Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:08:01.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agreement Controllers and Tzotzil Comitatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Judith L. Aissen
Judith L. Aissen*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
*
20-1 Cowell College University of California Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Certain structures containing comitatives appear to be counterexamples to the claim that only superficial constituents control agreement. Earlier treatments have given up the requirement that such controllers be superficial constituents in order to preserve the generalization that controllers are always constituents. In these analyses, the superficial nonconstituent controller corresponds to a deep constituent. In Tzotzil there is a better analysis for structures of this type, crucially involving the Plural Pronoun Construction, which requires neither nonconstituent nor nonfinal controllers. If this analysis can be maintained in other languages, it will make possible a more restrictive theory of agreement controllers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 518 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1975. Counterexamples and explanations in Navajo linguistics: Syntax. Navajo Language Review 2. 29–60. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haviland, John. 1981. Sk'op Sotz'leb: El Tzotzil de San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1973. Conjoining and comitativization in Hungarian—A study in rule ordering. Foundations of Language 10. 493–507.Google Scholar
Jensen, John. 1977. Yapese reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1988. Group reference and the Plural Pronoun Construction. Papers on the Plural Pronoun Construction and Comitative Coordination. Syntax Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1–7. [Paper presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans].Google Scholar
Laughlin, Robert. 1977. Of cabbages and kings. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Laughlin, Robert. 1980. Of shoes and ships and sealing wax. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 245–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1988. A note on agreement and coordination in Old Irish. University of California, Santa Cruz, ms.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Hale, Kenneth. 1984. On the syntax of person-number agreement in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 487–534.10.1007/BF00417057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1988. Comitative Coordination in Russian. Papers on the Plural Pronoun Construction and Comitative Coordination. Syntax Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, 9–15. [Paper presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans].Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1988. An information-based theory of agreement. Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, part two: Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory, ed. by Brentari, Diane, Larson, Gary, and MacLeod, Lynn, 236–57. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1985. Plural pronouns, coordination, and inclusion. Papers from the Tenth Minnesota Regional Conference on Language and Linguistics, ed. by Stenson, Nancy, 152–84. Minneapolis: Department of Linguistics, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1986. Constituent structure and grammatical relations. Paper presented at the Conference on Grammatical Relations, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1988a. Conditions on verb-coded coordinations. Studies in Syntactic Typology, ed. by Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, and Wirth, Jessica, 53–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1988b. Asymmetric feature distribution in pronominal ‘coordinations’. Agreement in Natural Language, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Ferguson, Charles A., 237–49. Palo Alto: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1989. Thematic linking in Hausa asymmetric coordination. Studies in African Linguistics 20, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar