Download New Chapter 1 - University of Arizona

New Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction.
This investigation is twofold: first, it describes the Yaqui coordination patterns. Second, it
explains in the OT framework some of the most salient characteristics of this phenomenon: the
structure of coordination, Chaining structures, Patterns of Agreement and Coordination of
Maximal projections. I have selected those topics because the literature review indicates that in
spite coordination have been a motive of reflection across the time, there is still so much debate
on these issues. Moreover, those topics (looking at the Yaqui language) present interesting
challenges to any theory of coordination.
The empirical and theoretical goals of this research are valuable because there was not an
accurate description of the coordination patterns in the language and because these patterns
require an adequate theoretical account.
Based in the Yaqui language, it is proposed that a coordinator like into ‘and’ is better
represented as an adjunct (in the sense of Langendoen (2003)) and it is neither a head
(Johannesen (998), Camacho (2003), a.o.) nor a clitic (Agbayani & Goldston, (2002)).
The proposal is inserted in the framework of Optimality Theory (which essentially began
with Prince and Somolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993a, b). This theory suggests that
there are a set of universal, violable and rankeable constraints which explain the nature of
linguistic data.
The Optimality Theory (OT) is a versatile framework which gives us a formal apparatus
to handle and account variability of several types, in this case, the several positions that a
coordinator like into ‘and’ can occupy in sentence coordination. Any theory with strict rules can
not accommodate syntax variation without resource to edges in the principles, as demonstrated
by Speas (1997). However, at the light of violable constraints, the Yaqui patterns of coordination
are easily explained within OT.
The work does not appeal to diachronic or comparative data; however it is valuable
because it gives us a description of coordinated structures of Yaqui that were not described
before, in that sense, we have a set of data as those which a Yaqui learner is faced with.
Theoretically, the analysis shows the interaction between several modules of the grammar which
traditionally are considered to be separated: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and
Pragmatics.
1.0
Presentation.
Although Yaqui has been studied by many researchers (Lindenfeld (1974), Escalante
(1990), Dedrick and Casad (1995), among others) there are many areas which have not been
explored in detail, one of them is coordination. This work describe and analyze several yaqui
coordination patterns. This research focus in the description and account of several Yaqui
coordination patterns using the Optimality Theory (OT). The work focuses in four main aspects:
first, the structure of coordination, second, coordinated chaining structures (unbalanced
coordination), third, problematic agreement patterns and fourth, the coordination of maximal
projections. The chapters present the data in the previous order. The kind of data that the reader
will find is exemplified next:
The structure of coordination. Most proposals about The structure of coordination are
challenged by Yaqui Sentence Coordination. On it, the coordinator can appear in three basic
positions: first, second and last. The positions are defined (in the following examples) in relation
to the second conjunct: first position means at the beginning of the second conjunct, second
position means after an element of the second conjunct and last position means at last in the
second conjunct or at last in a single sentence. They are exemplified as follows.
First position:
(1) Joan
bwika into [peo into maria] ye’e
John
sings and
[Peter and
Mary] dance.
Juan
canta y
[Pedro y
María] bailan.
‘John sings and Peter and Mary Dance’
‘Juan canta y Pedro y María bailan’
Second position:
(2) Diana
a
tu’urek peo
into au
Diana
it
liked
Peter and
(a) Diana ello gustó
Pedro y
‘Diana liked it and Peter bought it to her’
‘A Diana le gustó y Pedro se lo compró’
Last position (Crumrine 1961:23)):
(3) …Apo
a’a
tu’ute
into a’a
…He
it
clean
and
it
...‘Él
lo
limpia
y
lo
‘...And He cleans it up and He waters it.’
‘…Y él lo limpia y lo riega.’
a
jinuk
her-to it
bought.
ella-a lo
compró.
ba’atuaintoko
waters and
and
riega
y
Coordinated chaining structures. Yaqui have what has been called Unbalanced
Coordination (Johannessen 1998) or Pseudosubordination (Yuasa and Sadock 2002). From a
typological perspective, Givon (2001), Yaqui must be classified as a SOV-type chaining. The
most salient syntactic feature of this type of clause chaining is the assignment of most finite
grammatical marking only to the final clause. However, the entire chaining gets the tense
indicated by the final clause. Next example shows the coordination of two chains (or two
unbalanced coordinate sentences). We can see that the speaker split the actions in two events.
The verbs that close the events are marked with the perfective –k. The coordinator into ‘and’ is
possible inside both events.
(4) ili
small
pequeña
jamut
yepsa-kai,
jichikia-ta
nu’u-kai,
womanarrive-SUB broom-ACC take-SUB,
mujer
llegar-SUB escoba-AC tomar-SUB,
jichik-taite-k
sweep-INCOA-PERF
barrer-INCOA-PERF
(into) jichik-su-kai,
sankoa-ta
(and) sweep-TERM-SUB garbage-ACC
(y)
barrer-TERM-SUB basura-AC
nau=toja-kai
together=put-SUB
junto=poner-SUB lejos
mekka
goota-k
far away
throw-PERF
tirar-PERF
‘The young woman arrived, took the broom, began to sweep, (and) finished to sweep,
put together the garbage and threw it away’
‘La muchacha llegó, tomó la escoba, empezó a barrer (y) terminó de barrer, juntó la
basura y la tiró lejos’.
