Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: a view from Mayan

Abstract

Researchers using different methods have converged on the result that subject relative clauses are easier to process than object relative clauses. Cross-linguistic evidence for the subject processing advantage (SPA) has come mostly from accusative languages, where the covariance of grammatical function and case prevents researchers from determining which of these two factors underlies the SPA. Languages with morphological ergativity allow for the separation of case and grammatical function, since the subject position is associated with two cases: absolutive (intransitive subjects) and ergative (transitive subjects). Prior experimental results on the processing of ergative languages suggest that grammatical function and surface case may be equally important in relative clause processing. On the one hand, as a syntactic subject, the ergative DP has a processing advantage over the absolutive object. On the other hand, the appearance of an ergative serves as a cue for the projection of the absolutive object, which gives processing preference to that object. This paper further tests these findings by examining the processing of relative clauses in Ch'ol and Q'anjob'al, two languages that mark ergativity via agreement on the predicate (head-marking). We address two main questions: (a) does the SPA hold in ergative languages? and (b) are case and agreement equally able to license grammatical functions, and if so, is this reflected in processing? With regard to (a), our results support the SPA, suggesting that it is present in both ergative and accusative languages. With respect to (b), we do not find evidence for a cueing effect associated with the ergative agreement marker. We conclude that dependent-marking is superior to head-marking in tracking grammatical function; in the absence of case cues, universal structural preferences such as the SPA become more pronounced. We also consider and reject a processing explanation for syntactic ergativity, according to which some languages categorically avoid A-bar movement of the ergative with a gap because it imposes a heavy processing load. Our results show that the processing of ergative gaps is not associated with greater cost than the processing of absolutive object gaps; this suggests that an explanation for syntactic ergativity should be sought outside processing.

Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data

“…The authors moreover proposed that the OR advantage they report could be accounted for in terms of sensitivity to the absolutive-ergative distinction in Basque (in ergative languages, the absolutive is often a privileged argument for relativization; see Dixon 1994). However, as shown by Polinsky et al (2012), this result directly follows from frequency effects (see al Clemens et al submitted). We do not consider the impact of ergativity here, but instead base our predictions on studies of East Asian languages with accusative-nominative alignment that are typologically more comparable to Korean.…”

Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

“…This point is further emphasised in Clemens et al (2015) study of relative clause processing in Q'anjob'al and Ch'ol, two ergative Mayan languages in which ergative marking is expressed not by case markers, but rather by person-marking morphemes attached to the verb. This language type is referred to as "head marking" (grammatical relations are marked on the verb), rather than "dependent marking" (grammatical relations are marked on noun phrases).…”

“…Recently, the typological coverage of research on syntactic complexity and processing cost has extended to include ergative languages, a language type that has traditionally received little attention in the adult processing literature (Carreiras et al, 2010 for Basque; Polinsky, Gallo Gómez, Graff, & Kravtchenko, 2012 for Avar (Nakh-Dagestanian) and Clemens et al, 2015 for Ch'ol and Q'anjobal (Mayan); see also Bickel, Witzlack-Makarevich, Choudhary, Schlesewsky, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2015) for a recent comprehension study of ergativity in simple clauses in Hindi). In ergative languages, subjects of intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs are morphologically indicated in the same way (receiving "absolutive" marking, often indicated by the absence of overt marking), and distinctly from subjects of transitive verbs (ergative marking).…”

Mayan Morphosyntax

“…See Ordóñez ; Aissen ; Stiebels ; Tonhauser ; Norcliffe ; Aissen ; Coon and Henderson ; Coon et al ; Weisser et al ; and Erlewine to appear for formal analyses of the ban on extraction and the AF construction, as well as Aissen (to appear) for discussion. See also Clemens et al for a processing study.…”