Non-interrogative
wh-constructions in Chuj
Hadas Kotek
McGill University

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

hadas.kotek@mcgill.ca

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

WSCLA 21, Université du Québec à Montréal
April 2016

The multifunctionality of wh-words
In many languages, wh-words can be used for a variety of functions, inaddition to their interrogative use.
(1) Some non-interrogative uses of wh:a. relative pronoun
d. indefinites
the man who came to classe.g. Japanese wh-ka
b. free relatives
what I ate yesterday

e. universal quantifiers
e.g. Japanese wh-moc. Polarity and Free Choice Items
anywhere, whoever☞ Wh-words appear in a broad range of constructions because they (a)denote alternatives (Hamblin, 1973, a.o.) and (b) are good targets for
A-movement.
• Today: We will see both in Chuj (Mayan: Q’anjob’alan; Guatemala).

2TodayWe present a comprehensive survey of non-interrogative uses of
wh-words in Chuj.
(2) Non-interrogative wh in Chuj:
a. Bare wh-indefinites
b. Complex wh-quantifiers: free choice and universal
c. Free relatives: definite and indefinite• Based on elicitations with a speaker from San Mateo Ixtatán,conducted here in Montreal.
• Contributes to our typological understanding of wh-usescross-linguistically.
3

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Bare wh-indefinites§3 Complex wh-quantifiers§4 Free relatives§5 Conclusion

4Chuj basics

Chuj is verb-initial. Verbs show ergative/absolutive agreement alignment:
Set A = ergative, Set B = absolutive.
(3) Simple declarative sentences:a. Intransitive:b. Transitive:Ol-∅-waix.

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.’5

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

(4) 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.

6

A-movement: headed relatives
Headed relative clauses in Chuj are gapped clauses preceded by thenominal head that they modify.
(5) 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 one book that I read’RCs show no overt complementizer akin to English that. Wh-words cannot
be used as relative pronouns.
7Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Bare wh-indefinites§3 Complex wh-quantifiers§4 Free relatives§5 Conclusion

8

Bare wh-indefinites in Chuj

A postverbal bare wh-word in Chuj can be interpreted as an indefinite:(6) Post-verbal ‘what’:
Ix-∅-k-il
tas
PRFV-B3-A1P-see what
‘We saw something.’‘We saw what?’ (echo qu.)

(7) Cf. preverbal ‘what’:
Tas ix-∅-∅-il-a’what PRFV-B3-A2S-see-TV* ‘You saw something.’‘What did you see?’But this wh-indefinite use is highly restricted, in ways that reflect similar
constraints in other languages.

9Nominal domains☞ Wh-indefinites must be simplex wh-words, not which-phrases.

(8) ‘What’ tas can take a nominal domain to form which-phrase:
Tas libro-al ix-∅-∅-awtej?
what book-NML PRFV-B3-A2S-read‘Which book did you read?’ (cf 7)(9) Indefinite tas cannot take a nominal domain:
Ix-∅-k-il

taslibro(-al)

PRFV-B3-A1P-see what book-NML* ‘We saw some book.’ (cf 6)‘We saw which book?’ (echo question)

10‘What’ vs ‘who’☞ Unlike tas ‘what,’ mach ‘who’ cannot be an indefinite in these simple
affirmative perfective contexts:(10) Post-verbal ‘what’ but not ‘who’ as wh-indefinite:
a. Ix-∅-k-il
tasb. Ix-∅-k-il
mach
PRFV-B3-A1P-see what
PRFV-B3-A1P-see who* ‘We saw someone’‘We saw something.’ (=6)‘We saw who?’ (echo qu.)‘We saw what?’ (echo qu.)11‘What’ vs ‘who’

Such idiosyncrasies between different wh-words are attested in otherlanguages as well:(11) Dutch wat ‘what’ but not wie ‘who’ as wh-indefinite:a.

Jan heeft wat gedaan.
John has what done
‘John has done something.’b.

