Jessica Coon

TAM Split Ergativity, Part I

This article surveys empirical and theoretical work on Tense-Aspect-Mood (‘‘TAM’’) based split ergativity, and offers an account for how it arises. While these splits are typically assumed to represent a unified phenomenon, I demonstrate that non-ergative portions of split systems exhibit different patterns. I argue that these patterns reflect at least two different triggers of split ergativity: (i) non-perfective aspects are more likely to be built on complex auxiliary constructions, and (ii) imperfectivity is associated with demoted objects or lower transitivity. Both causes trigger the same result: in the ‘‘split’’ portions of the grammar the transitive subject is not marked with ergative case because it is not a transitive subject. This structural account of split ergativity allows us to avoid positing variable feature inventories on the same functional head (cf. Ura 2006), and also provides a straight-forward account of the so-called ‘‘counter-universal’’ splits (Gildea and de Castro Alves 2010), which cause problems for purely functionalist accounts (e.g. DeLancey 1981). Furthermore, it is shown that the factors which trigger these splits are not limited to ergative languages, but are present cross-linguistically—they are not visible in nominative-accusative systems because (by definition) there is no visible difference between transitive and intransitive subjects. The prevalence of splits in ergative systems is thus not taken to reflect any deep instability of ergativity.

Classifiers Are for Numerals, Not for Nouns: Consequences for the Mass/ Count Distinction

In languages with numeral classifier systems, nouns must generally appear with one of a series of classifiers in order to be modified by a numeral. This squib presents new data from Mi’gmaq (Algonquian) and Chol (Mayan), arguing that numeral classifiers are required because of the syntactic and semantic properties of the numeral (as in Krifka 1995), rather than the noun (as in Chierchia 1998). The results are shown to have important consequences for the mass/count distinction. Mandarin Chinese is a frequently cited example of a language with numeral classifiers. As shown in (1), classifiers cannot be dropped in the presence of numerals.

Mayan Morphosyntax: Mayan Morphosyntax

This article outlines some of the basics of the morphology and syntax of Mayan languages. I begin in Section 1 with a tour of the core verbal complex, including roots, stem formation, voice and valence morphology, person and number marking, and TAM (primarily aspect) morphology. The ergative alignment pattern, along with split ergativity and ref lexes of syntactic ergativity, is outlined in greater detail in Section 2. Looking outside of the verb stem, we turn to the noun phrase in Section 3 and examine word order in Section 4; Section 5 turns brief ly to embedded clauses and nominal licensing.

The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq

This paper presents puzzles concerning the representation of features in the agreement system of the Eastern Algonquian language, Mi’gmaq. A growing body of research converges on the idea that φ-agreement should be separated into distinct person (π 0 ), number (# 0 ), and sometimes gender (γ 0 ) probes (e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2003, Bejar 2003, Bejar and Rezac 2003, Laka 1993, Shlonsky 1989, Sigurðsson 1996, Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008, Preminger 2012). While these proposals account well for agreement and partial agreement patterns in a number of languages, we show that in order to account for the agreement system of Mi’gmaq, π 0 and # 0 must probe together, which we argue to be the result of fusion of two distinct probes. We discuss the implications of Mi’gmaq agreement for “prominence hierarchies” and feature geometries in the grammar.

TAM Split Ergativity, Part II: TAM Split Ergativity, Part II

This article surveys empirical and theoretical work on Tense-Aspect-Mood (‘‘TAM’’) based split ergativity, and offers an account for how it arises. While these splits are typically assumed to represent a unified phenomenon, I demonstrate that non-ergative portions of split systems exhibit different patterns. I argue that these patterns reflect at least two different triggers of split ergativity: (i) non-perfective aspects are more likely to be built on complex auxiliary constructions, and (ii) imperfectivity is associated with demoted objects or lower transitivity. Both causes trigger the same result: in the ‘‘split’’ portions of the grammar the transitive subject is not marked with ergative case because it is not a transitive subject. This structural account of split ergativity allows us to avoid positing variable feature inventories on the same functional head (cf. Ura 2006), and also provides a straight-forward account of the so-called ‘‘counter-universal’’ splits (Gildea and de Castro Alves 2010), which cause problems for purely functionalist accounts (e.g. DeLancey 1981). Furthermore, it is shown that the factors which trigger these splits are not limited to ergative languages, but are present cross-linguistically—they are not visible in nominative-accusative systems because (by definition) there is no visible difference between transitive and intransitive subjects. The prevalence of splits in ergative systems is thus not taken to reflect any deep instability of ergativity.