1

Dissertation new chapter three.

Chapter 3: The structure of coordination.

“It thus appears that the constituent structureof coordinating constructions is much more

problematic than has been generally thought” (Haspelmath 2004:9).

3.1 Sentence Coordination.The aim of this chapter is to describe, analyze and explain the sentence coordination

patterns found in Yaqui. The discussion is centered in the coordinator into(ko) ‘and’. It showsunusual patterns which present a challenge to any theory of language which treat coordination ascontaining a tripartite structure.

3.1.1 Distribution of into ‘and’.As we saw in the first chapter, tThe coordinator into ‘and’ can occur basically in three

different positions when conjoining two sentences: at the beginning of the second conjoinedsentence, after the first element on the second conjoined sentence and in final position of thesecond sentence. Let’s begin with the pattern of into ‘and’ in second position, given that this canbe considered the unmarked pattern of Yaqui coordination:

3.1.1.1 Into ‘and’ in second position.The basic patterns of sentence coordination where into ‘and’ occurs in second position,

are shown in this section. Given a question like (1), a possible answer is given in (2). As we cansee, it is a coordinate sentence where the coordinated particle appears after the first element ofthe second conjoined sentence1:

(1) jitá yeu siika?what out go:SG’qué afuera ir:SG‘What’s going on/ what happened?’‘¿Qué pasa// qué pasó?

(2)(1) Ju’u chu’u misi-ta ke’e-ka, Diana into a beba-k.The dog cat-ACC bite-PERF Diana and it hit-PERFEl perro gato-AC mordióDiana y le pegó.‘The dog bite the cat and Diana hit it’‘El perro mordió al gato y Diana le pegó’

1 This pattern emerges when the conjoined sentences contain different subjects. If the subject is thesame, the coordinator occurs between the conjoined sentences. This is important! I presume the secondoccurrence of the subject is null, in this case? Then how could you tell whether the coordinator isappearing between the two sentences or after the (null) second subject?

2

Because the answer contains only new information (Choi 2001), this can be consideredthe unmarked pattern for the coordinator position. As can be seen from the examples too, theunmarked word order is SOV. Other possible answers to the question in (1) show the coordinatorin second position too. This strategy of allocating the coordinator after the first constituent of thesecond coordinate sentence is really common in Yaqui. In the following examples, thecoordinator appears after the subject of the second conjoined sentence:

(3)(1) Pablo ji’osiam jinuk, María into yokia-ta.Pablo book bought, Maria and pen-AC.Pablo libro compró María y pluma-AC‘Pablo bought a book and Maria a pen’‘Pablo compró un libro y María una pluma’

(4)(1) Inepo Diana-ta bichak, apoik achai into ketchia.I Diana-AC saw her father and too.Yo Diana-Ac ví su papá y también.‘I saw Diana and her father (saw her) too’‘Yo vi a Diana y su papá también’

(5)(1) Empo yeewek, inepo into kochok.You played, I and slept.Tú jugaste, yo y dormí.‘You played and I slept’‘Tu jugaste y yo dormí’

Even, in the above examples the position of into ‘and’ is obligatory. So, the followingsentences where the coordinator appears between both sentences are ungrammatical:

(6)(1) *Ju’u chu’u misíta ke’eka,into Diana a= bebak.The dog cat bite, and Diana him hit.

(7)(1) *Pablo ji’osiam jinuk, into María yokiata.Pablo book bought, and Maria pen.

(8)(1) *Inepo Dianata bichak,into apoik achai ketchia. I Diana saw and his father too.

(9)(1) *Empo yeewek, into inepo kochok.You played, and I slept.

All the previous examples contain the subject before the particle into ‘and’. I.e. they areNPs. However, that is not the only categories that can go before into ‘and’. In what follows it isshown what kind of elements can go before the coordinator. Most examples are taken from aglossed story narrated in Crumrine (1961). I decided to use this kind of materials in order to getthe coordination meaning from a broader context other than that in isolated sentences. The datawhere checked with a Yaqui speaker from Casas Blancas, Sonora, and the spelling was modified

3

according to the one used in this work. Where the speaker disagreed in any aspect of the Yyaquisentences found in these stories, it is shown in a foot note. The next two examples show thatinto(k)2 ‘and’ can occur after adverbials such as ian ‘now’ and kaa ‘not’. In these examples thesubject was introduced in the first coordinated sentence (which is not presented here in order tofocus in the position of the coordinator).

Crumrine (1961:13)(10)(1) (nii juya)... ian intok ujúyoisi sawa-k

this tree now and beautifully leaves-POSSEste árbol ahora y bonito hojas-POS‘This tree … and now it’s beautifull with leaves.’‘Este árbol… y ahora está bonito con hojas.’

Crumrine (1961:19)(11)(1) (ilí chu’u) ...kaa intok a’a jajáseka intok a’a ta’áru-k

(little dog) …not and it following and it lost-PERF(pequeño perro)…no y lo siguiendo y lo perder-PERF.‘(The little dog) is not following it and lost it’‘(El perrito)... y no lo está siguiendo, y lo perdió’

Is it possible for the coordinator to appear after an adverbial but before an overt second subject,as in a structure like ‘[Maria the tortillas made] [now [and] [Peo is them eating]]”

Few examples show into after the determiner of a nominal phrase., the only two attestedin Crumrine’s (1961) Yyaqui stories are the following3:

Crumrine (1961:24)(12)(1) ií into o’óu im mesa-ta bepa juka kuj kutá-ta toó siká

this and man here table-NS upon this cross wood-NS left wenteste y hombre aquí mesa-NS sobre esta cruz madera-NS dejó fue‘And this man has laid the rosary wood on top of the table’‘Y este hombre dejó aquí sobre la mesa esta cruz de madera y se fue’

Crumrine (1961:35)(13)(1) ií into yoéme jaksuma yeu sika jaibu juchi

thisand man there out go:SG alreadyagaineste y hombre allí fuera ir:SG ya otra vez

aman aánneka jum kuj-ta bepa a’a katek 2 There are three allomorphs of this coordinator: into, intok, and intoko. These are treated in a separated section, themeaning of these allomorphs in the examples given here is ‘and’.3 My consultants consider ungrammatical these two sentences ungrammatical. For them the coordinator must beafter the full NP. I put them here in order to have a more complete register of the coordination in Yaqui. Theexamples show that at least historically that position could be occupied by a coordinator. This position is notconsidered in my further analysis.

4

yonder being there cross-AC on it sitting‘And this man, coming out from somewhere again, is again there by the cross’‘Y este hombre, saliendo de quién sabe dónde, andaba por ahí otra vez, sentándose

por el lado de la cruz’

Until now, we have several observations that must be incorporated in any analysis ofYaqui coordinated sentences: a) the unmarked order for the coordinator into ‘and’ is secondposition, b) the Yaqui unmarked word order is SOV, c) into ‘and’ can occur in second position ifthe coordinate sentences contain different subjects. Before into ‘and’ can appear several types ofelements can appear, the exemplified ones are: nouns, adverbials, and determiners.

3.1.1.23.1.1.1 Into ‘and’ in first position.

The coordinator can appear in first position in several cases.: First,a) when the subject ofthe second sentence doesn’t appear in overt syntax, as in the following example, where thesubject of both sentences is the same. I used a Ø symbol to indicate that the subject is not presentin overt syntax. The sentences (15) and (16) can be an answer to the question in (1), repeatedhere for convenience as (14).

(14)(1) jitá yeu siika?what out go:SGqué fuera ir:SG‘What’s going on/ what happened?’‘¿Qué sucedió/ qué está pasando?’

(15)(1) Joan chu’u-ta beébak Ø into miísi-ta beébak.John dog-AC hit Ø and cat-AC hitJuan perro-AC pegó Ø y perro-AC pegó‘John hit the dog and hit the cat’‘Juan le pegó al perro y le pegó al gato’

Second, tThe coordinator must appear too in first position when we have a coordinatedXP (a coordinated subject in this example) in the second sentence:

(16)(1) Yoeme bwiíka into [Peo into Diana] ye’ekaMan sing and Peter and Diana danceHombre canta y [Pedro y Diana] baila‘The man sing and Peter and Diana dDance’‘El hombre canta y Pedro y Diana bailan’

(17)(1) *Yoeme bwiíka [Peo into Diana] into ye’ekaMan sing Peter and Diana and dance(‘The man dance and Peter and Diana Dance’)

5

There are semantic effects related to the position occupied by into ‘and’ in the sentence.These effects can be seen when the coordinated sentences contain similar subject pronouns. Theinto ‘and’ particle must be used in first position in order to indicate that the subject in the secondconjoined sentence is the same than as the one in the first sentence. Ah! very very interesting.Look at the following contrast between (19) and (21), where two copulative sentences areconjoined. The first one could be an answer to a question where we ask something about adetermined person, whereas the second one could be an answer to a question asking theemploymest of several persons:

(18)(1) Jaksa aapo tekipanoa?What he workEn qué él trabaja‘What does he work on?’‘En qué trabaja él’

(19)(1) Aapo kuchureo into aapo bochareoHe fisherman and he shoemaker.Él pescador y él zapatero.‘Hei is a fisherman and hei is a shoemaker’‘Éli es pescador y éli es zapatero’

The above sentence (19) contrasts with the next in (21) which could be an answer to thequestion in (20). In the answer, the coordinator is in second position and the preferred reading isdisjoint. If we consider, following Dedrick and Casad (1996) that the coordinator into ‘and’ is apivot for topicalization together with the proposal of Lee (2001) that topics have the features/+PROMINENT, -NEW/, then, this semantic effect is predicted because the pronoun in thesecond conjunct in (19) will be interpreted as /-PROMINENT, -NEW/ and does not have to befronted. Whereas the features of the second pronoun in (21) would be /+PROMINENT, -NEW/and therefore the pronoun must be fronted, appearing before the coordinator into ‘and’. In thatsense, the sentence (21) patterns with the sentences (2-5) which contain different subjects.

(20)(1) Jaksa bempo tekipanoa?What they work?En qué ellos trabajan?What do they work on?‘En qué trabajan ellos?

