266
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND TOPICS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 Conclusion
This dissertation has described and explained three main topics regarding Yaqui coordination: the nature of sentential coordinate structures which are treated like adjunct-host relations, the –kai construction that in some cases emerges like a subordinate structure and in other cases like a coordinate structure, and finally, in Chapter Five, I provide an analysis of the agreement between nominals and verbs.
This work gave evidence that the ConjP hypothesis is not appropriate for explaining the coordinate structures of Yaqui sentences. A ConjP approach does not predict and is unable to account for into ‘and’ in second and last position. This failure is evident because the ConjP approach predicts that the specifier of the projection must be occupied by the first conjunct whereas the complement position will be occupied by the second conjunct. The coordinator, being the head, will be between both conjuncts. Therefore, the ConjP approach predicts as grammatical sentence (1), and predicts as ungrammatical sentence (2). However, the opposite situation happens in Yaqui: (1) is ungrammatical and (2) is grammatical:
(1) *[Joan bwika-k] into [maria ye’e-ka]
John sing-pst and Mary dance-pst
(‘John sang and Mary danced’)
(2) [Joan bwika-k] [maría into ye’e-ka]
John sing-pst Mary and dance-pst
‘John sang and Mary danced’
We saw that Agbayani and Golston (2002) attempt to rescue the ConjP hypothesis by claiming that coordinators which appear after one constituent like in (2) are clitics. Therefore, the moved element attaches to the coordinator, as illustrated in (3):
(3) ConjP [CP [Joan buikak] Conj’[Conjo Mariai=into][CP[ti ye’eka]]]
But in Chapter Three we saw that into ‘and’ in Yaqui is not a clitic. It is not prosodically deficient: it is a minimal word in the language, it is a disyllabic trochaic foot, it has stress, it is a host for clitizicing other particles and it can occur in first position. In Yaqui, topicalized elements are located in front of CP. For that reason, it was suggested that sentence (2) contains a fronted subject and that the landing site of a topicalized item is not the head of a projection. I have suggested that the coordinator is an adjunct which attaches to a Maximal projection (CP in this case) and that the topicalized element is fronted as indicated in (4):
(4) CP[coord]
Mariai CP[coord]
into CP
ti maria ye’eka
Because (4) is now marked with the feature [coord], it licenses the addition of another CP (the first conjunct) as indicated in (5)[1]:
(5) CP[coord]
CP CP[coord]
Mariai CP[coord]
into CP
Joan bwikak ti maria ye’eka
In the final part of Chapter Three, I show that some OT constraints are able to handle the Yaqui patterns of sentence coordination.
On the other hand, the idea that coordination is the result of an adjunct-host relation is extended to the analysis of the –kai constructions in Chapter Four. A set of tests indicates that the –kai verbal construction is marked as subordinated but that it can emerge syntactically as coordinated (if is a chaining structure) or subordinated (if it is not a chain). So we saw the following basic representations:
The tree in (6) stands for a –kai coordinate series (see example (35) in Chapter Four). The into ‘and’ is optional. In this case into ‘and’ cannot occur between the –kai clauses (*v-kai into v-kai, (into) V-tns).
(6) CP[(coord)/tns]
CP CP[(coord)/tns]
V-kai CP CP[(coord)/tns]
V-kai CP CP
(into) V-tns
A subordinate clause emerges without the occurrence of into ‘and’, as indicated in the contrast of (7a) and (7b) (see example (38) in chapter four):
(7) a) CP b) *CP[coord/tns]
CP CP CP CP[coord/tns]
V-kai V-tns V-kai into CP
V-tns
The following structure was proposed for cases where into occurs between –kai clauses. In such a case the (gerundive) tense of the –kai clauses does not depend on the tense of the final verb in the series. The occurrence of into between the last –kai clause and the tensed verb is not possible (*V-kai into V-kai into V-tns). The –kai clauses are subordinated (see examples (98) and (99) in Chapter Four).
(8) CP
CP[coord/ger] CP
CP CP[coord/ger] V-tns
V-kai CP CP[ger]
into V-kai
The analysis of the –kai clauses indicates too that the construction respects the CSC and that it is an inviolable constraint in Yaqui. Typologically the –kai construction is a pseudo-subordinated structure (i.e. it is marked as subordinated but it behaves as coordinated). There was no attestation of any case of pseudo-coordination in the language (cases that syntactically are coordinated but that are really subordinated). The use of constraints helped us to explain the main characteristics of the –kai construction.
Finally, Chapter Five presented a description of nominal and verbal morphosyntactic features of number. We detected an asymmetry in nominal-verb agreement: two (or more) coordinate nouns combine with a plural verb if the verb is intransitive, whereas they combine with a singular verb if it is both transitive and agree with the object. The asymmetry is shown in (9) and (10).
(9) Joan into Peo sajak/ *siika
John and Peter go.pl.pst/ *go.sg.pst
‘John and Peter left’
(10) Andrea Joan-ta into peo-ta kecha-k/ *ja’abwa-k
Andrea John-nnom.sg and Peter-nnom.sg get up.sg.obj-pst get up.pl.obj-pst
‘Andrea got up John and Peter’
My analysis of the nominal and verbal features of number indicates that there are several classes of nouns and verbs. These classes interact in such a way that a system of features like that proposed by Holloway King & Dalrymple (2004) does not explain all of the resulting patterns of the language. The system appeals to a distinction in number features: Concord features and Index features. Chapter Five shows that we need to recast the observations made by Holloway King and Dalrymple into OT terms. The use of additional constraints helped us to explain the Yaqui data.
6.2 Topics for Future Research
I want to close this work by pointing out two interesting areas for future research into the Yaqui language. One is the possibility of exploring the nature of the input. The other is the possibility that the coordinator into ‘and’ can be a complementizer in the language.
The nature of the input is worth exploration because in Yaqui it seems that it is possible to derive the set of sentences in (11)-(14) from a common source. We can suppose that there is a set of constraints regulating the pronunciation of lexical items. If this is so, the pronunciation of lexical items will be tied to constraints regulating the intended meaning. The glosses indicate that the meaning tends to be different for each case. For example, sentence (11) will be used just for a disjoint subject reading. Such a reading is not available in the other cases. What makes this proposal interesting is the idea that we have a single input which is able to produce four patterns of coordination attested in Yaqui: sentence coordination (11), VP coordination (12), NP coordination (13), and NP discontinuous coordination (14). The question is, then: Could we say that the following sentences are derived from a common source[2]?
Sentence coordination:
(11) [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
Who cigars buy-pst who and wine-nnom:sg buy-pst
‘Who bought cigars and who bought wine?’
(Subject: disjoint reading; two disjoint events)
VP coordination:
(12) [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
Who cigars buy-pst who and wine-nnom:sg buy-pst
‘Who bought cigars and bought wine?’
(Subject joint reading, two disjoint/joint events.)
(Focuses the act of buying, it repeats twice the verb.)
NP coordination:
(13) [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
Who cigars buy-pst who and wine-nnom:sg buy-pst
‘Who bought cigars and wine?’
(Subject joint reading, one joint event.)
Discontinuous NP coordination:
(14) [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
Who cigars buy-pst who and wine- nnom:sg buy-pst
‘Who bought cigars and wine?’
(Subject joint reading, one joint event.)
In addition to the previous examples, we can have the non-pronunciation of the coordinator, as indicated in (15):
(15) [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
Who cigars buy-pst who and wine- nnom:sg buy-pst
‘Who did buy cigars, who did buy wine?’
(Disjoint / joint subject reading, disjoint/joint event)
Such an approach will require blocking the following types of candidates due to their ungrammaticality:
(16) a. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
b. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
c. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
d. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
e. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
f. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
g. [Jabe bibam jinu-k] [jabe into bino-ta jinu-k]
Finally, I want to point out an observation made by Sheila Dooley, who has suggested that the into ‘and’ particle could be considered to be a complementizer (p.c.). If that is true, then the coordinator will be a head. In such a case, the moved subject will be in the specifier position of CP, as indicated in (17). We saw in Chapter Three that subject-fronting is obligatory for reasons of topicality.
(17) CP[coord]
Spec C’[coord]
mariai C0 IP
into Spec I’
ti’ I0 VP
ye’ekaj ti, tj
Because the CP is marked with a [coord] feature, there can be an adjunction of another CP, as indicated in (18). So, the first conjunct joan bwikak ‘John sang’ is still an adjoined CP. Therefore, from this point of view, the ConjP will be just the second conjunct which serves like a host for the first conjunct:
(18) CP[coord]
CP CP[coord]
joan bwikak Spec C’[coord]
mariai C0 IP
into Spec I’
ti’ I0 VP
ye’ekaj ti, tj
This suggestion is important from a theoretical point of view. It combines two previously competing sides of the debate on coordinate structures: coordinate structures as headed constructions and coordinate structures as adjoined structures. Under this analysis, the coordinator will be a head in the second conjunct, but the first conjunct will be the product of an adjoin operation.
[1] Recall that into ‘and’ is conceived in this work to be a marker (the sense in which the word “marker” is used here is similar to the sense used when taking about agreement markers) and an operator (by its logical properties (truth values)).
[2] Oirsow (1987) suggested that coordination is an optional rule that applies over well-formed sentences of a language. However, as pointed out by Johannessen (1998), that approach is unable to explain unbalanced coordination (e.g. you and me will go to the party) where one of the conjuncts can not be a grammatical sentence of the language (*me will go to the party).