Problematic agreement patterns. In this work I analyze the following type of
phenomenon. There are in yaqui some verbs which agree with the object. Under coordination a
verb which requires a singular object takes two coordinated singular nouns, the plural verb can
not be used in that case. This behavior indicates, according to Peterson (2004), that the nominal
features of the conjoined items are not distributed. Therefore, it is worth to have a description
and an analysis of these issues.
(5) Alejandra
maso-ta
Alejandra
deer-AC
Alejandra
venado-AC
‘Alejandra killed a deer’
‘Alejandra mató un venado’
meak
killed:SG OBJ
mató:SG OBJ
(6) *Alejandra
maso-ta
Alejandra
deer-AC
Alejandra
venado-AC
(‘Alejandra killed a deer’)
(‘Alejandra mató un venado)
suak
killed:PL OBJ
mató:PL OBJ
(7) Alejandra
maso-ta
into kowi-ta
Alejandra
deer-AC
and
pig-AC
Alejandra
venado-AC y
jabalí-AC
‘Alejandra killed a deer and a pig’
‘Alejandra mató un venado y un jabalí’
meak
killed:SG OBJ
mató:SG OBJ
(8) *Alejandra
maso-ta
into kowi-ta
suak
Alejandra deer-AC
and
pig-AC
killed:PL OBJ
Alejandra venado-AC y
jabalí-AC
mató:PL OBJ
‘Alejandra killed a deer and a pig’
‘Alejandra mató un venado y un jabalí’
Coordination of maximal projections. Verb coordination shows several properties,
some of them are the following: it is possible to have the coordination of two intransitive verbs,
but it is not possible to have the coordination of two single transitive verbs. The second transitive
verb always requires an object pronoun, suggesting that it is not possible to have the coordination
of heads (Kayne 1994, Takano 2004). If this is true, several predictions must be tested in the
language:
(9) Andrea bwika into yeewe
Andrea sings and
plays
Andrea canta y
baila
‘Andrea sings and plays’
‘Andrea canta y baila’
(10)
Fabian caro-ta jinuk
into
Fabián car-ACC
bought
Fabián carro-AC
compró
‘Fabian bougth and sold the car’
‘Fabián compró y vendió el carro’
a
and
nenkak
it
sold
(11)
*Fabián
caro-ta jinuk
into
Fabián
car-ACC
bought
Fabián
carro-AC
compró
(‘Fabian bougth and sold the car’)
(‘Fabián compró y vendió el carro’)
nenkak
and
sold
Related facts to the previous ones, are the following: For example, the coordination
structure must be able to explain the properties of Noun coordination, two of them are the
following: it can be continuous or it can be discontinuous:
(12)
Paola senu na’aso-ta
into senu mansana-ta bwaka
Paola one
orange-AC and
one
apple-AC
ate
Paola una
naranja-AC y
una
manzana-AC comió
‘Paola ate one orange and one apple’
‘Paola comió una naranja y una manzana’
(13)
Paola senu na’aso-ta
bwaka into senu
Paola one
orange-AC ate
and
one
Paola una
naranja-AC comió y
una
‘Paola ate one orange and one apple’
‘Paola comió una naranja y una manzana’
mansana-ta
apple-AC
manzana-AC
Adjective coordination can be continuous or discontinuous too, but it requires a different
case marker:
(14)
Paulina
bemela-k
into teebe-kbichak
Paulina
young-ACC and
tall-ACC
saw
Paulina
joven-AC
y
alto-AC
vio
‘Paulina
saw the young and (the) tall (one)’
‘Paulina vio al joven y (al) alto’
(15)
Paulina
Paulina
Paulina
bemela-k
young-ACC
joven-AC
bichak
saw
vio
into
and
y
teebe-k
tall-ACC
alto-AC
‘Paulina
saw the young and the tall’
‘Paulina vio al joven y al alto’
This work describes and identifies the conditions under which the above and other patters
of Yaqui coordination emerge. It is given evidence that a coordinator must be treated as an
adjunct. It is used some markedness, faitfulness and aligment OT constraints in order to account
for the patterns attested in the language.
1.0.1 Empirical goals of this research.
The main empirical goal of this work is to analyze and describe the relatively unknown
patterns of yaqui coordination. As almost usual in every language and in every topic that
linguists explore, Yaqui presents very particular patterns of coordination that a good theory of
language should be able to predict and explain. As we can see trough this research, there are so
challenging patterns that do not fix to traditional accounts. In order to achieve this goal, I
investigate several types of constructions: sentence coordination, verbal and nominal
coordination as well as other coordinate structures such as relative clauses, adjective
constructions, among others. The central idea is to characterize the coordination patterns of the
language.
1.0.1 Theoretical goals of this research.
The aim of this work is to analyze Yaqui coordination within the framework of
Optimality Theory (OT). This theory of grammar has been (mostly) used to explain phonological
and morphological properties of languages, but few work has been devoted to the explanation of
their syntactic properties. So, this dissertation pretend to be a contribution to OT literature. The
patterns of Yaqui coordination has neither been described nor accounted for. The only work
which describe some aspects about coordinated structures is that of Dedrick and Casad (1995),
but many facts have been left untouched. Therefore, it is usefull to look at and explain them. In
order to do the analysis, I use several constraints well motivated in the literature such as
alignment constraints (Choi, 2001), Markedness constraints and faithfulness constraints.
The theoretical contribution of this work relates to two aspects: it shows how OT can be
applied to syntax, an area where many scholars refuse to accept it, and where the idea that there
are a set of universal, violable and rankeable constraints introduce enough flexibility in the
model in such a way that a phenomena highly problematic in derivational linguistic models is
accounted for.
This work gives evidence that the yaqui coordinator into(ko) ‘and’ can not be considered
as a clitic. It is demonstrated that the coordinator occupies several positions in sentence
coordination because it shares properties of adjunts. As those, it does not proyect its own head,
contrary to proposal as that of Johannessen (1998), Benmamoun (1994), and Camacho (2003). It
is suggested that a coordinated phrase (nominal in this example) has the following structure.
(16)
NP
NP
NP [coord]
oranges
and
NP
apples
Where the coordinator is adjoined to a phrase. This process of adjunction left open the
possibility of a new adjunction process, where another NP is adjoined resulting in a coordinated
structure. In this sense, I follow the proposal of Langendoen (2003) in which to coordinate is to
adjoin a coordinator.
Finally, this dissertation shows that constraints belonging to traditionally different
modules of the grammar interact in such a way that it is difficult to say that each module is
independent. I gives too a brief discussion about how the alignment constraints must be defined
in syntax in order to differentiate the way in that those constraints work in phonology and
morphology.
1.1
Introduction to Yaqui Coordination.
There are basically two conceptions of a coordinator: some researchers consider that a
coordinator is a head (Johannessen (1998), Benmamoun et al (1994), Behloul and Harbert
(2002), among others) whereas some others denied this claim (Peterson (2004), Yuasa and
Sadock (2002), among others. The aim of this section is to describe some characteristics of
Yaqui coordinators in order to ubicate later the functioning of into ‘and’.
1.1.1 Yaqui coordinators.
1.1.1.1 Logical coordinators.
The yaqui logical coordinators presented in this section are the following: bweta ‘but’, o
‘or’ and into(ko) ‘and’. Between them, only into(ko) ‘and’ occupies several positions as
exemplified below. In what follows, it is shown an example of coordination with bweta ‘but’. It
always occurs in the middle of the coordinated sentences.
(17)
Joan
John
Juan
‘John
‘Juan
bwitek bweta
ran
but
corrió pero
ran
but
corrió pero
Peo
Peter
Pedro
Peter
Pedro
e’e.
not
no
did not’
no’
Next example illustrates the use of the particle o ‘or’, which is a loan from Spanish. It
only can occur too in the middle of coordinated elements:
(18) Ruben tekipanoa
o
Ruben
work
or
Rubén
trabaja
o
‘Ruben works or study’
‘Rubén trabaja o estudia’
emo
self
a sí mismo
majta.
teach
enseña
The coordinator into(ko) ‘and’ occurs in several positions: first position, second position
or last position.
(19)
Dalia bwikakPeo into
Dalia
sang Peter and
Dalia
cantó Pedro y
‘Dalia sang and Peter ate’
‘Dalia cantó y Pedro comió’
ji’ibwak.
ate
comió
Asindetic coordination is very common in yaqui. The next example shows the
coordination of two subordinated clauses.
(20)
Joan bwite-ka
po’o-po’oti-sime-ka yo’ok.
John
run-GER
bend down-go-GER won
Juan
corriendo-GER
agachándose-ir-GER ganó
‘John running (and) bending down won’
‘Juan, corriendo (y) agachándose, ganó’
In yaqui it is easy to find examples where two coordinators can co-occur, like a
compound coordinator, specially ta and into, when these coordinators co-occur, the (bwe)ta ‘but’
goes first and into ‘and’ second, the coordinated sentence acquires an adversative meaning. as
illustrated in what follows
(21)
kaa ta-ta
ta
into
NEG
RED-hot
but
and
NEG
RED-calor
pero y
‘It is not hot but it is not cold either’
`No hace calor pero tampoco frío'
kaa
seebe juni
NEG cold either
NEG frío
tampoco
1.1.1.2 Some sequential particles.
Before analyzing the theoretical implications about the distribution of the particle into, I
want to show that those aspects are not particular of into ‘and’, other particles seem to share this
quality but in minor grade, for example, ma ‘so’.
1.1.1.2.1 Ma ‘so’.
It is very common that ma ‘so’ appears in first position, as in the following example:
Crumrine (1961:18)
(22) ili chu’u
tebabae’ure ma
ju’u a’a ateakame
‘aa
mikbaeka
Little dog
hunger
so
that its one-who-owns-it
it
feed wants
Pequeño perro hambriento así
ese
que lo posee lo
alimenta quiere
‘The little dog was hungry. So that the owner wants to feed it.’
‘El perrito estaba hambriento, así su dueño le quiere dar (comida)’
But In the next example ma ‘so’ occurs in second and in first position respectively:
Crumrine (1961:37)
(23) ini’i ma
o’ou ian
this
so
man now
este
así
hombre
kabaita ama yeu
horse there out
ahora caballo allá
tojak
jum kora-po
brought
there fence-in
fuera llevó allá corral-en
intok
ae-t
jaja’amu
and
on-it
mounting
y
sobre él
montando
‘This man now brought the horse inside the fence and is attempting to mount it,
‘Este hombre ahora trajo el caballo fuera del corral y está montándolo.
Ta
But
intok ket
and
yet
juni
even
júnna wákíla má chea kaa ‘a túa yúumaka
very skinny so more not him truly unable-to-
carry
pero
y
todavíaincluso muy flaco así más no lo realmente llevar
but it (the horse) is very skinny so the horse is unable to carry him.
pero el caballo es todavía muy flaco y no lo puede realmente llevar’
1.1.1.2.2 Kialikun ‘for that (reason) and junuen bea ‘so then’.
Among the sequential coordinators, we have the coordinator kialikun ‘for that (reason)’
and the coordinator junuen bea ‘so then’. They occur at the beginning of the conjoined sentence,
as illustrated below:
(24)
peo
Peter
Pedro
si
very
muy
kupteo obregon
late
Obregon
tarde Obregón
betana yepsak
side arrived
lado llegó
kialikun kaa
pajko-u
siika
for that NEG feast-to
went
por eso NEG fiesta-a
fue
‘Peter arrived so late from Obregon, for that reason, he did not go to the feast’
'Pedro llegó muy tarde de Obregón, por eso no fue a la fiesta'
(25) péo
Peter
Pedro
si
very
muy
kúpteo emo majta-bae
late
REFL teach-INTENT
tarde REFL enseñar-INTENT
Junuen bea
aapo yooko
kaa
kupteo
kot-bae
so then
he
tomorrow
NEG tarde
sleep-INTENT
así luego
él
mañana
NEG tarde
dormir-INTENT
‘Peter will study so late, so then, he will sleep early tomorrow’ .
'Pedro estudiará hasta muy tarde, por eso, dormirá temprano mañana’.
Both coordinators can co-occur, in that case, junuen bea ‘so then’ goes first and kialikun
‘for that reason’ second:
(26) péo
Peter
Pedro
si
very
muy
kúpteo obrégon
late
Obregon
tarde Obregón
bétana yépsak
side arrived
lado llegó
Junuen bea
kialikun
kaa
pahkóa-ù
sííka
So then
for that
NEG feast-to
went
así luego
por eso
NEG fiesta-a
fue
‘Peter arrived so late from Obregón, so then he did not go to the feast’
‘Pedro llegó muy tarde de Obregón, así luego, por eso no fue a la fiesta'
Junuen bea and kialikun can be repeated in final position, but in that case, they are only
emphasizing the reasons holding in the sentence. In the following coordinated sentence, the
coordinator is repeated in final position.
(27)
peo
Peter
Pedro
si
very
muy
kupteo obregon
late
Obregon
tarde Obregón
betana yepsak
side arrived
lado llegó
kialikun kaa
pahkoa-u
siika aapo kialikun
for that NEG feast-to
went he
for that
por eso NEG fiesta-a
fue
él
por eso
‘Peter arrived so late from Obregon, for that reason he did not go to the feast’
'Pedro llegó muy tarde de Obregón, por eso no fue a la fiesta por eso'
However, the coordinator can occur too alone in final position:
(28)
peo
Peter
Pedro
si
very
muy
kupteo obregon
late
Obregon
tarde Obregón
be-tana yepsak,
side arrived
lado llegó
kaa
pahkóa-ù
sííka aapo kiálikun
NEG
feast-to
went he
for that
NEG
fiesta-a
fue
él
por eso
‘Peter arrived so late from Obregon, he did not go to the feast for that reason’
'Pedro llegó muy tarde de Obregón, no fue a la fiesta por eso'
1.1.1.2.3 Junak bea ‘then’.
Other conjunction particles occur in first or second position. One of them is the sequential
coordinator junak bea ‘then’
(29)
In saila
yepsak,
junak bea
Maria siika.
My brother
arrived
then
Mi hermano
llegó
entonces
‘My brother arrived and then Mary left’.
‘Mi hermano llegó, entonces María se fue’.
Mary left
María se fue
(30)
In saila
yepsak,
Maria junak bea
My brother
arrived
Mary then
left
a Mi hermano llegó
María entonces
se fue
‘My brother arrived and then Mary left’.
‘Mi hermano llegó entonces María se fue’.
siika.
And it is possible to find this coordinator in final position:
(31)
In saila
yepsak,
Maria siika
My brother
arrived
Mary left
then
Mi hermano
llegó
María se fue
entonces
‘My brother arrived and then Mary left’.
‘Mi hermano llegó entonces María se fue’.
junak bea
1.1.1.2.4 Oóbe-n `nonetheless'.
The particle ooben ‘nonetheless’ has an adversative meaning. It goes in first position, in
the next example it introduces a conditional sentence. Its adversative value is weak and can occur
with the adversative particle (bwe)ta `but' which reinforce the adversative meaning. When they
co-occur, ooben goes first and ta after it. Because they can co-occur we can conclude that ooben
is more a subordinator than a coordinator:
(32) peo
Peter
Pedro
lauti
early
temprano
yebij-'ean,
oobe-n
arrive-SUBJ nonetheless
llegar-SUBJ sin embargo
kaa
a=
karo-wa
nasontuk-o
not
it
car-his
broke down-if
no
lo
carro-su
descompuesto-si
‘Peter would arrive early if his car didn’t brake down’.
`Pedro habría llegado temprano si no se le hubiera
descompuesto el carro'.
(33) peo
Peter
Pedro
lauti
early
temprano
yebij-'ean
arrive-SUBJ
llegar-SUB
oobe-n
ta
kaa
junen-e -'ea
nonetheless
but
not
so-RED-think
sin embargo
pero no
así-RED-pensó
‘Peter could arrive early bu he didn’t want to’
`Pedro pudo llegar temprano pero no quiso'
ooben `nonetheless' is optional when (bwe)ta `but is present in the construction. This fact
reinforces the idea that ooben is a subordinator:
(34)
Peo lauti
yebij-'ean
ta
kaa
Peter
early
arrive-SUBJ but
not
Pedro
temprano
llegar-SUBJ pero no
‘Peter could arrive early, but he didn’t want to’
junen-e-'ea
so-RED-think
así-RED-pensó
1.1.1.2.5 Katua
`because' `pues'.
This type of subordinator has an explicative meaning, as shown in the following example,
it always occurs in final position. It behaves like adverbials which are fixed in final position (see
that section).
(35)
tui-si lauti yebij-ne
kaa
tekipanoa
katua
well-well early arrive-will
NEG work
because
`Puede llegar temprano porque no trabaja'
(36)
Peo
Peter
Pedro
jiba
already
ya
nau
toghether
junto
yajiwa-u
arrive:PL-to
llegar:PL-a
yepsak
arrived:SG
llegar:SG
apo
junen-'ean
katua
he
so-think
because
él
así-pensó
porque
‘Peter could arrived to the meeting because she wanted to’
`Pedro pudo llegar a la junta porque ella quizo'
1.1.1.2.6
Bweytuk ‘because’.
The difference between subordination and coordination is blurred by some examples. In
the next example the subordinator bweytuk ‘because’ occurs in the expected position: between
the two sentences.
(37)
Carmen
yepsak bweytuk
María siika.
Carmen arrived because
Mary left
Carmen llegó porque
María se fue
‘Carmen arrived because Mary left’
‘Carmen llegó porque María se fue’
But the subordinator can appear in second position too. As is shown below:
(38)
?Carmen
yepsak María bweytuk
siika.
Carmen
arrived Mary because
left
Carmen llegó María porque
se fue
‘Carmen arrived because Mary left’
‘Carmen llegó porque María se fue’
In this section it was shown that some sequential coordinators (example: kialikun, junak
bea) occupy the three basic positions that the logical coordinator into(-ko) ‘and’ occupies: first,
second and last position in the coordinated sentence. It is shown too that other particles like
katua ‘because’ occupies a rigid position, like adverbs.
1.1.1.3 Observations about yaqui coordinators.
There are some tests for checking if we are faced with truth coordinators. According to
Oirsow (1987:109), “one clear characteristic which is particular to coordinating conjunctions as
contrasted with, say subordinating conjunctions is that the former have to occur in between the
clauses which they coordinate and latter need not”. From this point of view, a yaqui sentence
with bweytuk ‘because’, is a subordinated one:
(39)
Joan kot-pea
bweytuk
aapo
John
sleep-want
because
he
not
Juan
dormir-quiere porque
él
no
‘John wants to sleep because he is not happy’
‘Juan quiere dormir porque no está alegre’.
kaa
allea
happy
alegre
(40)
bweytuk
aapo kaa
allea Joan kot-pea
because he
not
happy John sleep-want
porque él
no
alegre Juan dormir-quiere
‘John wants to sleep because he is not happy’
‘Juan quiere dormir porque no está alegre’.