(21)(1) Aapo kuchureo aapo into bochareoHe fisherman he and shoemakerÉl pescador él y zapatero‘Hei is a fisherman and hej (another guy) is a shoemaker’‘Éli es pescador y élj (otra persona) es zapatero’

The sentence with into ‘and’ in first position is similar in meaning to the next one wherethe subject is not in overt syntax:

6

(22)(1) Aapo kuchureo into bochareoHe fisherman and shoemaker.Él pescador y zapatero‘He is a fisherman and a shoemaker’‘Él es pescador y zapatero’

This contrast is attested in coordinate sentences with same subjects (SS) vs. differentsubjects (DS). The following sentences contain intransitive verbs:

(23)(1) Aapo bwiíka into aapo ye’eHe sings and he dancesÉl canta y él baila‘Hei is singing and hei (the same guy) is dancing’‘Éli está cantando y éli (la misma persona) está bailando’

(24)(1) Aapo bwiíka aapo into ye’eHe sings he and dancesEl canta él y baila‘Hei is singing and hej (another guy) is dancing’‘Éli está cantando y élj (otra persona) está bailando’

(25)(1) Aapo bwiíka into ye’eHe sings and dancesÉl canta y baila‘He is singing and dancing’‘Él está cantando y bailando’

The next example, taken from Crumrine (1961:XX) reinforces the observation that intooccurs in first position when in the discourse, the subject is understood as the same than as theprevious coordinated sentence:

Crumrine (1961:19)(26)(1) …húébena wakásim áe áwi-ne intok [‘ae hi’ibwa-

ne],…much cattle with-it fatten-will and [with iteat-will],…mucho ganadocon-él engordará y [con él comerá],

into [hipi’ikim júébenáne]…and[milk plenty-will]…y [leche absolutamente-tendrán]‘Much cattle will fatten with it, and will eat it, and will be plenty of milk…’‘Mucho Ganado engordará con él y lo comerán, y tendrán mucha leche…’

7

As we have seen above, wWhen the subject is not present, the coordinator, in general, canoccur in first position; however, if there is not a subject but there is a topicalized or focusedelement, the coordinator must be in second position. We can see this fact in the followingexamples where the sentence contains a postpositional phrase (Post-P). The coordinator canappear in second position (after the Post-P), or in first position (before the Post-P). This isillustrated with an example adapted from Dedrick and Casad (1997):

(27)(1) juchi 'ae-koni-la sik-aa intok jo'o-t 'a'a siisekagain him-circle-ADV go-PPL and back-on him urinatedotra vez a él-circulando-ADV ir-PPL y espalda-sobre lo orinó'and having going gone around him, it urinated on his back'‘Y yendo alrededor de él, lo orinó en su espalada’

(28)(1) juchi 'ae-koni-la sik-aa jo'o-t intok 'a'a siisekagain him-circle-ADV go-PPL back-on and

him urinatedotra vez a él-circulando-ADV ir-PPL espalda-sobre y lo orinó'And having going gone around him, it urinated on his back'‘Y yendo alrededor de él, lo orinó en su espalda’

Finally, the particle into tends to be occur before some phrasal adverbs such as jumák‘maybe’, junén ‘thus’, junuén ‘that way’, and clitics like ne(e) ‘I’.

Crumrine (1961:16)(29)(1) i n t o k júmak ne kaa a m t e a k a a t e - k i n e p o intok ino

tá’aruka’ate-kand maybe I not them find-if I and me lost-

ify quizá yo no a ellos encuentro-si yo y me pierdo-si‘And perhaps if I don’t find them, And If I get lost...’‘Y quizá si yo no los encuentro, y si yo me pierdo…’

Crumrine (1961:23)(30)(1) …Into junen au jia kaa ama yoeka’atek juni’i kia

…And thus to-him say not there escape-it even just...Y así a él dice no allá escapar incluso…‘And thus say to him, I did not escape’…...‘Y así le dice a él, incluso no escapar allá...’

Crumrine (1961:31)(31) …intok junuen jum joara-po waiwa

kora-po ansisime

8

…and that-way there home-at inside fence-in doing…y esa manera allá casa-en dentro cerca-en andar haciendo…‘And he is acting that way in this house inside the fence’…’Y el anda actuando de esa manera en la casa, dentro de la cerca’

Crumrine (1961:17)(32) into=ne kaa jabe-m ne-u yajak junii…

and=I not someone-PL to-me come:PL eveny=yo no alguien-PL a-mi viene:PL incluso‘And even if someone does not comes by’…‘E incluso si alguien no viene a mi’...

Summarizing this section, we observed that into ‘and’ occurs in first position under thefollowing conditions: a) the grammatical subject is the same in both coordinated clauses, b) thesubject of both coordinated sentences is a pronoun and there is correferentiality between them, c)there is not a topicalized element in the second coordinated sentence. In addition to theseobservations, we noted that into ‘and’ can occur in first position before adverbials or function asa host for clitic pronouns.

3.1.1.33.1.1.2 Into in last position.In the next examples we can see that the coordinator can appear in sentence final position.

These data are taken too from the stories found in Crumrine (1961). The evidence that intok is infinal position of the bracketed sentence is supported by the occurrence of the particle –su ‘and’ inthe second sentence given here. So intok ‘and’ links a previous sentence in the discourse.

Crumrine (1961:21)(33) ...[ito am bitbae-o intok] bempo-su bina4 botana

…we them will see-when and they-and this side…nosotros a ellos veremos-cuando y ellos-y este lado

itom ane’e beas yajak...we are of arrived…nosotros estar de llegar...…’And (since) we wanted to see them, and they came over to this side were we are.’…’Y cuando nosotros los veríamos, ellos vinieron a este lado donde estábamos’

Might make the point here that in this example, intok cannot be occurring in the between-sentence but sentence-initial position you describe above, because the two conjoined sentenceshere have disjoint subjects. Consequently, normal conjoining into would have to occur in secondposition if it was really just between the conjuncts; rather, it must be (as you have it) in the finalposition of the first conjunct.

4 For the consultant, the word is biná, however, the original text have bimá, the same happens with botana wich in the original was bétana. Withrespect to the verb, the consultant used yajak instead of itóm áaneka wich was in the original text, but it didn’t make sense to the consulted Yaquispeaker. Therefore, the sentence presented here is a different sentence to that in the original text.

9

The following two sentences have intoko in final position, however, in the original textfrom Crumrine (1961), it had intok kía ‘and trully’ in final position5:

Crumrine (1961:22)(34) ju’u o’ou kia au ‘omtemta benasi, amau a’a to’o

the man just to- her angry like back herleave el hombre solo a ella enojado como, espalda a elladejó

simlataka, káa au bitchu intokowent not to-her look and justfue no a ella viendo e incluso.‘The man looks as though he is angry with her, so he is leaving her behind and does noteven look at her.’‘El hombre parece enojado precisamente con ella, por eso dándole la espalda la dejó y sefue, e incluso no la ve’.

Crumrine (1961:23)(35) ju’u a-téaka-me tuisi a’a súa-e into náke-ka

the it-owns-who well it care-IMP and love-GER el lo-posee-quien bien lo cuida-IMP y ama-GER

á’a bitchá káabeta áma kíkimútúa intokoit see no-one there go-in-allows and justlo ve y solo no-unoalla ir-en-permitir‘The owner (said): take well care of it and loving it, see it, and just don’t let enter anyone’

[in this sentence, and the next one, the sentence-final intoko is accompanied by a medialcoordinating into. Consequently it seems unlikely to me that this is the real coordinating into, butrather something else. (In the previous sentence, #34, the clause after which intoko occurs islikely not coordinated with the previous clause, but rather subordinated to it (or rather, maybe theprevious clause is subordinated to the intoko clause as a rationale clause?). So it also doesn’tseem like a great example of coordinating into at the end of a clause.) Maybe that’s what you’regoing to present in a later part of the analysis? 5 These sentences originally contained into kia ‘and really’ instead of intoko ‘and (just)’. However, they were ungrammatical for the Yaquispeaker which helped me in the verification of this data. For him, the sentence is perfectly acceptable if we have intoko in final position instead ofinto kía wich was in the original text. He considered that is possible to use intok kia between the coordinated sentences, as shown next:

ju’u ó’óu kía au ‘ómtemta benási, amáu a’a tó’othe man just to-her angry like back her leavesímlataka, intok kía káa áu bitchuwent and just not to-her look‘The man looks as though he is angry with her, so he is leaving her behind and does not even look at her.’

ju’u a-téaka-me tuisi a’a súa-e into náke-kathe it-owns-who well it care-IMP and love-GERá’a bitchá intok kía káa-beta áma kíkimútúait see and just no-one there go-in-allows‘The owner (said): take well care of it and loving it, see it and just don’t let enter anyone’

10

The next example shows how the coordinator can occur in final position; both sentenceshave the coordinatored particle in final position. It is important to observe that the coordinationin the last sentence is intoko6 whereas it can be into ‘and’ after the first sentence: [Is itgrammatical to leave out the into in the middle?

Crumrine (1961:23)(36) …ápo a’a tú’ute into a’a bá’atúaintoko

…he it clean and it waters and ‘…And He cleans it up and He waters it.’ [In this example, which also occurred in an

earlier chapter, is the referent of ‘He’ supposed to be Christ or some other religious figure? Ifnot, it shouldn’t be capitalized; rather it should be ‘he’.

An important question is why and when intoko occurs in final position. The answer isrelated to the several functions that into(ko) ‘and’ can take: the above examples show thatinto(ko) in adition to express coordination, introduces an additional meaning: ‘and just’. Itfunctions as adverb too. Ah, yes. good! If it’s not grammatical to leave out the middlecoordinator in 35-36, you could mention it as support of the idea that intoko in final position isadverbial, not a coordinator.

Another important fact is that the coordinator can appear in final position of a coordinatedsentence, and the particle boetuk ‘because’ introduces the sentence:

Crumrine (1961:23)(37) inime kábuim ne am tá’áya [boetuk ne júébenasi ‘ám bitla intoko]

these mountains I them know [because I many-times them seen and] ‘this mountains, I know them and because I have been through here so many times.’

Crumrine (1961:38)(38) . ...[bóetuk bá’a jú’ebenáekan intok] ité intok á et kia jiba paséalo

restémcha réjtem …[because water much-was and] we moreover on-it just always joy-wandering

traveling-as traveled…’And because much water was there. And moreover we traveled about it just as though

always joy-wandering’…

Again, here, the necessity of boetuk makes me suspect that it is not appropriate to even becalling intoko a ‘coordinator’ at all...

Finally, into can be in final position accompanied by elements which usually go in initialposition too: into juchi ‘and again’, and ian into ‘and now’. Look at the contrast inside of theexamples in (39). It shows the occurrence of juchi ‘again’ and int-uchi ‘and again’ in final andinitial position. The example (40) shows ian intoko ‘and now’ in final position.

6 The consultant used the particle intoko in this examples, however, the original text only have intok. This could be due to variationin the use of the Yyaqui language. The text from Crumrine was published in 1961; because, And my consultant the speaker wasgiving the information in 2000-2002, there are several generations of difference between consultants.