(Postma, 1994, 187)

* Er heeft wie gebeld.
It has who rung.the.bell
Intended: ‘Someone has rung the bell.’ (Postma, 1994, 188)

12

Licensing mach-indefinites☞ But mach ‘who’ can be an indefinite with the addition of a licensor...
(12) Negation licenses bare mach-indefinites:
a. Maj ∅-k-il
laj mach/tas.
NEG B3-A1P-see NEG who/what‘We didn’t see anyone/anything.’
b. Maj ∅-ulek’ laj mach.
NEG B3-come NEG who‘No one came.’13

Licensing mach-indefinites☞ But mach ‘who’ can be an indefinite with the addition of a licensor...
(13) Prospective and progressive aspects license mach-indefinite:macha. Ol-∅-w-il
mach b. Lan k-il-an
PROG A1P-see-SUB who
PROSP-B3-A1S-see who‘We are seeing someone.’‘I will see someone.’‘We are seeing who?’ (echo qu.)‘I will see who?’ (echo qu.)(14) But imperfective aspect does not:Tz-∅-∅-ilmach

IMPF-B3-A2S-see who* ‘You see someone.’‘You see who?’ (echo question)
14

Licensing mach-indefinites☞ But mach ‘who’ can be an indefinite with the addition of a licensor...
(15) Conditional licenses bare mach-indefinites:
Tato tz-∅-∅-il
mach/tas, ∅-∅-alt’a hin.
if
IMPF-B3-A2S-see who/what B3-A2-say PREP B1S‘If you see someone/something, let me know.’ (lit. say it to me)

15Summary

Three constraints on wh-indefinite interpretation:
1

Postverbal;

2

Simplex;3

Tas ‘what’ — or mach ‘who’ with an appropriate licensor

All three of these constraints echo similar constraints on barewh-indefinite distribution in other languages. See Postma (1994);
Haspelmath (1997); Bhat (2000); Gärtner (2009, a.o.).

16Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Bare wh-indefinites§3 Complex wh-quantifiers• Free choice yalnhej wh• Universal masel mach

§4 Free relatives§5 Conclusion

17

Free choice yalnhej wh(16) Free choice item (FCI) formed of yalnhej and tas ‘what’:
Yalnhej tas(libro-al) ol-∅-w-awtej.

YALNHEJ what book-NML PROSP-B3-A1S-read‘I will read anything/whatever / any book.’
Wh-words are often used to form free choice items (FCIs); see Giannakidou
and Cheng (2006) for Greek, Catalan, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, Japanese,and Hindi.

18

Yal + nhej?

☞ Yal-nhej seems to be morphologically complex (Buenrostro, 2009).
(17) Yal is an ability modal:S-∅-yalw-al-ankastiya.

IMPF-B3-able A1S-speak-SUB Spanish‘I can speak Spanish.’(Buenrostro, 2009)(18) Nhej is an ‘only’ word:
A nhej waj

Xun tik ko-gana.

FOC only CL.NAME Juan DEM A3P-like‘We like only [this Juan]F ’

19Yalnhej ̸= yal + nhej

Q: Is free choice yalnhej wh transparently the combination of the modalyal ‘able’ and nhej ‘only’?
A: No. We argue that yalnhej wh is not (synchronically) the combinationof yal and nhej. Yalnhej forms a nominal (DP) with the wh.

(19) Yalnhej wh can be postverbal, where the modal yal cannot be:Ol-∅-w-awtej

yalnhej tas (libro-al).
what book-NML

PROSP-B3-A1S-read YALNHEJ‘I will read anything/whatever / any book.’

20

Yalnhej ̸= yal + nhej

Negation in Chuj involves the proclitic manh and enclitic (ok)-laj.
(20) Yal and nhej cannot be split by negation:a.

* Manh yal (ok)laj nhej tas libro-al ol-∅-w-awtej.
able IRR-NEG only what book-NML PROSP-B3-A1S-read
NEGb.

Manh yalnhej tas libro-al ok-laj ol-∅-w-awtej.
NEG
YALNHEJ what book-NML IRR-NEG PROSP-B3-A1S-read‘I don’t read just any book.’ (i.e. I read some special kind.)

Similar evidence from the second position particle pax ‘also’ as well.

21

Split yal + nhej wh?
We have been able to elicit an example of preverbal yal separated fromnhej wh, but it differs in interpretation from FCI examples above:(21) Yal and nhej can be separated:
Yal ol-∅-w-awtej
nhej tas libro-al.
able PROSP-B3-A1S-read only what book-NML‘I can read any/whichever type of book.’ (cf 16)
The clear modal interpretation here (but not above) shows that yal here isinterpreted independently as the modal verb. (We are not sure why theinterpretation here changes to an expression about types of books.)☞ Yalnhej wh FCIs are nominals, not decomposed into yal and nhej.
22Universal masel mach

Mach ‘who’ can combine with the universal masel ‘every’:(22) Masel can take an NP or mach ‘who’:
a. Masel anima ix-∅-ulek’-i.
every person PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘Everyone came.’b. Masel mach ix-∅-ulek’-i.
every who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘Everyone came.’

23

Universal masel mach
Masel mach can take a relative clause or nominal restrictor, and can also
be in post-verbal position.
(23) Masel mach restricted by a relative clause:
Masel mach ix-∅-ulek’-iix-∅-k-il-a’every who PRFV-B3-come-ITV PRFV-B3-A1P-see-TV‘We saw everyone who came.’(24) Masel mach in post-verbal position:
Ix-∅-k-il

masel mach (ix-∅-ulek’-i).
(PRFV-B3-come-ITV)PRFV-B3-A1P-see every who‘We saw everyone (who came).’24

No masel tas(25) There is no masel tas:
* Ix-∅-w-awtej
masel tas juntzan libro tik.
PRFV-B3-A1S-read every what certain book DEM
Intended: ‘I read {every one/each} of these books.’(26) A universal without wh is used instead:Ix-∅-w-awtej

masanil juntzan libro tik.
certain book DEM

PRFV-B3-A1S-read every‘I read {every one/each} of these books.’

25

The status of masel mach
Q: Should masel mach then be treated (synchronically) as amonomorphemic expression, not decomposed into masel and mach?
A: No.
(27) Negation can split masel ‘every’ and mach:
Manh masel ok-laj mach ix-∅-ulek’-i.
every IRR-NEG who PRFV-B3-come-ITV

NEG‘Not everyone came.’☞ The wh-word mach ‘who’—but not tas ‘what’—can form a universal
quantifier with masel ‘every.’26

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Bare wh-indefinites§3 Complex wh-quantifiers§4 Free relatives§5 Conclusion

27

Definite and indefinite free relatives in Chuj

Chuj has two kinds of free relatives (FRs):(28) Chuj definite FR:(29) 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 are full CPs (see Kotek and Erlewine, 2016).

28

Definite FRs are arguments
Definite FR can be in any argument position:(30) Definite FR in object and subject position:[FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
a. Ix-∅-in-mak
PRFV-B3-A1s-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘I hit [the person who came].’(=28)

b. Ix-in-s-mak[FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
PRFV-B1s-A3-hit
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV‘[The person who came] hit me.’(31) 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.’29

Definite FRs with quantifiers
Definite FRs may be used as the domains of quantifiers:(32) 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.’(33)

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.’
30

Existential verbs
An indefinite FR must be the complement of a small set of predicates, withexistential force.
(34) 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.’31

Existential verbs
An indefinite FR must be the complement of a small set of predicates, withexistential force.
(35) Indefinite FR with existential predicates:
a. Ay [FR mach ix-∅-ulek’-i].
who PRFV-B3-come-ITV
EXIST‘Someone came.’(= 29)

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.’
32

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:
(36) 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)
33

Proposal

We follow the general analysis of indefinite FRs in Caponigro (2003, 2004).
Definite and indefinite FRs have a common CP core:(37) J[CP machi [TP ixulek’i ti ]]K = λx . x came

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

34

Proposal: indefinite FR

Indefinite FRs are the complement of existential verbs, e.g.:(38) 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.

