Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 501–570 | Cite as

Agent Focus in Mayan Languages



A subset of the Mayan languages makes use of a specific verb form if the subject of a transitive verb is to be focused, questioned or relativized; this form, which renders the verb morphologically intransitive, though semantically transitive, is called ‘agent focus’ among Mayanists. The respective Mayan languages differ in the morphosyntactic implementation of agent focus, i.e. the agreement patterns, the marking of the internal argument and the contexts in which agent focus occurs. The goal of this paper is to provide a lexical approach that accounts for the cross-Mayan variation by means of a small set of faithfulness and markedness constraints. It is proposed that the agent focus marker emerged as a means of disambiguation (by Bidirectional Optimization) and was grammaticalized, thus extending it to contexts where it is not needed and is even counterproductive in terms of the visibility of the arguments’ φ-features (person and number).


Artificial Intelligence Internal Argument Markedness Constraint Agent Focus Agreement Pattern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aissen, Judith. 1992‘Topic and Focus in Mayan’Language684380Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, Judith. 1999a‘Agent Focus and Inverse in Tzotzil’Language75451485Google Scholar
  3. Aissen, Judith. 1999b‘Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17673711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aissen, Judith. 2003‘Differential Coding, Partial Blocking, and Bidirectional OT’Berkeley Linguistics Society29116Google Scholar
  5. Ayres, Glenn. 1981‘On Ergativity and Aspect in Ixil’Journal of Mayan linguistics2128145Google Scholar
  6. Ayres, Glenn. 1983‘The Antipassive Voice’ in Ixil’International Journal of American Linguistics492045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, Edward Rush. 1999. A Grammar of Sipakapense Maya, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  8. Berinstein, Ava. 1985Evidence for Multiattachment in K’ekchi MayanGarlandNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Blutner, Reinhard. 2000‘Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation’Journal of Semantics17189216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare and Christopher Manning. 2001.Soft Constraints Mirror Hard Constraints: Voice and Person in English and Lummi’, Online-Proceedings of the LFG-Conference in Hong Kong, June 2001. <>.Google Scholar
  11. Bricker, Victoria Reifler. 1978. ‘Antipassive Constructions in Yucatec Maya’, in Nora C. England (ed.), pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  12. Bricker, Victoria R. 1981‘The Source of the Ergative Split in Yucatec Maya’Journal of Mayan linguistics283127Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, Lyle. 2000‘Valency-Changing Derivations in K’iche”Dixon, R. M. W.Aikhenvald, A. eds. Changing ValencyCase Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge University PressCambridge236281Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, Lyle, Terrence, Kaufman. 1985‘Mayan Linguistics: Where are We Now?’Annual Review of Anthropology14187198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung, Sandra. 1998The Design of AgreementUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Chung, Sandra, Carol, Georgopoulos. 1988‘Agreement with Gaps in Chamorro and Palauan’Barlow, M.Ferguson, C. eds. Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, and DescriptionsCSLI PublicationsStanford251267Google Scholar
  17. Dayley, Jon P. 1981‘Voice and Ergativity in Mayan Languages’Journal of Mayan Linguistics2382Google Scholar
  18. Dayley, Jon P. 1985Tzutujil GrammarUniversity of California PressBerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies, William D., Luis Enrique, Sam-Colop. 1990‘K’iche′ and the Structure of Antipassive’Language66522549Google Scholar
  20. Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1999‘Carib’Dixon, R. M. W.Aikhenvald, A. eds. The Amazonian languagesCambridge University PressCambridge2364Google Scholar
  21. Dingare, Shipra. 2001. The effect of feature hierarchies on frequencies of passivization in English, unpublished Master’s thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. Donohue, Mark and Anna Maclachlan. 1999. ‘What Agreement in Chamorro?’, in C. Smallwood and C. Kitto (eds.), The Proceedings of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association VI, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 16.2, pp. 121–132.Google Scholar
  23. DuBois, John W. 1981. The Sakapultek Language, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  24. England, Nora C. eds. 1978Papers in Mayan linguisticsUniversity of MissouriColumbia, MIGoogle Scholar
  25. England, Nora C. 1983A grammar of Mam, a Mayan languageUniversity of Texas PressAustinGoogle Scholar
  26. Finer, Daniel L. 1997‘Contrasting Ā-dependencies in Selayarese’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory15677728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frascarelli, Mara. 1999. ‘Subject, Nominative Case, Agreement and Focus’, in L. Mereu (ed.), pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
  28. Georgopoulos, Carol. 1985‘Variables in Palauan Syntax’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory35994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grinevald Craig, Colette. 1977The Structure of JacaltecUniversity of Texas PressAustinGoogle Scholar
  30. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997‘Projection, Heads, and Optimality’Linguistic Inquiry28373422Google Scholar
  31. Hale, Ken.,  et al. 1998‘El antipasivo de enfoque del Kichee’ y el inverso del Chukchi: un estudio de la concordancia excéntrica’Estrada Fernández, Z. eds. IV Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Tomo I: Lenguas Indígenas, Volumen IEditorial Unison Universidad de SonoraHermosillo Sonora213239Google Scholar
  32. Horn, Laurence R. 1984‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures’Schiffrin, D. eds. Meaning, Form, and Use in ContextGeorgetown University PressWashington1142Google Scholar
  33. Horvath, Julia. 1986FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of HungarianForisDodrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen, John T., Margaret, Stong-Jensen. 1984‘Morphology is in the Lexicon!’Linguistic Inquiry15474498Google Scholar
  35. Joppen, Sandra, Dieter, Wunderlich. 1995‘Argument Linking in Basque’Lingua97123169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen: Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Komplemente, Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  37. Kaufmann, Ingrid and Dieter Wunderlich. 1998. Cross-linguistic Patterns of Resultatives’, Working papers of the Sonderforschungsbereich Theorie des Lexikons’ 109, University of Düsseldorf. Google Scholar
  38. Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980A Relational Grammar of KinyarwandaUniversity of California PressBerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  39. Krämer, Martin, Dieter, Wunderlich. 1999‘Transitivity Alternations in Yucatec, and the Correlation Between Aspect and Argument Roles’Linguistics37431479Google Scholar
  40. Larsen, Thomas W. 1981‘Functional Correlates of Ergativity in Aguacatec’Berkeley Linguistics Society7136153Google Scholar
  41. Larsen, Thomas W. 1987‘The Syntactic Status of Ergativity in Quiché’Lingua713359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Legendre, Géraldine, William, Raymond, Paul, Smolensky. 1993‘An Optimality-Theoretic Typology of Case and Grammatical Voice Systems’Berkeley Linguistic Society19464478Google Scholar
  43. Lengyel, Thomas E. 1978. ‘Ergativity, Aspect and related Perplexities of Ixil-Maya’. In: Nora C. England (ed.), pp. 78–91.Google Scholar
  44. Maurer Avalos, Eugenio and Abelino Guzmán Jiménez. 2001. Gramática Tseltal, Tlacopac San Ángel, Álvaro Obregón, Centro de Estudios Educativos, Mexico.Google Scholar
  45. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity’, in J. Beckman, L. Walsh and S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers18 249–384.Google Scholar
  46. Mereu, Lunella. eds. 1999Boundaries of morphology and syntaxJohn BenjaminsAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  47. Mereu, Lunella. 1999. ‘Agreement, Pronominalization and Word Order in Pragmatically–oriented languages’. In: Lunella Mereu (ed.), pp. 231–250.Google Scholar
  48. Mondloch, James Marin. 1981. Voice in Quiche-Maya, Ph.D. dissertation, University at Albany.Google Scholar
  49. O’Herin, Brian. 2002. Case and Agreement in Abaza, SIL International, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
  50. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1993‘Subject-extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory11477518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robertson, John S. 1980The Structure of Pronoun Incorporation in the Mayan Verbal ComplexGarlandNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Robertson, John S. 1992The History of Tense/Aspect/Mood/Voice in the Mayan Verbal ComplexUniversity of Texas PressAustinGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson, Stuart. 2002‘Constituent Order in Tenejapa Tzeltal’International Journal of American Linguistics685180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sells, Peter. 2001‘Form and Function in the Typology of Grammatical Voice Systems’Legendre, G.Grimshaw, J.Vikner, S. eds. Optimality-Theoretic SyntaxMIT PressCambridge, MA355391Google Scholar
  55. Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978.The Mayan Antipassive: Some Facts and Fictions’, in Nora C. England (ed.), pp. 169–187.Google Scholar
  56. Stiebels, Barbara. 1999‘Noun-verb Symmetries in Nahuatl Nominalizations’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17783836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stiebels, Barbara. 2000‘Linker Inventories, Linking Splits and Lexical Economy’Stiebels, B.Wunderlich, D. eds. Lexicon in FocusAkademie VerlagBerlin211245Google Scholar
  58. Stiebels, Barbara. 2002Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und ExpressivitätAkademie VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  59. Trechsel, Frank R. 1993‘Quiché Focus Constructions’Lingua913378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tsimpli Ianthi Maria. (1995). Focusing in Modern Greek’. In: Kiss K. É. (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages.Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 176–206Google Scholar
  61. Tuller, Laurice. 1992‘The Syntax of Postverbal Focus Constructions in Chadic’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory10303334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997‘Cause and the Structure of Verbs’Linguistic Inquiry282768Google Scholar
  63. Wunderlich, Dieter. 2002. ‘Argument Linking Types – Approached From the Perspective of LDG’, in H. Suzuki (ed.), Report of the Special Research Project of the typological investigation into languages and cultures of the East and the West. Report No. 5, University of Tsukuba (Japan), pp. 777–799.Google Scholar
  64. Wunderlich, Dieter. 2003‘Optimal Case Patterns: German and Icelandic Compared’Brandner, E.Zinsmeister, H. eds. New Perspectives on Case TheoryCSLI PublicationsStanford331367Google Scholar
  65. Wunderlich, Dieter, Ray, Fabri. 1995‘Minimalist Morphology: An Approach to Inflection’Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft14236294Google Scholar
  66. Zavala Maldonado, Roberto. 1994‘Inverse Alignment in Huastec’Funcion15-162781Google Scholar
  67. Zavala, Roberto. 1997‘Functional Analysis of Akatek Voice Constructions’International Journal of American Linguistics63439474CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations