(=3.1)(Buenrostro 2009, see also (3.1))

5 Note that the choice of wh-word restricts the domain of the derived predicate—for example, here, mach‘who’ limits the domain to animate individuals. Here we stay agnostic as to how this restriction is introduced
compositionally. One approach is to model wh-words as a modifier of the derived predicate (here, λ x . xcame). See Caponigro (2003) for an explicit implementation. Another is to ignore the pronounced wh-wordfor interpretational purposes—as in the discussion of relative pronouns in Heim & Kratzer (1998)—but allow
an interpreted copy of the restrictor in the base position of movement to restrict the domain of the variable,using the Copy Theory of movement.
6 We note that Caponigro (2003, 2004) argues that the iota (delta) operator in his system is not a D, since ittakes a CP complement and can’t compete with a pronounced definite. As we will see in section 5, however,
Mayan languages that have overt definite determiners use them in definite free relatives.

Kotek & Erlewine
Although Chuj does not have an overt definite article, support comes from the fact thatdefinite FRs can co-occur with a demonstrative tik ‘this,’ as shown in example (4).7(26)

Definite FR with demonstrative:
Ix-0-w-il/[DP [CP mach ix-0-ulek’]/tik].
PRFV -B3-A1s-see
who PRFV-B3-come this‘I saw [this person who came].’literally ‘I saw [this [who came]].’This analysis straightforwardly captures the identical internal syntax of definite andindefinite FRs—including the availability of independent subjects, all tense/aspects, andno modal interpretation—and their different external distributions.
4.1

Extraction

Further support for the above analysis of Chuj indefinite free relatives comes from extraction. First, we note that headed relative clauses in Chuj are islands for extraction. Example (4.1) is a baseline with a relative clause headed by ‘book’; example (4.1b) shows theattempted extraction.8(27)

Headed relative clauses are islands for extraction:a.
Ix-0-y-awtej/
waj Xun [jun libro ix-0-s-tz’ib’ej/
jun anima].
PRFV -B3-A3s-read CL Juan one book PRFV -B3-A3s-write one person‘Juan read a/one book that someone wrote.’b. * Mach [TP ix-0-y-awtej/
waj Xunwho
PRFV -B3-A3s-read CL Juan
[DP jun libro [RC {ix-0-s-tz’ib’ej,/
ix-0-tz’ib’-an(-i)}/
one book{PRFV-B3-A3s-write, PRFV-B3-write-AF-ITV}Intended: ‘Whoi did Juan read a/one book that theyi wrote?’]]]?

Turning our attention to extraction out of free relatives, we observe that it is possible
to extract out of indefinites FRs but not out of definite FRs. In (4.1–4.1), the (a) examples
provide a baseline, and the (b) examples provide the test case.
(28)

Extraction out of indefinite FRs is possible:a.

[FR tas ix-0-s-man/
waj Xun].
EXIST
what PRFV-B3-A3s-buy CL Juan
‘Juan bought something.’
lit.: ‘There exists [what Juan bought].’ (=3.2)b.

]]?
Mach [TP ay[FR tas ix-0-s-man-a’
/
who
EXIST
what PRFV-B3-A3s-buy-TV‘Who bought something?’
literally: ‘Who [there exists [what bought]]?’Ay

7 Definite FRs in Chuj such as in (3.1), (3.1), and (4) are then light-headed relatives in the terminologyof Citko (2004): FRs which are introduced by semantically-light D elements such as a definite article ordemonstrative.
8 Example (4.1b) is ungrammatical regardless of whether or not the embedded verb is in the Agent Focus
form and whether or not a transitivity suffix is added.

Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives(29)

Extraction out of definite FRs is impossible:a.

Ix-0-y-il/
waj Xun [FR mach ix-0-mak’-an-poj/
te’ mexa].
PRFV -B3-A3-see CL Juan
who PRFV-B3-hit-AF-break CL table‘Juan saw [the person who broke the table].’b. * Tas ix-0-y-il/
waj Xun [FR mach ix-0-mak’-an-(poj)/what PRFV-B3-A3-see CL Juan
who PRFV-B3-hit-AF-break
Intended: ‘Whati did Juan see [the person who broke iti ]?’].