11

Crumrine (1961:24)(39) a. [pá’akun yéu nóité-ka] [kújtaú sejtul nóité-ka] int-uchi,

outside out go-GER cross-to once go-GER and-again ‘And again going outside, and standing before the cross’

b. [juchi nótte-ka] [ínt-uchi bemélasi júchi nótte-ka] [hum puétau í’ankiktek] int-uchi.

again return-GER and again anew again return-GER now door now stands and-again.

‘Again returning, and again one more time returning, and again now he stands in front ofthe door.’

Crumrine (1961:32)(40) áp a’a éapo a’a páttáika áma káá yéu wéye ían intoko

he his will-in it closed there not out walk now and ‘He determined to close it, and now he doesn’t want to come out’

Summarizing: into(ko) can be in final position under certain circumstances: a) when itfunctions more like and adverbial than as a simple coordinator; in this case, it means ‘and just’.b) when another particle such as boeytuk ‘because’ introduces the sentence, it has to be in finalposition. It is common to find the coordinator in final position forming a kind of compound suchas int-uchi ‘and again’. In none of these sentences does it take the simple coordinator forminto—even when boeytuk does the actual connecting of the two clauses. It doesn’t seem right tome to be referring to this adverbial element as into(ko); rather, it’s more like intoko and acombining form int-... or something. But since it appears that into by itself can never appear inthis position, it might be misleading to call it into(ko) here; that implies that you can leave the -ko part out...

3.1.2 Other uses of the particle into.In general, we can say that into(ko) functions as a coordinator, however, as we perceive

from the data of into(ko) in final position, the Yaqui particle is more than a single coordinator.Yep. maybe state that conclusion more baldly at the end of the previous section? The nextexamples show that into has the meaning of ‘and more’, ‘and more(over)’; i.e. in addition to theirits coordination feature, it is can be like an adverbial particle. This meaning was attested in fourcases: a) when intoko is final position, b) when into(ko) is in second position, c) when into(ko) isafter the negation kaa d) and when into(ko) is after the particle –su ‘and’. The distribution ofinto(ko) with this meaning is not clear from the obtained data. I leave this matter open by fornow. When intoko has the mentioned meaning and a coordinator with the ‘and’ meaning isrequired, it must be used the particle –su ‘and’, as shown in (44).

12

Crumrine (1961:20)(41) bájta juébenaku yukumak, ju’u báso yu’ín tobóktila intoko7

grass where-much rain-with the grass plenty risen and:more ‘And the grass, with the rain, has come up high.

Crumrine (1961:29)(42) [áma jumak ápo wáiwa bó’oka] júmak ramáapo [káá into bó’obaekai]

there maybe he inside lying maybe ramada-at [not more lie-wanting] He is inside lying down, not wanting to lie down in the ramada anymore.

Is this maybe better treated as two separate sentences? Should there be a period after bo’oka, andthe second jumak should maybe be capitalized?

Crumrine (1961:38)(43) [bóetuk bá’a jú’ebenáekan intok] ité intok á et kia jiba paséalo

restémcha réjtem [because water much-was and] I guess it’s because the first clause is introducted by

boetuk that this second intok can’t be treated as a real coordinator conjoining the twoclauses? we moreover on-it just always joy-wandering traveling-as traveled

…’And because much water was there. And moreover we traveled about it just as thoughalways joy-wandering’…Should this really be translated as two sentences? If so, thenindicate the sentence breaks with punctuation in the example too; period after the first intok;capitalized Ité

Crumrine (1961:16)(44) í’án-su intok empo káa im yúm jó’ebáetek júni’i

now-and more you not here tiredness rest-want-if even ‘And now if you don’t want to rest here even’

3.1.3 Other particles that indicates ‘and’ coordination.

There is another particle used to indicate a continuation in the discourse which has asimilar meaning that the particle into has. It is the particle –su ‘and’;, however its use is restrictedto the following contexts:

It is a suffix and it is affixed to nominals and pronominals. It is used on interrogative anddeclarative constructions:

(45) Inepo-su ‘and I’ Empo-su ‘and yYou’ Aapo-su ‘and (sS)he’ Itepo-su ‘and wWe’ Eme’e-su ‘and yYou’ Bempo-su ‘and they’

7 Again, the original text only has intok, but the consultant used intoko in this construction.

13

(46) Inepo kaa yeyena, ¿empo-su? I not RED-smoke, you-and ‘I don’t smoke, and (do) you?’

Crumrine (1961:21)(47) [ito am bitbaeo intok] bempo-su biná8 botana itom ane’e beas

yajak... we them see-want and they-and this side we are of arrived ‘And since we wanted to see them, they came over to this side were we are.’

It was found affixed to adverbials, such as ian ‘now’ and che’awa ‘much’. The meaningcan be that of ‘more(over)’ attested with the particle into ‘and’.

Crumrine (1961:16)(48) i’an-su intok empo kaa im yum jo’ebaetek juni’i

now-and more you not here tiredness rest-want-if even‘And now if you don’t want to rest here even’

Crumrine (1961:20)(49) in kaba’i che’awa-su awi lobolai intok pappeya...

my horse much-more fat round and active… ‘My horse is much fatter and round and is very active’

I’m a bit puzzled by these examples. In all these cases, su co-occurs with intok—it never seemsto occur as a clausal or constituent coordinator by itself. Are there any examples where it doesoccur on its own to function as the main coordinator? Is it possible that -su...intok or intok...-su isa single, morphosyntactically complex coordinator in these examples?

3.1.4 Setting the problem.

There are several interesting aspects about of Yyaqui coordination. In this section I amgoing to focus on three central aspects: a) into ‘and’ breakes the unity of the second coordinatedsentence., Tthis aspect is a problem for theories which suggests that the coordination has a flatstructure, b) into ‘and’ has adverbial characteristics [Well, again —only intoko/intok hasadverbial characteristics, as documented here; into by itself seems to only be a coordinator...from the data presented so far, anyway.].. I will show that it shares several properties that otherYyaqui adverbials have. Therefore, we can consider that into ‘and’ is adjoined to the sentencewhere it appears. This aspect is important if we want to explain appropriately the distribution ofthe into coordinator in an OT framework, c) into can co-occur with another coordinators. This

8 For the consultant, the word is biná, however, the original text have bimá, the same happens with botana wich in the original wasbétana. With respect to the verb, the consultant used yajak instead of itóm áaneka wich was in the original text, but it didn’t makesense to the consulted yaqui speaker. See the footnote (2) of this chapter.

14

fact suggest that this particle has characteristics of a subordinator and/or compound. This aspectshows that the limits between coordination and subordination in yaqui are not always clear cut.

3.1.1.13.1.4.1 Into ‘and’ breakes the unity of the coordinated sentences:As we have seen before, the Y yaqui logical coordinator into ‘and’ presents unusual

patterns which present a challenge to theories that suggest that coordination has a flat structure(among others Naijt (1979, Peterson (2004), Yuasa and Sadock (2002)), such as shown in (50).

(50) C

X C XWhere C stands for coordinator and X for maximal projections.

We have seen that a very common way to coordinate two sentences in Yaqui is thatindicated in (51) where the coordinator appears within the second sentence; more precisely, afterthe subject or after a topicalized element. In other words, the coordinator breaks the unity of thesecond sentence;: as the examples (51) and (53) indicates, the coordinator can not appearbetween the two sentences. Therefore, a flat structure like (50) does not seem to be appropriatefor (51) [Should probably note that later you are going to argue that into does not have cliticproperties that would account for its second position placement in a sort of surfacy,morphophonological way. That is, the second-position placement of into is a syntactic fact, not amorphophonological one. This point is bolstered by the fact that the second position is clearly aposition that follows a topic slot of some kind, as you have argued above; clitics don’t carewhether they attach to topics or some other kind of XP]:

(51) Joan bwika-k Mmaria into ye'e-ka John sing-PERF Mary and dance-PERF 'John sang and Mary danced'

(52) *Jhoan bwika-k into Mmaria ye'e-ka

15

3.1.1.23.1.4.2 Into ‘and’ is like other adverbials.

Another important characteristic of the particle intoko ‘and’ is that it has adverbialproperties. Remember that it has sometimes the meaning of ‘and more(over)’., Wwhen welook at the adverbial particles, we realize that many of these particles have the samedistribution that as into, in what follows I give evidence of this distribution.

Sentential adverbials tend to occur in second position, for example, the adverbjumak ‘maybe’:

Crumrine (1961:16)(53) intok júmak ne káa am téakaate-k inepo intok ino tá’aruka’ate-k

and maybe I not them find-if I and me lost-if ‘And perhaps if I don’t find them, aAnd If I get lost...’

Crumrine (1961:18)(54) ini jumak chú’u

this maybe dog ‘Maybe this is a dog’

Another Other particles also tend to occur in final position;, the examples are thefollowing: jajáni ‘perhaps’, ja’ani ‘somehow’ (expresa duda ??), juni(‘i) ‘even’, and o’oben‘nevertheless’, jumaku’u ‘probably’:

Crumrine (1961:18)(55) ilí pánim o jitasa puátota jajáni

little bread or whatever plate-on perhaps ‘There is perhaps a little bread, or something on the plate.’

Crumrine (1961:35)(56) nií wíkit juma techóe ja’ani

this bird might do-bad-omen somehow ‘This bird might be of bad omen somehow.’

Crumrine (1961:14)(57) ...(uusim)… yum jo’oebaetek juni

…(boys)... tiredness to rest-want even …‘(boys)…If you want to take a rest...’

Crumrine (1961:14)(58) ite jumak [[wói-ka] [káa báe-ka]] juni’i nábuhtia kátne

we maybe two-GER not want-GER even beyond go-will… ‘Maybe we, there being two of us, even if we don’t want to, will go beyond…’

Crumrine (1961:32)

16

(59) puétata ala etapóka o’oben ta bea Into kaá yeu weáma jaisa jumákjume aulátakaii door is opening nevertheless but already and not out walk what might the

having-been ‘Nevertheless He opened the door but he doesn’t want to walk out.’

This is also a good example showing into (not intok or intoko) co-occuring with anothercoordinator, namely ta, ‘but’.

Crumrine (1961:14)(60) két né hunen hiáu-su-hú sénu yoéme i’im táawabáe jumakú’u

yet I thus saying-and-?? One man here remain-wants probably. ‘An now, as I was saying, one man probably wants to remain here.’

To demonstrate that into (or its variants) really has a similar distribution to a single class ofadverbials, you’d need to find an example of an adverbial that can occur both in secondposition and in final position. That is, here you’ve shown that there are adverbials that canoccur in second position, and other adverbials that can occur in final position—but thosemight represent two semantically and syntactically distinct classes. Then the fact that intokocan show up in either position might mean that there are really two intokos, one that goes insecond position, and one that goes only in final position, rather than that there’s a singleintoko that can occur in both positions. Maybe. :) However, if there is another adverbialbesides intoko that can occur in both of these positions, then the case is stronger that theseare both just general adverbial positions.

As shown above, aAdverbials such as junii ‘even’ or juni’i kía ‘even just’ goes infinal position too. Actually, iIn the following sentences, we see that into (intoko?)‘and’ andthose particles can not co-occur in final position. In other words, Into into lost the battle forthe last position: Not sure that this is the right conclusion — can it not co-occur in lastposition if it’s intoko, rathr than simple into?

Crumrine (1961:17)(61) into=né káá jabe-m néu yaják júnii…

and I not someone-PL to-me come:PL even ‘And even if someone does not comes by…’‘E incluso si alguien no viene hacia mi’

Crumrine (1961:23)(62) Into júnén aú jía káá áma yóeka’atek juni’i kía

And thus to-him say not there escape-it even just ‘And thus say to him, I did not escape…’

3.1.1.33.1.4.3 Into ‘and’ can co-occur with another coordinators.

With respect to the occurrence of into with another coordinators, we can see that itcan appear with (bwe)ta ‘but’. This fact, tells us that the function covered by into in thesecases is not that of a real coordinator. Either that, or the function coverd by ta is not that ofa real coordinator! does ta behave more like a real coordinator than into? E.g. is its positionrestricted to occurring only between two full sentential clauses? According to Oirsow

17

(1987) two real coordinators can not co-occur. These facts show that subordination andcoordination are not clear cut in the yaqui language.

Crumrine (1961:37)(63) iní’I má ó’ou ían kábáita áma yéu tójak jum kórapo intok áet jajá’amu

this so man now horse there out brought there fence-in and on-it mounting ‘This man now brought the horse inside the fence and is attempting to mount it’

ta intok ket juni únna wákíla má chea káá ‘a túa yúumakabut and yet even very skinny so more not him truly unable-to-carrybut it (the horse) is very skinny so the horse is unable to carry him.

Crumrine (1961:24)(64) into inwain mesa-po juka jí’ik wáata mánekámta jáiwa

And hither table-on the needle basket stands searching

ta intok ju’u áma wáatewame into kajita áma áuk.but and the there wanted-what-is and nothing there exist.‘She came up here to the table to search for the needle basket, but what she wants

in the basket is not there.’

Crumrine (1961:33)(65) náiya’abáemta benásia tá into jumak jume báji ibáktim káá juébena

burn-wants like but and might those three armfuls not enough‘As though he might want to build a fire, but maybe the three armfuls are not

enough’

3.2 Proposal about the structure of coordination.In this section I propose that the Iyaqui coordination patterns can be explained if we

adopt a set of alignment constraints, faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints,together with the idea that into ‘and’ is and adjunct that attaches to an XP category.

3.1.13.2.1 Background.

3.1.1.13.2.1.1 The syntactic structure is not flat.Lets begin with a single definition of coordination found in Dik (1997:89). Within a

functional framework, Dik defines coordination as “a construction consisting of two ormore members which are functionally equivalent, bound together at the same level ofstructure by means of a linking device”. As a general symbolization hHe proposes thefollowing schema (Dik (1997:89-90):

(66) CO

M1 & M2 &…& Mn

18

Where “CO” is the coordination as a whole, the “M”s are the members (n>1), and“&” symbolizes the “linking device” by means of which members are combined.

As we can see, those members are combined at the same structural level, i.e., noneof the members M is in any way subordinate to, or dependent on any of the others. They areall on a par, and equal members of the coordination CO.

The same researcher considers that the coordination patterns in languages areadjusted to the following possibilities, depending on the prepositive or postpositive natureof coordinators (Dik (1997:191):

(67) a1. M1 CO M2 a2. M1 CO M2 CO M3

b1. M1 M2 CO b2. M1 M2 CO M3 CO

In order to see that sentence Yyaqui coordination does not fix tot any of those predictedpatterns, I repeat here a sentence with the coordinator into ‘and’ after the subject of thesecond clause. As we saw before, clausal Yyaqui coordination (in the unmarked waycase)is as follows:

(68) Joan bwiikak María into ye’eka.John sang María and dancedJuan cantó María y bailó‘John sang and María Danced’‘Juan canto y María bailó’

Therefore, flat structures as those given in two seem to be inappropriate for yaquisentence coordination.

3.1.1.23.2.1.2 Typological ubication ???not an English word of Yyaquicoordination.

In a more recent work, Haspelmath (2004), from a typological view, establishes thatlanguages of the world show asymmetric coordinated structures. He postulates four logicaltypes for monosyndetic coordination. They are listed below in descendent order oflinguistic frequency. According to him, the fourth type does not seem to occur in anylanguage of the world and the third type is very rare. Interestingly, Haspelmath (2004) doesnot even consider the existence of a symmetric coordinated structure.

Haspelmath (2004: 6):

(69) a. [A] [co B] e.g. Hausa Abdù dà Feemì ‘Abdu and Femi’

b. [A co] [B] e.g. Lai vòmpii=lee phè_tee‘a bear and a rabbit’

c. [A] [B co] e.g. Latin senatus populus-que romanus‘the senate and the roman people’

d. [co A] [B]

19

From this perspective, Yyaqui uses structures like that in (4a) and (4c). This claim issupported in what follows:

Haspelmath (2004:7) mentions the following criteria for determining theconstituency of coordinating constructions: clisis, intonational phrasing and extraposition.Using these criteria we get the following results for yaqui:

Clisis: this criterion requires that the coordinator be “clearly phonologicallyattached to one of the coordinants, either as a proclitic or as an enclitic” (Haspelmath2004:7). Next The next example indicates that into ‘and’ is the host for the negative particlee’e ‘not’ in Yyaqui. The subject of the second sentence is before the coordinator. Theexample clearly indicates that the coordinator goes with the second conjunct. The pattern isthat of (69a) or (69c).

(70) [María ejkuela-u siika], [Peo int-e’e].[Maria school-to go:SG:PTE], [Peter and-not][María escuela-a ir:SG:PTE], [Pedro y-no]‘Maria went to school and Peter did not’‘María fue a la escuela y Pedro no’

This example also indicates that into itself is phonologically robust enough to hostsomething else that’s a clitic, i.e. that it’s probably/possibly not itself a clitic.

Intonational Phrasing. This criterion establishes that “when the coordinators areshort, a coordinating construction A co B is pronounced as a single intonation phrase, butwhen they are longer (e.g. two full clauses), there is usually an intonation break betweenthem, and the coordinator is then either attached at the beginning of the second phrase or atthe end of the first phrase. The intonation break is indicated by a comma” Haspelmath(2004:7). The nNext example, of two coordinated sentences, indicates that after the breakthe coordinator and the second conjunct form a unit:

(71) Jabé biba-m jinu-k, [into jabé vino-ta jinu-k]Someone cigar-PL buy-PERF and someone wine-ACC buy-PERFAlguien cigarro-PL comprar-PERF y alguien vino-AC comprar-PERF

‘Someone bought cigars and someone bought wine’‘Alguien compró cigarros y alguien compró vino’

Extraposition: This criterion requires to check if the language allows “extrapositionto the end of the clause, so that, the construction is no longer continuous” (Haspelmath2004:7). The following contrast indicates that in Yyaqui the coordination can be continuousor discontinuous. If it is discontinuous, the coordinator always goes with the secondconjunct. Therefore, the pattern of (73) is that shown in (69a):

(72) Inepo [kowí-ta into misí-ta] bwuise-kI porkpig-AC and cat-AC grasp-PERFYo marrano-AC y gato-AC agarrar-PERF‘I cached caught the pork pig and the cat’

20

‘Yo agarré al marrano y al gato’

(73) Inepo kowí-ta bwuise-k into misí-taI porkpig-AC grasp-PERF and cat-ACYo marrano-AC agarrar-PERF y gato-AC‘I cached caught the pork pig and the cat’‘Yo agarré al marrano y al gato’

The survey of Yaqui coordinated structures indicates that it is asymmetric. Thecoordinator always goes with the second conjunct. The examples indicate that Yaqui usesboth types of structures (4a) and (4c). Any account of Yaqui must reflect this property ofcoordination. In other words, we have to consider the internal configuration of coordinatedconstituents.

3.2.2 Alternatives for the structure of coordination.One thing that has to be clarified is the structure of coordination. Across theOver

time researchers have been proposed several alternatives. In this section I confront thoseapproaches at in the light of Yyaqui data. As we saw have seen before, clausal Yyaquicoordination (in the unmarked way) is the following.

(74) Joan bwiikak María into ye’eka.John sang María and dancedJuan canto María y bailó‘John sang and María Danced’‘Juan cantó y María bailó’

As we can see,To repeat, the coordination appears after the subject of the secondclause. The There are two main proposals about coordination (see chapter two) are,. Thein first place,type of proposal is a flat tripartite structure (see chapter two) which we haveseen is unable to explain account for Yaqui sentences as above.

In second place we have proposals where the coordinator is a head. For example, forJohannessen (1998:107) the structure of the conjunction phrase is as in (75). It has thefollowing properties: It is headed by a conjunction generated from the lexicon.,Mmoreover, the conjunction needs two arguments in order to have a saturated phrase, Theconjunction phrase follows the principles of X-bar theory.

(75) a. CoP[X] b. CoP[X]

X Co’ Co’ X

first Co Y Y Co secondconjunct conjunct

conjunction second first conjunctionconjunct conjunct

21

Johannessen (1998:175-76) suggest that conjuncts are attached to CoP by atransformation: Ccoordinate-alpha. This operation is general in the sense that it cancoordinate any category with any other category at any stage in the syntactic derivation.From her point of view, a clausal coordination is this operation as applied to e union of twoCP’s.

An important assumption is that the input structures on which coordinate-alphaoperates are fully projected CPs. She gives the example (3) of clausal coordination andshows its derivation in (76) (Johannessen 1998:177). Because she follows the minimalistapproach, whether the CPs were attached to the CoP before or after their separatederivations is impossible to tell; either is possible. I.e. the two CPs might have beenunderived or derived at the point where CoP attached to them. The CoP, strictly speaking,is now a CoP[CP]. As we can see, the derivation follows the principles of X-bar theory andhas implicit principles of deletion. Actually, I think that in Minimalism it would beimportant that the CPs be fully-derived structures before coorodination applied to them,because to insert unarticulated CP nodes into the structure and then insert material insidethe CP would violate a constraint called ‘Extend Target’, which states that material mayonly be added to a tree at its root.

(76) Mary saw a mouse and Martha heard an elephant.

(77) CoP[CP]

Co’

CP Co CP

DP C’ and DP C’

Mary-i C VP Martha-i C VP

saw-j DP V’ heard DP V’

t-i V DP t-i V DP

t-j a mouse t-j an elephant

According with to this theory, a prediction for Yyaqui coordination is that thecoordinator will appear between the two sentences. But, as seen before, that’s not correct:

(78) *Joan bwiika into María ye’eka. John sang and María danced (‘John sang and María Danced’)

AnoOther alternative is found in Munn (1987b, 1993) who suggests thatcoordination relates to a Boolean phrase. The conjuncts form a strong unit together. In the

22

representation, the conjunction B (for Boolean) takes the second conjunct as a complement,and projects to a BP which is in turn a complement of the first conjunct or a adjoined to it:

(79) NP

NP BP

John B NP

And Mary

Again, the prediction from this structure is that Yyaqui would have the pattern in(78) which doesn’t hold in the language.

A more recent approach is that of Camacho (2003) who considers that the structureof coordination is the following one (Camacho 2003:52). On it, the first X represents theconjunction, the second X any sententcial functional projection, such as INFL, Agr, etc.

(80) XP

Conj1 X’

X XP

Conj2 X’

X YP

For him, clausal coordination implies the coordination of two events. Thus asentence like (81) would be derived as in (82) (Camacho 2003:56-57). In the derivation, theresearcher establishes that “the lower event head will not raise to the specifier of the higherhead, unlike in the case of adverbs. This yields independent temporal readings forconjoined clauses but co-dependent temporal readings for adverbial coordination”(Camacho 2003:56).

(81) John arrived home and Mary will leave today.

(82) EvP

Ev’

TP1 Ev EvP2

TP2 Ev’

23

TP2 AdvP Ev tTP

John arrived home and Mary will leave today

The proposal predicts again that the events will be tied in overt syntax by acoordinator between both sentences. That is not thea pattern of Yyaqui coordination.

However, an interesting constraint proposed by Camacho is that events must sharespeech time, a constraint that will be used in the analysis of the Yaqui coordination.

By On the other hand, Agbayani & Golston (2002) explore coordinationconstructions where the coordinator is in second position. They follow the idea that thecoordinator is a head (Munn 1993, Johannessen 1998, Progovac 1998, Zoerner 1999) andthey adjoin adopt to the idea that the basic coordinate structure is universally the same. Intheir work they explore three types of coordination structures –that cover, according tothem, all types of coordination structures: full form, clitic form and asyndetic form. Forthem the enclitic pattern is derived form asyndetic movement of the first word of thesecond conjunct to the position commonly occupied by the clitic coordinator. For example,the nominal Greek coordination in (83) is derived as shown in (84) (Agbayani & Golston(2002:4)):

(83) Egoòn akhileús=teI Achilles=and‘I and achilles’

(84) a. CoP[X]

X Co’

egoòn Co Y

Akhileús-i=te t-i

This kind of movement in Greek is obligatory in order to avoid an ungrammaticalconstruction. So, those researches rule out the following type of structure because the cliticcoordinator stands alone:

(85) Egoòn =te akhileús I =and Achilles ‘I and achilles’

This explanation is extended to clausal coordination. Then the next example(Agbayani & Goldston, (2002:4)) can be represented as indicated below. In therepresentation the verb in the second conjunct moves up and attaches to the clitic =te ‘and’satisfying the clitic requirements of the coordinator:

24

(86) Epanésteesan peithontó=te poiméni laóonAfter arose persuaded=and shepherd of.army‘They arose after him and persuaded the leader of the army’

(87) CoP[X]

X Co’

epanésteesan Co Y

peithontó-i=te t-i poiméni laóon

Is there a topic requirement on the element that adjoins to the clitic in the Greekconstruction ? Or can it be new information just as well as [-New] ?

Thus, from this point of view, the coordinator into ‘and’ in sentence (1) (representedhere in (15), should be considered a phonological clitic prosodicaly dependent in a way thatfirst position coordinators in the language are not:

(88) CoP[X]

X Co’

Joan bwiika Co Y

Mariai=into ti ye’eka

However, there are many reasons to reject the idea that into ‘and’ is an enclitic. If itwere an enclitic, there are two initial predictions: the first one is that two coordinated nounswill have this coordinator in final position, as shown in (89) [Is this the pattern that Greekexhibits for coordinating two NPs? If not, then presumably they have an account of that,and it’s not a prediction of their approach. If so, then your argument is correct.] and,second, that a structure with into ‘and’ between the nouns would be ungrammatical (90).But contrary to predictions, (89) is ungrammatical and (90) is grammatical:

(89) *Inepo Joan into I John and

(‘I and John’)

(90) Inepo into JoanI and John‘I and John’

There is more evidence that shows that is inadequate to take into ‘and’ as a clitic: a)into ‘and’ can appear in first position (i.e. between clauses. See data in section 3.1 chapter

25

3), aun unexpected behavior if were a clitic b) the coordinator into ‘and’ has stress by itselfand consist of a minimal word in yaqui (bimoraic trocaic foot). I.e., it is not prosodicallydeficient. This is contrary to Y yaqui clitics which are monosyllabic and unstressed(Escalante ????), c) The coordinator into ‘and’ can be a host for other clitizating particles(see data in chapter 2, ej. /into e’e/ ‘and not’ > inte’e ‘and not’, Good! :) give examplesentence #s. You’ve even presented an example of this type above, in this chapter, whichyou could refer to. d) Ccoordinated noun phrases can be discontinuous., when that happens,the coordinator always appear with the second conjunct, crucially, preceding the secondconjunct. That fact indicates that it does not conform a unit with the first conjunct, e) it isnot the closest element in the second conjunct which “moves” to satisfy the cliticrequirements of into ‘and’, in yaqui, the position can be occupied by any topicalizedelement [This is not such a strong argument—Greek and Yaqui might satisfy the needs oftheir hypothetical clitic coordinators in different ways, but they each might still be clitics];finally f) the coordinator into has several allomorphs: into, into-k, into-k-o ‘and’. The lastone is used in clausal coordination and tends to appear more frequently in final position(i.e. after the second sentence). [Aha -- here you say ‘more frequently’—but I’m curiousabout whether into can ever appear in final position. Is this just a matter of a generaltendency, or is it a grammatical restriction on into?] These claims are supported in nextsection.

If intoko ‘and (moreover)’ tends to occurs in final position, then, from Agbayani’s& Golston’s (2002) proposal it is the whole CP all which has to move in order to satisfy theclitic requirements of intoko:

(91) Joan bwiika, María ye’eka intokoJohn sang, Maria danced and‘John sang and (moreover) Maria danced’

(92) CoP[CP]

CP Co’

Joan bwiika, Co CP

Maria ye’eka-i=intoko t-i

This movement seems to be inappropriate for Yyaqui. Why? The particle into ‘and’is not a clitic, therefore, if movement happens, it has to be for another reasons. Dedrick andCasad (1996) hold that coordination in Yyaqui is a pivot for topicalized items. well, it isvery imaginable (especially in the ‘moreover’ situation) that the whole CP might betopicalized, or alterantively, focussed. My analysis of the language indicates that such thisconception is correct. Therefore, the kind of structures present in coordinated clauses mustbe different. Is this because you are assuming that CPs cannot be topics? If so, then say soclearly.

3.2.3 The coordinator into ‘and’ is not a head.3.2.3.1 Evidence from affixation that into as an adjunct.

26

The Yaqui coordinators come from several sources and they present similarcharacteristics to adjuncts. In the next section I show how some coordinators take suffixes.This fact, strongly suggests that the coordinator into ‘and’ must be grouped together withadverbials (at least for the adjunction process). Although they are lexicalized, it is possibleto recover evidence that they were inflected. In the next section, I show the type of affixesthat into ‘and’ and others coordinators and adverbs can take.

3.1.1.23.2.3.2 Coordinators which take suffixes.In this work I restrict my study to analyzinge constructions where into(k-o) is

involved. When compared with other logical coordinators such as bweta ‘but’, o ‘or’ –ko‘if…then’, we realized that into seems to be a lexicalized form where the verbal affixes –kand –o are attached to a coordination base. Moreover, into ‘and’ is not alone in relationwith this characteristic: other sequential coordinators present this special property.

If we revise review the sentences in this chapter, we can find that there are threeallomorphs for iInto ‘and’: into, intok, and intoko. T, the distribution of them is not clearand it seems that the differences are blurred. However, there is a position where theallomorph intoko ‘and’ is preferred: when it goes in final position. In this final position, theallomorph usually has the additional meaning ‘and just’, ‘and moreover’.

Example with the allomorph into:(93) In uusi tajkaim bwaka,in saila into ‘a bitchu

My son tortillas eats, my brotherand him sees.Mi hijo tortillas come, mi hermano y lo ve.‘My son is eating tortillas and my brother is looking at him’.‘Mi hijo está comiendo tortillas y mi hermano lo está viendo’

Example with the allomorph intok:

(94) Ju bemelajamuchim emo chikek intok ejpejopo emobichak

The young women REFL comb and mirror REFL sawLa joven mujer REFL peinó y espejo REFL vió‘The young women combed theirself and saw theirself in the mirror’‘Las muchachas jóvenes se peinaron y se vieron en el espejo’

Example with the allomorph intoko:

(95) ¿Aapo juka bweu tetata puatek intoko?¿(S)he DET:AC big stone-AC charge and?¿El/Ella DET:AC grande piedra-AC cargó y?‘And did she charge the big stone?‘¿Y él/ella cargó la piedra grande?

[Again, I would like to see evidence that intoko is not just a totally different animal thaninto. One way to do this would be to show that intoko may perform the regular conjunctivefunction in a normal way, i.e. to present a sentence like this;

27

Joan bwiika Maria intoko ye’eka. John sang Mary and danced. “John sang and Mary danced”

Is this grammatical as a simple conjunction, without the moreover or any other specialmeaning? as i note above, another way to test it would be to show into just at the end of theclause by itself, without ko or any other supporting material. If that’s not possible, then itwould be good if your account could explain why not...

3.1.1.33.2.3.3 Where does the Yaqui coordinators come from?.

The coordinators and subordinators in Jyaqui show that they come from severalsources., Tthe most common are demonstratives and locatives, . Tthey show inflectionwith the suffixes –k, -o, -n, etc.. This is true for several adverbs which introduce sentencestoo. Many of these forms are in free variation, as we can see in the groups formed below:

(96) Juna’a ‘tThat’Juna-k ‘then’Juna-k-o ‘then’Junak-sa-n ‘tThen, and then’

(97) Junu’u ‘that’Junu-e-n ‘thus’Junu-e-n-i ‘really’

(98) Jun-i ‘so, thus’Jun-tu-k ‘for that reason’Jun-tu-k-o ‘Well...’Jun-tu-k-sa-n ‘That is why’Jun-e-n ‘thus’J un-e-n-su ‘That’s why’

(99) Ju’u ‘Det’Ju-le-n ‘that’s why’Ju-le-n-sa-n ‘that’s why’Ju-le-n-tu-k-o ‘For that reason’Ju-ma-k ‘It would better if’Ju-ma-k-sa-n ‘May be so’

(100) Jeewi ‘yes’Jeewi-ma ‘yes, then’

(101) chuuba ‘For a while’chuba-la ‘Momentarily’chuba-la-tu-k-o ‘In a while’chuba-tu-k-o ‘In a little while’

28

(102) Ini’i ‘This’Ini-a-n ‘In this way’Ini-le-n ‘In this way’

(103) Iyi-le-n ‘In this way (Syn. Ini-a-n)’Iyi-min-su ‘Over there’

It’s easy to see that the coordinator into ‘and’, is affixed with –k, and –o.

(104) Into ‘and’Into-k ‘and’Into-k-o ‘and (just)’/’(moreover)’

Is it grammatical to suffix it with any of the others, e.g. -n or -ma, or similar?

3.1.1.43.2.3.4 Into and the suffix –k.The exploration of the possible meaning of intoko brings us to the field of verbal

inflection. However, there is not evidence that the coordination introduces the meaningsthat –k-o ‘COUNT-if’ introduces when affixed to a verbal root.

When the suffix –k is attached to verbal roots, it expresses perfective aspect asprimary meaning. However, it is used for expressing counterfactual and conditionalmeaning too. In such case it is accompanied by the suffix –o ‘when’.

(105) Joan yepsa-k-o, Maria Vicam-me-u sim-bae.John arrive-when, María Vicam-me-to go-FUT‘If John arrives, Mary will go to Vicam’

This use of the affixes is not out of the ordinary. :) weird, Comrie (1993:19),analyzing English establishes that “Although most uses of the English past tense do serveto locate situations prior to the present moment, there are several uses that do no. One iscounterfactuals, e.g. if you did this I would be very happy, where did clearly does not havepast time reference, but refers rather to a potential action in the present or future. [true, butthere has to be the past-tense version of the future affix will in the main clause—one cannotsay, *If you did this then I will be happy. In that case, you have to have thepresent/unmarked tense in the counterfactual: If you do this then I will be happy. In otherwords, in English, there has to be syntactic tense matching, even if the semantics of thetense are not fully interpreted].For some speakers of English, there is a distinction betweenthe form of the verb be used in such constructions and the form of the verb used with pasttime reference –cf. John was here (past time reference), but if John were here(counterfactual present)- so that one might argue that here we are simply dealing with twodistinct but homophonous (for most verbs, or, for some speakers, for all verbs) forms.”

The analysis of intoko reveals that we can not say that when –k is attached to into‘and’ adds a counterfactual or conditional meaning to the sentence, but it is clear from theparadigm that, the now lexicalized particle is composed from several morphemes.

29

3.1.1.53.2.3.5 Into and the suffix –o.Again, if we look the primary meaning introduced by –o ‘when’ in verbal roots, we

realized that this meaning is not present when the coordinator into ‘and’ have has it. Themeaning is clear when attached to verbal roots, as in the following example.

(106) Joan yepsa-o, Maria Vicam-me-u sim-bae.John arrive-when, María Vicam-me-to go-FUT‘When John will arrives, Mary will go to Vicam’‘Cuando Juan llegue, María se irá a Vicam’

However, Dedrick & Casad (1996) establishes that the conjunction “serves as thebase for attaching the conditional suffix –o... it conjoins two clauses that are discourse-closer as a whole. In any event, this sentence illustrates a formulaic use of the conditionaland provides another case in which the dividing line between subordination andcoordination gets blurred” (Dedric & Casad (1996:408)):

(107) jiba, kaita into-k-o junum chupu-k.Only nothing CNJ-COUNT-when there finish-PERF‘There is nothing else and it ends there’

My data does not reveal a special meaning for intoko, except that in final position ofthe sentence it could can mean ‘and just’.

Although the coordinator has become lexicalized and right now it´s difficult for aYaqui speaker to distinguish between the use of into, intok and intoko, it is clear that that –kand –o are affixes. These verbal affixes are attached to other elements, shown above andgrouped together in what follows: [You have shown this data above; no need to go into itagain here].

(108) Juna-k-o ‘then’,Jun-tu-k-o ‘Well...’Ju-le-n-tu-k-o ‘For that reason’Chuba-la-tu-k-o ‘In a while’Chuba-tu-k-o ‘In a little while’Into-k-o ‘and (just/when/moreover)

3.1.1.63.2.3.6 Evidence from citlicizationcliticization.

Agbayani’s & Golston’s (2002) suggest that if a coordinator occurs in second orfinal position, it must be treated as a clitic. However, as we canwill perceive see next, thisclaim is not supported by Yaqui. There is several reasons for this: clitics in this languagetend to be monosilabic, as exemplified by the following pronouns and their respective cliticform. [again, you have already explained this above, although this fuller presentation isnice. But be careful not to be too redundant, presenting the same data again and again!]

30

Full Pronoun Clitic Form Gloss(109) Inepo =ne(e) ‘I’

Itepo =te ‘We’Aapoik =a ‘him/it’

Into ‘and’ is itself a base for cliticization. The next examples show that into ‘and’function as a host for several types of particles. This process, although is not obligatory, isvery common. Next examples show that into ‘and’ merges with particles such as ju’u ‘that’and juchi ‘again’, jitasa ‘what’, juka ‘the:AC’, i’an ‘now’, aapo ‘(S)he’, im ‘here’, um‘there’, i’i ‘this, au ‘to him’, among others.

(110) a) Into-ju’u int-u’u ‘and that’Into-juchi int-uchi ‘and again’Into-jitasa int-itasa ‘and what’Into-juka int-uka ‘and the (AC)’

b) Into-i’an int-i’an ‘and now’Into-aapo int-apo ‘and (sS)he’Into-im int-im ‘and here’Into-um Int-um ‘and there’Into-i’i ínt-i’i ‘and this’Into-au Int-au ‘and to him’

The examples are the followings:Crumrine (1961:18)

(111) i’an int-u’u ilí chu’u buásiata yoakaNow and-that little dog tail waggingAhora y-ese pequeño perro cola moviendo‘And now that little dog wagging his tail…’‘Y ahora ese pequeño perro está moviendo su cola...’

Crumrine (1961:21)(112) i’an int-uchi jumee bakochim a’abo itóm jariu

Now and-again those snakes here us searchAhora y-otra vez esas culebras aquí a nosotros buscan‘And now the snakes come on this side to look for us’‘Y ahora, otra vez, esas culebras nos buscan a nosotros aquí.

Crumrine (1961:28)(113) ...kaa nooka int-uchi, int-itasa9 jumak ama

hoa-sisime…not talking and-again and-what maybe there do-going:HAB

9 In the original text the word was intasa ‘and what’, but my consultant rejected it as ungrammatical and only acceptedintitasa ‘and what’.

31

…no hablando y-otra vez y-qué quizá allá hacer-ir:HAB‘…and, he doesn’t say anything, and what he is doing there (we don’t know)’‘…Y otra vez el no dice nada, y quién sabe que quizá hace allá

Crumrine (1961:33)(114) ian int-uka pueta-ta apo mijmo a’a pattaika into

kaa-’a teteakaNow and-this:AC gate-AC he himself it closed and not-itfindAhora y-esta:AC puerta-AC él mismo la cerró y no-laencontró‘And now, though having shut the gate himself, he cannot find it.’‘Y ahora, (aunque) cerró el mismo la puerta, no la encontró’

Crumrine (1961:24)(115) inti’an into jumee naba’asom jume kuusim ae a’a kutuktane’u kaa te-

teakaand-now and those blades that rosaray with-it it carve-will not findingy-ahora y esa(s) navaja(s) ese rosario con-el lo grabará no encuentra‘And now he cannot find the knife with which he carves the beads’‘Y ahora él no encuentra la navaja con que grabará ese rosario’

OJO: BUSCAR OTRO EJEMPLO O TRADUCIRLO BIEN. NO CONCUERDALA TRADUCCIÓN DE CRUMRINE (1961) Y LO DICHO EN YAQUI:

Crumrine (1961:27)(116) int-aapo intok kaa ju’unea jitasa jumak a’a waata’u o a’a

ju’uneayeaand-he and-now him-to came… and the dog came to him

Crumrine (1961:30)(117) I’an int-im ramaata punta-po weeka yen-taitek

Now and-here ramada end-at standing smoke-startedAhora y-aquí ramada punta-en parándose fumar-empezó‘And now, standing at the end of the ramada, he has start to smoking’‘Y ahora, parándose en la punta de la ramada, empezó a fumar’Crumrine (1961:27)

(118) Int-um kari beju’uku kateka.and-there house leaves-at sittingY-ahí casa bejuco sentado‘And he sits under the leaves’‘Y ahí está sentado bajo los bejucos de la casa’

Crumrine (1961:36)(119) Ian Int-i’i sami-t jikau tajtajti weamsuka...

Now and-this adobe-on up through walked having

32

Ahora y-este adobe-en arriba a t r a v é scaminandohabiendo

‘And now after having walked up and down on the adobe…’‘Y ahora, habiendo caminado hasta arriba a través de este adobe...’

Crumrine (1961:37)(120) Int-au bo’oka a’a bitchu ili chu’u

And-him-to laid him looking little dogy-él-a acostado a él viendo pequeño perro‘And the little dog, laid down besides him and is looking at him.’

‘Y, acostado junto a él, lo ve el perrito’

Its important to realize that into ‘and’ may fuse with those particles independentlyif it is in first, second or final position. [this is excellent] In other words, it does notoccupies occupy those positions for clitic reasons. We have to remember that the process isoptional and that into can occur in those positions without the union of any particle.

Next example shows into-(j)uchi ‘and again’ three times in initial position:

Crumrine (1961:36)(121) int-uchi juka yoemta simsuk int-uchi jaku’ubo suma yeu sika

and-again that man gone-being and-again somewhere maybe out came‘And when the man was gone again, it (the bird) again came from somewhere’‘Y otra vez el hombre se fue y otra vez vino él (el pájaro) de algún lugar’

int-uchi ko’om yepsaka jum ramaata betukand-again down arrived the ramada underand came down under the ramaday otra vez llegó bajando debajo la ramada

Next example illustrates into-im ‘and here’ in second position.

(122) ‘amak Int-im káwi áákamtta bétukún bichasometimes and-here mountain that-has-pitaya under toward

matánsaú bichá saká’aneslaughter-house-to toward go-would

‘And sometimes we would go toward the mountain which has pitaya on it to theslaughter house.’

3.2.4

3.2.5 Proposal about the structure of coordination.

33

At the beginning of this chapter we supported the view that a coordinated sentencegroups the coordinator with the second conjunct, as in (123). Clausal coordination now isrepresented as in (124). On it, the subject of the second conjunct has been fronted becauseof topicalization and is adjoined to CP. An additional adjunction process introduces a fullCP (first sentence). This adjunction process is licensed by the presence of the feature[coord] in the CP.

S1 S2(123) [Joan bwiika] [Maria into ye’eka]

(124) CP[coord]

CP CP[coord]

Joan bwiika NP CP[coord]

María-i into CP

t-i ye’eka

I like this! cool.

This explanation for Yyaqui coordination contrasts with proposals such as that ofCamacho (2003). He considers that coordination is a functional head (whereas here it isconsidered as a marker what kind of thing is a ‘marker’? do you perhaps mean‘adjunct’? Is a ‘marker’ a functional or lexical type of item? Is it a head or a phrase?). Forexample, subject coordination in Camacho’s proposal holds that if a subject in a simplexsentence is licensed as a specifier of INFL, each conjunct in a conjunction of subjects willbe licensed as a specifier of an INFL-like propositional projection. The coordinated subjectfrom a Spanish sentence (125) is represented in (126).

Camacho (2003:39):(125) Daniel y yo llegamos.

Daniel(3p,SG) and I (1p,SG arrived (1p.PL)‘Daniel and I arrived’

(126) IP

DP I’

Daniel I IP

y DP I’ {tns, _,…}

yo I VP

34

llegamos{tns, _,…}

There are several assumptions that are important to knowrecognize. He assumes thatthe a conjunction will copy all the features from another category present in thenumeration. Depending on the position of the conjunction, a different licensing head withdifferent feature specifications will give the conjunction content. In this sense, thedistribution of conjoined elements will depend on their licensing position in the tree.Because this approach is in OT, much many of these assumptions can be avoided and willhave to be derived from the interaction of constraints.

3.2.5.1 Coordination as a process of adjunction.

In this section I show that Yyaqui coordination could can be treated as an adjunctionprocess. :The idea that coordination is a head, has been rejected by many authors, among themPeterson (2004), Munn (1993), a.o.).

In this work I adopt the position that coordination particles are adjuncts. As suchthey are sisters of phrasal nodes, as pointed out by Ager (2003:11): adjunction ensures thatthere is a parallelism between adjuncts and specifiers and complements. Complements aresisters of lexical items; specifiers are sisters of x’-nodes and adjuncts are sisters of XPnodes. A common view about adjunction is that adjoined elements are incorporated into asentence but not via the checking of selectional features. The adjunction is represented asfollows:

(127) XP

XP adjunct

Specifier X’

X complement

Taking coordination as adjunction has the advantage that the phrasal level of XPdoes not change, since there is not satisfaction of a selectional feature. This conception ofcoordination explains its hability to conjoint through different categories. The proposal isconformed conforms to the principles of X’-theory too. In addition, the assumption thatadjunction is not linearized, explains why a coordinator like into ‘and’ in Yyaqui canappear on either side of a sentence containing it. ...though if there are restrictions on thisability, they have to be explained.

Adger (2003:113) gives evidence that in English an adjoined item like the adverbquickly can appear on either side of the phrase. The next sentences are represented asfollows:

(128) a. Quickly kiss Anson.b. Kiss Anson Quickly.

35

(129) a. VP b. VP

quickly VP VP quickly

e V’ e V’

kiss Anson kiss AnsonIf a coordinator is an adjunct, then the prediction is that it would have this property.

Yaqui data confirm that this happens. The nNext example contains a coordinator in initialposition (sentence (19) is repeated here as (130)). I am assuming here that the coordinatorgoes with the second conjunct:

(130) Aapo kuchureo into aapo bochareoHe fisherman and he shoemaker.Él pescador y él zapatero.‘Hei is a fisherman and hei is a shoemaker’‘Éli es pescador y éli es zapatero’

But a coordinator can appear too in final position. Next example is a question with acoordinator in final position: but of course it isn’t a simple coordination, as in 130. Is 130grammatical with into following bochareo?

(131) Joan jitá bwa-ka intoko?John what eat-PERF and?Juan qué comer-PERF y?And what did John eat?¿Y qué comió juan?

In addition, the coordinator can appear in second position (sentence (21) is repeatedhere as (132)):

(132) Aapo kuchureo aapo into bochareoHe fisherman he and shoemakerÉl pescador él y zapatero‘Hei is a fisherman and hej (another guy) is a shoemaker’‘Éli es pescador y élj (otra persona) es zapatero’

If the coordinator is not a head but an adjunct, then those patterns are easilyaccounted because it would be able to occupy different positions in a sentence. Thecoordinator can be represented as follows (I assume that the wh-question in (133b) is insitu). In the structure, the coordinator introduces a feature [coord] which enables the CPto get another adjoined category: the first conjunct.

(133) a. CP[coord] b. CP[coord]

36

into CP CP intoko

aapo IP Joan IP

kikreo jitá bwaka

The feature [coord] is different to that [+prop] proposed by Camacho (2003:38).This researcher suggests that a coordinator introduces a propositional feature [+prop]. Theconception here is that [coord] is a feature that allow the adjunction of another elementwhich would be taken as the first conjunct. In that sense, the feature does not implynecessarily that we have a propositional feature in each conjunction process. For Camacho(2003), the conjunction is a sentential functional head that has propositional content. In thepresent approach, it is not a head. There are cases where coordination of two nouns doesnot necessarily implies imply (at least directly) a feature [+prop]. The nNext sentencecontain two coordinated nouns, but they are not the main argument, although, they correferto it. Being optional, we can think that they are adjoined to a projection inside the sentence.

(134) bempoiyeu-siika, [joan into peo]i

they out-went, [John and Peter]ellos fuera-fueron, [Juan y Pedro]‘They left, John and Peter’‘Ellos se fueron, Juan y Pedro’

The facts about into ‘and’ in second position are related to topicalization (Dedrickand Casad (1996)). The topicalized NP is fronted. Then the subject in the example has anextra movement up,adjoining to the extended CP:

(135) CP

aapoi CP[coord]

into CP

ti’ IP

ti kikreo

This would be a nice example showing that adjuncts and specifiers are not distinct, or neednot be distinct; this is a big issue in many approaches to X-bar theory and related phrasestructure theories (e.g. Kayne’s LCA-type approach, Chomsky’s Bare Phrase Structure.)

Additional evidence: into ‘and’ occurs in positions where sentential adverbs tend tooccur in the language: initial second and final position (already exemplified in section__ )

Under this approach, a coordinator is not a head, it is an adjunct and as such it is notassigned _-roles [nor does it assign any theta-roles itself.]. Therefore, it is adjoined to some

37

projection. The approach predicts that coordinators are optional, because (in a minimalistapproach) the operation Adjoin is not an operation which is triggered by feature-checkingrequirements. Look at the contrast between (131) and (136). But what about 130? surelyinto is not optional in that sentence, is it?

(136) Joan jitá bwa-ka?John what eat-PERF?Juan qué comer-PERF?What did John eat?¿Qué comió juan?

It predicts too that coordination may be recursive, since the output of the adjunctionoperation is still the same category to which the coordination adjoins:

(137) Peo into Maria into Joan emo ta’aPeter and Mary and John REFL to know:PTEPedro y María y Juan REFL conocer:PTE‘Peter and Mary and John know each other’‘Pedro y María y José se conocen uno a otro’

Ah, good -- this is an example of the type I was looking for in a previous chapter, I think.

It has been observed that coordination is asymetrical in the sense that thecoordinator seems to be more tied to the second conjunct than to the first one (Ross 1967).Researchers such as Camacho (2003:60) keep this observation in order to explain conjoinedverbal projections. At the beginning of the derivation he takes the coordinator to be part ofthe second conjunct, although at the end of the representation he holds that “the conjunctiondoes not form a constituent with the second conjunct, contrary to standardassumptions…there is no single constituent that groups all [should this be ‘the secondconjunct’?] conjuncts and the conjunction leaving all other nodes out” (Camacho 2003:69).The Yyaqui data indicates that we have to evaluate if the coordinator groups really groupswith the second conjunct. At first glance, this seems to be true. A coordinator in second andin final position suggests that idea. Therefore, the proposed structure must reflect that fact.Recall thatBy other side, we have discontinuous coordination in the language. Thecoordinator always goes always with the second conjunct but not with the first one:

(138) Inepo Sandra-ta tu’ule into Eva-taI Sandra-ACC to like:PTE and Eva-ACCYo Sandra-AC gustar:PTE y Eva-AC‘I like Sandra and Eva’‘Me gustan Sandra y Eva’

In addition, iIt is possible to have a coordinator in both sentential conjuncts. Therequest in next sentence could be answered by the following sentence. It is shown that eachsentence hasve its coordinator after each subject (although the first one is not a purecoordinator).

38

(139) Bweta nee tejwa, jitasa into yaak?But me tell what and:more didPero a mi di qué y:más hicieron‘But tell me, and what else did they do?’‘Pero dime, y qué más hicieron’

(140) [María into bwikak] [peo into ye’eka].Maria and:more sang Peter and dancedMaría y:a mi canto Pedro y bailó‘and moreover Maria sang and Peter danced’‘Y además María cantó y Pedro bailó’

Therefore, the structure for that coordinated sentence is shown below10.

(141) CP[coord]

C P CP[coord]

Maria into bwiika NP CP[coord]

Peoi into CP

ti ye’eka

In thise structure, there are is only one slot for coordination. This conceptioncontrasts with that of Agbayani and Golston (2002) who allow the introduction of emptypositions in order to allow the introduction of another conjunct. The following sentencepresents a contrast with the next one. As we can see, the presence of a coordinator betweenboth clauses is possible. The sentence is no so bad, (the informant’s intuition is that itintroduces a kind of emphasis or redundancy) as shown below:

(142) Joan bwiika Maria into ye’ekaJohn sang Maria and dancedJuan canto María y bailó‘John sang and Maria danced’‘Juan cantó y María bailó’

(143) ? Joan bwiika into Maria into ye’eka John sang into Maria and danced

10 Agbayani & Golston (2002) assume that a coordinator is a head, therefore, in theirrepresentation, when the specifier of the coordinator is full, an abstract coordinator it isneeded an abstract coordinator for licensing the addition of another conjunct. However, forYaqui, it would be hard to maintain the wellformedness of that kind of structures.