35

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:(39) 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.’(=30b)

Other D quantifiers form ⟨et, t⟩ quantificational DPs:
(40) [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.
36

Evidence from extraction☞ Definite and indefinite FRs are similar internally but different
externally, leading to differences in their distribution.
Support for this proposal comes from extraction.
Headed relative clauses in Chuj are islands for extraction:(41)* Mach [TP ix-∅-y-awtej
waj Xunwho
PRFV-B3-A3s-read CL Juan
[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.)37

Extraction from indefinite FRs

It is possible to extract out of indefinites FRs:
(42)

waj Xun].
Ay [FR tas ix-∅-s-man
what PRFV-B3-A3s-buy CL.MASC Juan
EXIST
‘Juan bought something.’(43)

Mach [TP ay [FR tas ix-∅-s-man-a’
EXIST
who
what PRFV-B3-A3s-buy-TVbaseline]]?

‘Who bought something?’

38Extraction from definite FRs

However, it is not possible to extract out of definite FRs:
(44)

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].’(45)

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 ]?’39

Summary☞ It is possible to extract out of indefinite free relatives but not out of
definite free relatives.
Our explanation: An indefinite FR is a (special kind of) CP complementwith no DP layer, therefore not a RC island.

40

Roadmap§1 Background on Chuj
§2 Bare wh-indefinites§3 Complex wh-quantifiers§4 Free relatives§5 Conclusion

41

TodayA survey of non-interrogative uses of wh-words in Chuj (Mayan).
• Bare wh-indefinites• Complex wh-quantifiers: free choice and universal• Free relatives: definite and indefinite

All of these various uses of wh-words—and many of the conditions wedocument—are previously attested in other languages.

42

The versatility of whKuroda (1965) refers to (Japanese) wh-words as indeterminates (“nouns
that behave like a logical variable”; p. 43) due to this multifunctionality.
☞ Two key properties of wh-words enable this versatility:
1

Semantically: wh-words introduce alternatives (Hamblin, 1973, a.o.)Alternatives projected by the wh-phrase form a domain that can bequantified over (Ramchand, 1997; Kratzer and Shimoyama, 2002, a.o.).

2

Syntactically: wh-words are natural targets of movement
Movement creates abstraction structures, forming new ⟨e, t⟩predicates of arbitrary size.

Chuj takes advantage of both properties: wh-alternatives enable bareindefinites, free choice items, and universals; wh-movement enables
definite and indefinite free relatives.
43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 audiences at NELS 46 and LSA 2016. Errors are each other’s.

44

References I
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle.
Linguistic Typology 4:365–400.
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.
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng. 2006. (In)definiteness, polarity,and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23:135–183.
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2009. More on the indefinite-interrogative affinity: the view
from embedded non-finite interrogatives. Linguistic Typology 13:1–37.
Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language
10:41–53.

45

References II
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford.
Hopkins, Nicholas A. 1967. The Chuj language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Chicago.
Kotek, Hadas, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2016. Unifying definite andindefinite free relatives: Evidence from Mayan. Presented at LSA 90.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: the view
from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on
Psycholinguistics (TCP 2002), 1–25.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese
language. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification.
Linguistics and Philosophy 21:353–392.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral Dissertation.
Postma, Gertjan. 1994. The indefinite reading of WH. Linguistics in the Netherlands
11:187–198.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1997. Questions, polarity and alternative semantics.
In Proceedings of NELS 27, 383–396. GLSA.

46

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

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

(cf 4a)* 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.’47