But now contrast the following sentences; the coordinated sentence can not appear in first
position:
(41) Joan kot-pea
into (bweta/o)
John
sleep-want
and (but/or) he
not
Juan
dormir-quiere y (pero/o)
él
no
‘Jhon want to sleep and (but/or) he is not happy’
‘Juan quiere dormir y (pero/o) no está alegre’.
(42)
aapo kaa
happy
alegre
allea
*into(bweta/o)
aapo kaa
allea Joan kot-pea
and (but/or)
he
not
happy John sleep-want
y (pero/o)
él
no
alegre Juan dormir-quiere
(John want to sleep and (but/or) he is not happy’)
(‘Juan quiere dormir y (pero/o) no es féliz’.)
The same author expresses a second characteristic about coordination: “Coordinating
conjunctions are mutually exclusive and subordinating conjunctions not (Oirsow 1987:106)”.
According to this observation the coocurrence of into ‘and’ and bweytuk ‘because’ is expected,
but not the coocurrence of (bwe)ta ‘but’ and into ‘and’:
(43)
Jorge yooko
Jorge
yesterday
Jorge
ayer
namukiak
drunk
borracho
into
and
y
bweytuk
because
porque
nee
me
a mi
chaek,
cried
gritó
inepo
a
tetemuk
I him kicked
yo a él
patié.
Jorge was drunk yesterday and because he cried to me, I kicked him.
‘Jorge estaba borracho ayer y porque me gritó, lo patié’
(44)
ini’i chu’u ousi junera ta
into in
this
dog very ugly but
and
my
este
perro muy feo
pero y
mi
‘This dog is very ugly but my mother loves it’
‘Este perro es muy feo pero mi madre lo quiere’
maala a=
mother it
madre lo
tu’ule.
likes
quiere
However, as we can see in the translation, the sentence has an adversative meaning and
not a conjunctive one. This fact suggests that into ‘and’ is functioning in these cases more like
and adverbial than like a logical conjunction. Actually, into can be better translated in this
situation like ‘in addition, moreover’.
From this facts we can conclude that into ‘and’ has at least two characteristics, it can
function as a conjunction or as an adverb.
1.1.2 Background on yaqui coordination.
Yaqui has two ways of expressing coordination of actions. One is by ordinary coordination; i.e.
by a conjunction surrounded by the conjuncts. In this case, the coordination could be balanced or
unbalanced. The second type is without a conjunction, but with the first verb in its base form
plus the suffix –kai ‘SUB’ which marks tense subordination. In this case, the coordination is
unbalanced.
1.1.2.1 Basic concepts.
In this section I introduce some terms used in the description of yaqui coordination. Let’s
begin with the following terms found in Haspelmath (2004) “A coordinating construction consist
of two or more coordinands, i.e. coordinated phrases. Their coordinate status may be indicated
by coordinators, i.e. particles like and, and but. If one or more coordinators occur in a
coordinating construction, it is called syndetic. Asyndetic coordination consists of simple
juxtaposition of the coordinands.” Haspelmath (2004:4). In this work the words coordinand and
conjunct are used as synonymous and coordinator and conjunction are used as synonymous too.
Both types occur in yaqui:
Syndetic:
(45) María tuuka
[Peo-ta-u
into Pablo-ta-u]
nooka-k
María yesterday
[Peter-ACC-to
and
Pablo-ACC-to]
speak-PERF
Marìa ayer
[Pedro-AC-a y
Pablo-AC-a] hablar-PERF
‘María spoke to Peter and Pablo yesterday’
‘Marìa le habló a Pedro y a Pablo ayer’
Asyndetic:
(46) Joan, Peo, María, Carlos, (into) Tiibu
si’ime bwiika-k
John, Peter, Maria, Carlos, (and) Tiburcio
all
sing-PERF
Juan, Pedro, María, Carlos, (y)
Tiburcio
todos cantar-PERF
‘John, Peter, María, Carlos, (and) Tiburcio, all sang’
‘Juan, Pedro, María, Carlos, (y) Tiburcio, todos cantan’.
It is usual to distinguish two types of syndesis: monosyndetic coordination, which
involves only a single coordinator and bysyndetic coordination, which involves two
coordinators.
Yaqui only has the first one:
(47) wiikit into taawe
ne’e
bird and
sparrowhawk fly:PTE
pájaro y
gavilán
volar:PTE
‘The bird and the sparrowhawk are flying’
‘El pájaro y el gavilán están volando’
The second one is illustrated by Kibrik (2004:538), in the Upper Kuskokwim Athabaskan
language:
(48) dineje
‘il
Moose
with
‘Moose and Caribou’
midzish
caribou
with
‘il
1.1.2.2 Coordinated categories.
Yaqui has the coordination of various grammatical categories. This work explores the
coordination with the particle into ‘and’. The categories that can be established are the following
ones:
1.1.2.2.1
Coordination of likes.