This finding is in line with Šimı́k’s (2011) findings cross-linguistically: extraction ispossible out of indefinite FRs but not out of definite FRs. We argue here that this is because
indefinite FRs are a (special kind of) CP complement with no DP layer—following Izvorski(1998), Grosu & Landman (1998), Caponigro (2003, 2004), Grosu (2004)—and therefore
not an island for extraction.
4.2

An alternative explanation and jun free relatives

We now consider an alternative hypothesis for the extraction facts in the previous section:(30)

Potential alternative explanation: indefinites are easier to extract from
Extraction out of a relative clause is easier if the relative clause modifies an indefinite nominal than if it modifies a definite nominal.
(ultimately wrong for the Chuj contrast in (4.1–4.1))

Such an effect has been well established for Scandinavian languages. This is exemplified
by the Dutch contrast in (4.2) below—see also Engdahl (1997) and references there andKush et al. (2013) for recent discussion. Kuno (1976), McCawley (1981), and Chung &McCloskey (1983) document similar effects on English.
(31)

Extraction out of Danish definite vs indefinite relative clauses:
Peter kender jeg [{*manden, Xen mand} der kan lide ].
Peter know I
man.DEF a man who likes‘Peteri , I know [{*the, Xa} man who likes himi ].’(Erteschik-Shir 1973, p. 66)

If the hypothesis in (4.2) is correct for Chuj, the grammatical extraction out of indefinite
FRs above in (4.1) would be explained, without assuming any particular structural differences between the indefinite FRs in (4.1) and the definite FRs in (4.1).
In this section we show that this alternative hypothesis in (4.2) is incorrect for Chuj.
That is, extraction out of free relatives is not made grammatical simply by virtue of theargument being indefinite. Our evidence comes from a third FR construction in Chuj, withan indefinite interpretation but a freer distribution akin to that of definite FRs:
(32)

A jun free relative:[jun [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i]]/one
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘one/a person who came’Kotek & Erlewine
We will refer to this construction as the indefinite jun free relative (jun-FR).9 This junFR can be the argument of existential predicates, as seen in (4.2). This example minimallycontrasts with (3) above, which lacks jun. The two examples differ in their interpretations:(4.2) claims that one person came, whereas (3), without jun, is unspecified for number.
(33)

A jun free relative, as the argument of ay:
Ay[jun [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i]].
/
EXIST one
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘One/a person came.’

Unlike the indefinite FRs as in (3), described in section 3.2, jun-FRs can be the argument of any verb. Example (4.2) shows an indefinite jun-FR in the object position of theverb ‘see.’ Example (4.2) below shows that the verb ‘see’ does not license indefinite FRs
without jun. In other words, ‘see’ is not one of the limited set of verbs—see (3.2–3.2)
above—which can take a predicative CP argument and assert its existence. The existential
interpretation of jun-FRs in example (4.2) thus must be due to the addition of jun.
(34)

Jun-FR as object of ‘see’ is indefinite:
Ix-0-w-il/[jun [FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i]].
/
PRFV -B3-A1s-see one
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘I saw one/a person who came.’(35)

FR without jun as the object of ‘see’ must be definite:
Ix-0-w-il/[FR mach ix-0-ulek’-i].
/
PRFV -B3-A1s-see
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘I saw the person/people who came.’

We propose that jun free relatives have a DP structure as definite FRs do, but are headedby an indefinite determiner jun. Jun-FRs are then predicted to be indefinite but without the
distributional limitations of the jun-less indefinite FRs discussed in section 3.2.
This indefinite FR with DP structure can now serve to test our alternative hypothesis in(4.2) that extraction out of indefinite FRs is possible because extraction is generally easier
when out of relative clause on a semantically indefinite argument. We observe that it is notpossible to extract out of jun FRs, which are indefinite:(36)

Extraction out of jun FRs is impossible:
a. * Tas [TP ay[jun [FR mach ix-0-awt-an(-i)/
what
EXIST one
who PRFV-B3-read-AF
Intended: ‘What did someone read?’]]]?
(cf 4.1b)b. * Mach [TP ix-0-y-awtej/
waj Xun [jun [FR tas ix-0-tz’ib-an(-i)
/
]]]?
who
PRFV -B3-A3-read CL Juan one
what PRFV-B3-write-AF-ITVIntended: ‘Whoi did Juan read [something that theyi wrote]?’(cf 4.1b)
9 Both jun and jantak above in (3.1) are able to combine with regular nominals and are hence standard

quantificational determiners, not special forms that occur only with free relatives.

Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives
We see, then, that extraction does not simply correlate with definiteness as hypothesizedin (4.2). In contrast, the extraction transparency of indefinite FRs—but not indefinite jun
FRs—is explained by our proposal here, that indefinite FRs are exceptional in being bareCPs without a DP layer, whereas other FRs including indefinite jun FRs include a DP layer.
5.

Definite and indefinite free relatives across MayanIn this section we show that definite and indefinite free relatives parallel to those in Chuj areobserved in several other Mayan languages and their behavior further supports our unified
analysis.10 Example (5) shows data from Yucatec Maya; notice that the indefinite FR isan indicative clause with perfective aspect (see also Gutiérrez-Bravo & Monforte 2009,
Gutiérrez-Bravo 2012, 2013):11(37)

Indefinite free relative in Yucatec Maya:(AnderBois 2012, p. 361)
Yan [FR máax t-u
yuk’-aj-0/
le sa’-o’].
EXIST
who PRFV-A3 drink-STATUS-B3s the atole-DISTAL‘Someone drank the atole.’
literally ‘There exists [who drank the atole]’

Just as in the Chuj example (3.2) above, the indefinite free relative in Yucatec Maya
can also include a full independent subject:(38)

Indefinite free relative with postverbal subject in Yucatec Maya:(Andrade & Máas Collı́ 1999, p. 37)
Yaan [FR ba’ax t-u
beet-aj-0/
j-lu’um kaab].
EXIST
what PRFV-A3 do-STATUS-B3s MASC-dirt earth‘The earth man did something.’
literally ‘There exists [what the earth man did]’Indefinite free relatives are also found in Kaqchikel (Erlewine 2016, Torrence & Duncan 2016), with a minor complication. Examples both with and without overt wh-words
at the clause edge are attested (5–5). We hypothesize that the structures in (5) and (5) areboth indefinite FRs with the structure we propose here for Chuj. Deletion of the wh-word
is unavailable when the wh-word pied-pipes additional material as in example (5).
(39)

(40)

Indefinite FR without wh in Kaqchikel:
K’o[FR x-oj-tz’et-öroj].
EXISTSPRFV -B1p-see- AF 1pl‘Someone saw us.’

(Erlewine 2016, p. 434)

literally ‘There exists [who saw us]’Indefinite FR with wh in Kaqchikel:(Torrence & Duncan 2016, p. 13)
K’o [FR achike’ x-0-sik’i-n/
ri sik’iwuj].
EXIST
who
PRFV -B3-read- AF the book
‘There is someone who read the book.’lit. ‘There exists [who read the book]’

10 We thank Scott AnderBois and Robert Henderson for discussion of Yucatec Maya and Kaqchikel facts.
11 In particular, Gutiérrez-Bravo (2012) proposes an analysis of Yucatec Maya FRs as relative clauses

modifying a null nominal head. We believe the analysis here is compatible with the data presented there.

Kotek & Erlewine(41)

Indefinite FR with wh-pronoun pied-piping in Kaqchikel:12(Erlewine notes)
K’o[FR [achoj che] x-0-in-ya/
wi ri pastel].
EXISTS
whose to PRFV-B3s-A1s-give WI the cake‘I gave the cake to someone.’lit. ‘There exists [[to whom] I gave the cake]’

Erlewine (2016) shows that these indefinite FRs in Kaqchikel are not islands for extraction, echoing the Chuj data presented in (4.1) above.
(42)

Kaqchikel indefinite FR is not an island:(Erlewine 2016, p. 441)]]?
Achike [k’o[FR x-0-tz’et-ö
/
who EXISTSPRFV -B3s-see- AF‘Who did someone see?’literally ‘Who [there exists [wh saw]]’

Yucatec Maya and Kaqchikel also allows for the construction of definite FRs. Unlike
Chuj, these languages have overt definite determiners le and ri, respectively. As predictedby our analysis of definite FRs (see (4)), the definite determiners introduce definite FRs.
(43)

Definite free relative in Yucatec Maya:(Gutiérrez-Bravo 2013, p. 29)[DP Le [CP ba’ax k-intsikbal-t-ik-0/
te’ex] -a’]DEF
what HAB-A1s chat-TV-STATUS-B3s to you -PROXIMAL‘this thing which I’m telling you about’
lit. ‘[the [what I’m saying to you]]’(44)

Definite free relative in Kaqchikel:(from “Tio conejo, Tio coyote” (Comalapa),
collected by Ryan Bennett and Robert Henderson)
N-0-aw-ajo’/[DP ri [CP x-0-in-b’ij/
chawe’]]?
IMPF-B3-A2s-want
DEF
PRFV -B3-A1s-say to you‘Do you want what I told you?’lit. ‘Do you want [the [wh I said to you]]’