Yaqui has the coordination of the following grammatical categories. As we can see in the
examples, all the examples can be categorized as the coordination of likes.
DP’s
(49) María Peo-ta
Maria Peter-ACC
María Pedro-AC
yokia-ta]
pen-ACC
pluma-AC
[juka lapis-ta
into
Det:ACC
pencil-ACC
Det:AC
lápiz-AC
juka
and
y
Det:ACC
Det:AC
mik-bae
gift-INT
regalar-INT
‘María will gift a pencil and a pen to Peter’
‘María le dará un lapis y una pluma a Pedro’
N(P)’s
(50) [Pablo into Rosa]
in
jo’ara-po
Pablo and Rosa
my
house-in
‘Pablo y Rosa
mi
casa-en
‘Pablo and Rosa will work in my house’
‘Pablo y Rosa trabajarán en mi casa’
tekipanoa-ne
work-FUT
trabajar-FUT
AdjP’s
(51) Joan beme-k
into tutuli-k
John young-ACC and
beautiful-ACC
Juan joven-AC
y
bonita-AC
‘John saw the young (one) and beautiful one.’
‘Juan vio a la joven y bonita’
(52)
bicha-k
see-PERF
ver-PERF
Joan beme into tutuli
hamut-ta
bicha-k
John young and
beautiful
woman-ACC see-PERF
Juan joven y
bonita
mujer-AC
ver-PERF
‘John saw the young and beautiful woman.’
‘Juan vio a la mujer joven y bonita’
AdvP’s
(53) Aapo
unak
into ketun
(S)he
then
and
still
Él/Ella
entonces
y
todavía
‘(S)he was and is today still a teacher’
‘Él/ella era y es hoy todavía maestro/a’
PostP’s
(54) Joan
John
Juan
torim-po
Torim-LOC
Torim-LOC
into
and
y
ian
maestro
today teacher
hoy maestro/a
bicam-po
tekipanoa
Vicam-LOC work:PTE
Vicam-LOC trabajar:PTE
‘John works in Torim and in Vicam’
‘Juan trabaja en Torim y en Vicam’
V(P)’s
(55) Joan bicha into
John see:PTE
Juan ver:PTE
Juan ve
y
‘Juan ve y oye’
jikkaja.
and
hear:PTE
y
oir:PTE
oye
However, two transitive verbs can not be coordinated as above. Each verb requires its
own object in overt syntax:
(56)
S’s
(57)
Peo jita
jinu into jita
Peter something
buy:PTE
and
Pedro algo
comprar:PTE y
‘Pedro buys and sells something’
‘Pedro compra y vende algo’
U
The
El
cu’u wakas-ta
dog cow-ACC
perro vaca-AC
nenka
something
sell:PTE
algo vender:PTE
batte ke’e-ka
into
almost bite-PERF
and
casi morder-PERF y
uka
paros-ta
batte bwiise-k
the
hare-ACC
batte catch-PERF
la
liebre-AC
batte agarrar-PERF
‘The dog almost bite the cow and almost cached the hare’
1.1.2.2.2
Lack of coordination of unlikes.
Contrary to languages like English and Spanish, it is hard to find coordination of unlikes
in Yaqui. As it is well known, coordination of unlikes is very common in predicate position, as in
the following examples: The children are awake and asking for you, Paul is stupid and a liar.
Peterson (2004:647-648). However, there are several restriction to this kind of coordination. It is
shown in examples like *John sang beautifully and a Carol, Peterson (2004:647).
The lack of this kind of structures in Yaqui is due to the fact that the language does not
have a copulative verb and to the fact that adjectives (as well as nouns) can be used as predicates
and they take the verbal suffixes. As the following coordination indicates.
(58)
Ume usim bubusala(mme)
into enchi
nattemai(mme)
Det:PL boys awake:PTE (PL)
and
for you
ask:PTE (PL)
Det:PL muchachos despierto:PTE(PL) y
por ti preguntar:PTE(PL)
‘The children are awake and asking for you’
‘Los niños están despiertos y preguntando por ti’
By other hand, the language have a structure with –kai ‘SUB’ (treated in chapter four)
which can be considered a subordinated construction. Then, next example would be hardly
treated as coordination of unlikes. It is important to note that it does not accept the coordinator
into ‘and’.
(59)
U
yoi
tebeta-kai
(*into)
anukichi
The white:man
tall-SUB
(*and)
liar
El
hombre:blanco
alto-SUB
(*y)
mentiroso
‘That white man is tall and a liar/ that withe man, being tall, is a liar’
‘Ese hombre blanco es alto y mentiroso/ ese hombre banco, siendo alto, es
mentiroso’
It is clear that the constraints that avoid this kind of constructions are highly ranked in
Yaqui. If we depart from Peterson’s idea that a main requisite for coordination of unlikes is that
the conjuncts must have the same syntactic function, examples like the following indicates that
there must be other constraints playing a role for the ungrammaticality of the coordination in
Yaqui, English and Spanish. We can see in the next examples that the elements of the intended
coordination are adjuncts and that each one can occur in the same context. However, when we
try to coordinate them, the coordination fails.
(60)
Nee jo’ara-u
I
house-to
Yo
casa-a
‘I went home’
‘Me fui a casa’
(61)
Nee lunes-tu-k
I
monday-become-when
Yo
lunes-volverse-cuando
‘I left monday’
‘Me fui el lunes’
siika.
go:PERF
ir:PERF
(62)
*Nee [jo’ara-u
lunes-tu-k]
(63)
Nee
jo’ara-u
siika.
go:PERF
ir:PERF
into
lunes-tu-k
siika.
siika.
possible to find coordination of unlikes in Yaqui. Next example contains a series of
objects for which the verb waata ‘love/want’ subcategorizes.
A challenge for any theory of coordination is to explain why coordination can put
together different categories in some languages and why it can not in another languages like
Yaqui. Schachter (1977) among others, have observed that the conjuncts must share the same
theta-roles. Givon mentions that coordinations must cover the constraint equi-case-role, which
takes care of both: theta-roles and case (equi-case-role). So in this work those kind of alternation
must be explaining by using these an other constraints.
1.2
Yaqui word order.
Yaqui is a SOV language and it doesn´t tend to have a lot of variation on that order,
however, variation exist and it’s possible to find general patterns of it. For example, the object
can move to final position of the sentence, leaving behind a correferential pronoun: S CL=V O
(where CL= must be understood as a clitic object pronoun).
(64)
Rubén ejkuela-po
ji’osiam
to’o-siika
Rubén school-in
books
left-go
Rubén escuela-en
libros
dejó-se fue
‘Rubén left the books in the school and left’.
‘Rubén dejó los libros en la escuela y se fue’.
(65)
Rubén ejkuela-po
am= to’o-siika
jume ji’osiam
Rubén school-in
them=left-go
the
books
Rubén escuela-en
los=dejó-se fue
los
libros
‘Rubén left the books in the school and left’.
‘Rubén dejó los libros en la escuela y se fue’.
Adjuncts could be before or after the verb, as example we have the following
commitative phrase.
(66)
Inepo joan-ta-mak
teo-po
I
John-ACC-with
church-in
Yo
Juan-AC-con
iglesia-en
‘I sang in the church with John’
‘Yo canté en la iglesia con Juan’
bwiikak
sang.
canté
Similar variation can be found in relative constructions: the relative clause may be close
to its head or extraposed to final position:
(67)
Simon uka
jamuta
a=bépsuka-u
waata
Simon Det:AC
woman
him/her=hit-REL
loves
Simón Det:AC
mujer
a él/ella=pegó-REL ama
‘Simón loves the woman that hit him/that he hit’
‘Simón ama a la mujer que le pegó a él/ que él le pego’
(68)
Simon uka
jamuta
waata a=bépsuka-u
Simon Det:AC
woman
loves him/her=hit-REL
Simón Det:AC
mujer
ama a él/ella=pegó-REL
‘Simón loves the woman that hit him/that he hit’
‘Simón ama a la mujer que le pegó a él/ que él le pego’
As the above examples indicate, Yaqui does not always follow its canonical order within
the clause; there is some variation. These types of variation find natural accounts in the OT
model with different weights given to interacting factors from different structures in the
grammar.
As mentioned by Sells (2001:11) “It should noted that the OT analysis does not blindly
generate structural alternatives as output forms, but rather each specific ranking shows why and
how constituent order variation is preferred: non canonical orders will only be licensed by
information structure factors, or whatever other perceptible influences on order there are.”
It is a fact of Yaqui that it shows more than one option, suggesting that a parameter
setting view or its equivalent, is inappropriate for this kind of variation. The OT approach
directly accounts for yaqui options, drawn from a universal set of option defined by the
constraint system.
(Take some ideas from Sells here to close this section)
Sells (2001:12) claim that “moving beyond typology to the more general phenomenon of
variation, one mayor impact of OT work has been in the way it has allowed formally and
theoretically sophisticated models of syntax to be applied to data sets with inherent variability.
Recently a body of work has emerged in the style known as ‘stochastic OT’ based on the original
proposals of Boersma (1997). This line of work directly addresses the fact that it really is an
idealization to reat any data set in syntax as being free from internal variation or variability, by
producing analysis which embrace the variation and model it to increasing levels of precision.
The OT view has a very rich approach to typology which goes far beyond what has standarly
been accomplished in generative grammatical research: from any logical set of options for
variation, some will be rule out by the constraint system; of those remaining, there may simply
be different options chosen in different languages or some languages may allow multiple options,
to varying degrees, via stochastic approach. AS emphasized by Bresnan and Deo (2000), the
kinds of variation one find within a language and across languages are quite similar.”