6.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper we investigated indefinite free relatives in Chuj and showed that they have asubset of the properties previously thought to hold for modal existential wh-constructions(MECs), which have been claimed by Šimı́k (2011) to be comprise most indefinite FRs
cross-linguistically. The Chuj data presented here demonstrates the existence of indefinite
FRs which are clearly full clauses in size and cannot be described as MECs. Parallel behavior was also presented from two other Mayan languages, Yucatec Maya and Kaqchikel.
(45)

Def FR
interpretation
def
nonfinite/subjunctive×
modal interpretation×no independent subject
×narrow-scope indefinite
N/A
must be argument of existential verb
N/A
transparent for extraction
×

Chuj indef FR
indef
×
×
×

MEC
indef

12 The marker wi appears when certain adjuncts and non-DP arguments are extracted; see Henderson (2008).

Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives
We adopt a proposal for Mayan FRs where definite and indefinite FRs share a common
core syntax. Both are full CPs, with an independent subject and full tense/aspect. The CP isinterpreted as a derived predicate of type he,ti. Definite FRs are formed by the addition of
a DP layer to CP, leading to their free distribution and the meaning of these FRs. Indefinite
FRs are the complements of existential predicates, explaining their limited distribution(Izvorski 1998, Grosu & Landman 1998, Caponigro 2003, 2004). We furthermore showedthat it is the lack of the DP layer that allows extraction, and extraction is blocked in thecase of the Chuj indefinite jun-FRs.
Hadas Kotek, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
hadas.kotek@mcgill.ca, mitcho@nus.edu.sg

References
AnderBois, Scott. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Natural
Language Semantics 20:349–390.
Andrade, Manuel José, & Hilaria Máas Collı́. 1999. Cuentos mayas yucatecos, volume 1.
Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.
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 and wh-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, 38–55.
Chung, Sandra, & James McCloskey. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in
GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14:704–713.
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language& Linguistic Theory 22:95–126.
Domingo Pascual, Pascual Martı́n. 2007. Stzolalil stz’ib’chaj ti’ Chuj: Gramática normativa Chuj. Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG).
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. In Working papers in
Scandinavian syntax, volume 60, 51–79.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent
Focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:429–479.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Grosu, Alexander. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions. In
Balkan syntax and semantics, 405–438.
Grosu, Alexander, & Fred Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural
Language Semantics 6:125–170.
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2012. Relative clauses in Yucatec Maya: Light heads vs. nulldomain. In Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: A typological overview, ed.
Bernard Comrie & Zarina Estrada-Fernández. John Benjamins.
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2013. Free relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. STUF: Language

Kotek & Erlewine
Typology and Universals 66:22–39.
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo, & Jorge Monforte. 2009. Focus, agent focus and relative clausesin Yucatec Maya. In New perspectives on Mayan linguistics. MITWPL.
Heim, Irene, & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell.
Henderson, Robert. 2008. Observations on the syntax of adjunct extraction in Kaqchikel. In
Proceedings of the Conference on the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (CILLA)
3, ed. B. Mateo Toledo.
Hopkins, Nicholas A. 1967. The Chuj language. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Chicago.
Hopkins, Nicholas A. 2012. A dictionary of the Chuj (Mayan) language as spoken in San
Mateo Ixtatán, Huehuetenango, Guatemala ca. 1964-65. Jaguar Tours.
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1998. Non-indicative wh-complements of existential and possessive
predicates. In Proceedings of NELS 28, ed. Pius N. Tamanji & Kiyomi Kusumoto,159–173.
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of free relatives. In Quantification innatural langauges, ed. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, & Barbara Hall
Partee. Springer.
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject, theme, and speaker’s empathy: A reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson,
417–444.
Kush, Dave, Akira Omaki, & Norbert Hornstein. 2013. Microvariation in islands? In
Experimental syntax and island effects, ed. Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein. Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell, Judith. 1976. Chuj intransitives: or when can an intransitive verb take an object?
Mayan Linguistics 1:128–140.
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, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.
Šimı́k, Radek. 2011. Modal Existential wh-Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent Focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 24:501–570.
Torrence, Harold, & Philip T. Duncan. 2016. Wh-expressions in non-interrogative contexts
in Kaqchikel. Presented at SSILA 2016.