39

Juan canto y María y bailó ‘John sang and Maria danced’

‘Juan canto y María bailó’

That movement is obligatory. Therefore, sentences like the following areungrammatical due to the lack of movement of the topicalized noun Maria to first positionin the second conjunct.

(144) *Joan bwiika into Maria ye’eka John sang and Maria danced

‘John sang and María danced’

However, when we introduce a sequential coordinator, the sentence is totallygrammatical. The two coordinator meanings do not enter in conflict and the sentence isgrammatical. For that reason, we need to specified specify that the input containsinformation about the type of coordinator that adjoins to the syntactic structure. For nowlet’s assume that the features [coord &] and [coord then]. The coocurrence of two logicalcoordinators can be ruled out then by a constraint that forbids such situation.

(145) Joan bwiika [junakbea Maria into ye’eka]John sang then Maria and danced‘John sang and then María danced’

(146) CP[coord then]

C P CP[coord then]

Joan bwiika Junakbea CP[coord&]

NP CP[coord&]

María-i into CP

t-i ye’eka

By other hand, the coordination of subjects (joan into maria ‘John and Mary’) andobjects (joan-ta into maria-ta ‘John-ACC and Mary-ACC’) is indicated next. Therepresentations stands for AgrsP or AgroP respectively:

(147) YP

Y AgrP[coord]

DP1 AgrP[coord]

joan into AgrPjoan-ta

DP2 Agr’

40

maria Agr XPmaria-ta

Another pattern of coordination in the language is the following. A coordinatedsubject in the second conjunct forces the occurrence of the coordination in first position.

(148) [Joan bwiika] into [[Maria into Peo] ye’eka]John sang and Mary and Peter dancedJuan canto y María y Pedro bailaron‘John sang and Mary and Peter danced’

(149) *[Joan bwiika] [[Maria into Peo] into ye’eka] John sang [Mary and Peter] and danced

Juan canto María y Pedro y bailaron (‘John sang and Mary and Peter danced’)

That is explained as follows. There is not way in that both DP1 and DP2 be fronted.They occupy two different slots huh? Doesn’t DP1 and DP2 form a constituent, on youranalysis [They do, given your bracketing in 148 above]? surely they are both together(symmetrically or asymmetrically) in the Spec-TP spot? Then why can’t they be topicalizedlike that? Coordinated topicalized constituents are ok in V2 languages like German — it’sok to say, “John and Mary were in the park runniny,” in german, for instance... and surelythe equivalent is ok in Yaqui? So if a coordinated DP constituent may be topicalized in asimplex sentence, why not in a complex one?]. The only option would be to move the firstDP1, but that would produce the ungrammatical structure with repetition of twocoordinators: *[DP1 into into DP2] violating the well known coordinate structure constraint(CSC) which forbids to move a single conjunct from the conjoined structure.

(150) CP

DP1i CP[coord]

Co CP

into AgrsP C

DP1 AgrsP

maria into AgrsP

DP2 Agrs’

peo Agrs XP

Finally, the pattern of coordination with serial verbs as the following, which showsunbalanced coordination, can be explained by the multiple adjunction of clauses asindicated in the representation.

41

(151) u yoi a karo-wa tucha-kai,The (withe)man his car-POS stop-SUBEl hombre (blanco) su carro-POS parar-SUB

uka liacho-ta tobokta-kai,The:ACC bag-ACC take-SUBla:AC bolsa-AC tomó-SUB

a kari-wa bicha wee-taite-kaihis house-POS toward go:SG-begin-SUBsu casa-POS hacia ir:SG-empezar-SUB

Uka pueta-ta etapo-kai,The:ACC door-AC open-SUBLa:AC puerta-AC abrir-SUB

(into) a jubia-wa tebotua-k(and) his wife-POS greetd-PERF(y) su esposa-POS saludar-PERF

‘The man stopped his car, took the bag, went to his house, opened the doorand greeted his wife’‘El hombre paró su carro, tomó su bolsa, fue hacia su casa, abrió la puerta ysaludó a su mujer’

(152) CP[coord&]

Sn CP[coord&]

V-kai S5 CP[coord&]

V-kai S4 CP[coord&]

V-kai S3 CP[coord&]

V-kai S2 CP[coord&]

V-kai (into) CP

S1

V-k

This way to see the coordination process is very close to Muns’s approach (1993)who treats iterative conjunction by simply adjoining to a Boolean Phrase (BP). Soconjoined NPs of the sort Tom, Dick, Harry and Fred are represented as indicated:

42

Munn (1993:24).(153) NP

NP BPTom

NP BPDick

NP BP Harry

B NP Ann Fred

This researcher considers that coordinate structures are adjunction structurescontaining a Boolean Phrase. However, by using a set of constraints we are able toderive the effects seen in Yaqui coordinate constructions and establish some relationswith subordination. It is a common claim that it is hard to distinguish coordination fromsubordination. What this means in an OT framework is that several constraintst interactin such a way that we seem to have a continuum between coordination andsubordination.(DEVELOP SOME IDEAS HERE AFTER THE ANALYSIS IN OT)

3.3 Analysis in OT.In this section I use several constraints in order to explain the variation in position

of into ‘and’ in the Yaqui language. I begin with the explanation of the unmarked pattern ofcoordination: into ‘and’ in second position.

. 2.3.1 Into in second position.The basic patterns of sentence coordination with into ‘and’ in second position, are repeatedhere for convenience. Some of the examples are taken from Dedrick and Casad (1995). Thecoordinator is requires required to be in second position and can not appear in these cases infirst position11.

(154) a) hoan bwika-k maria into ye'e-kaJohn sing-PERF Mary and dance-PERF'John sang and Mary danced'

Remember that the coordinator into 'and' can be affixed with -k and -o. These suffixes, when attached to verbs, mark tense: -k

indicates perfective aspect whereas -o has temporal adverbial characteristics and can be glossed as 'when'. However it is not clear if thesesuffixes add the same temporal distinctions when attached to into (see Dedrick and Casad (1995)). For example, the sentence (11a) havethe following two variants, without apparent change in meaning:(i) hoan bwika-k maria into-k ye'e-ka

hoan bwika-k maria into-ko ye'e-ka [ah, good! this is the very example I wanted to see above.So then the main question is, why can intoko appear in final position while into can’t (if it can’t)?].

'John sang and Mary danced'

43

b) *hoan bwika-k into maria ye'e-ka

In the next example, the sentence contains a postpositional phrase (Post-P). Thecoordinator can appear in second position (after the Post-P), or in first position (before thePost-P), as illustrated below:

(155) a) huci 'ae-koni-la sik-aa ho'o-t intok 'a'a siise-kagain him-circle-ADV go-PPL back-on and him urinate-PERF'and having going gone around him, it urinated on his back'

b) huci 'ae-konila sik-aa intok ho'o-t 'a'asiise-k

again him-circle-ADV go-PPL and back-on himurinate-PERF'and having going gone around him, it urinated on his back'

Looking at the data in (105) and (106), we can might be tempted to say that thecoordinator into 'and' behaves as a clitic and occupies the second position for clitic reasons,as suggested by Behloul and Harbert (2002) for other languages where the coordinator is insecond position. But we have seen that it is difficult to hold for Yyaqui that into ‘and’occupies the second position for clitic reasons (see section …). Yaqui, as most Uto-aztecan languages, is a "second position language"; but, as Steele (1979) pointed out,second position is derived from the importance of the first position. She made the followingobservation:

"topic, negation, quotatives, modals and tense tend to occur in sentenceinitial position, if sentence initial position is defined to include secondposition. Obviously, not all these elements can occur initially within a singlesentence. One factor in the relative position of these elements is the potentialthat the scope relationships between these elements will be manifested intheir surface relationship to one another" Steele (1973:244).

In OT terms, we can say that these elements tend to be aligned to the leftmost edgeof a clause, but there being only one left edge, only one of them can be the winner. Thatamounts to saying that we have a set of constraints responsible for the allocation of lexicalelements to positions.

The question to be addressed, then, is what forces the allocation of the Yaquicoordinator into to second position? The answer seems to be related to topicalizationprocesses. Steele (1973:245) suggests that the second position of modals, tense, quotatives,and possibly negatives is that topic tends to win the battle for first position.

A similar observation was made by West (1986) in her analysis of the Tucanoadversative coordinator (which appear in second position too): “purica 'but' occursfollowing simple noun phrases (noun, pronouns, or locative words) when these act as thetopic of the sentence" West (1986:202). In Tucano, sentence topic is marked by a clauseconstituent's being moved to the first position in the sentence12.

12 The normal word order of Tucano and Yaqui is SOV. Other languages that place coordinators in second position such as Gaviaoand Guaraní seem to be SOV too. I didn't investigate the correlation between word order and this phenomenon but it seems to beworth pursuing it. I leave this issue for further research.

44

Dedrick and Casad (1995) suggest that Yaqui coordination is a "topic pivot" fortopicalized nouns and temporal adverbs. Although this observation is basically correct, it isnot accurate because we predict that given a non-topicalized (subject) noun, a sentence like(154b) (repeated here as (156)) would be grammatical. However that does not happen.

(156) *hoan bwikak into maria ye'eka(‘John sung and Maria danced’)

Steele (1973) mentions the hypothesis that topics tend to solidify in sentence initialposition. Given that the Yaqui language is SOV, I propose that, in absence of anothertopicalized element, subjects are interpreted as the topic of the sentence and must befronted. This fact will force “the movement” of the subject from the Spec of IP to a higherposition in the clause. In OT terms, the candidate with the subject in first position and thecoordinator in second position will be choosed chosen by the ranked constraints. Thecandidate with coordinator in first position and the subject in second position, will be ruleout as non optimal.

That this approach is right is supported by the fact that in the presence of anothertopicalized element, the subject doesn't rise to initial position whereas the topicalizedelement does. The sentence in (157a) contains a topicalized (therefore, fronted) directobject. It contrasts with the sentence (157b) where the subject is raised to topic position(adjunction to CP, in this case). Note that the order in (157) is the unmarked SOV:

(157) a) Joan bocham jinuk panim into maria 'a nenkakJohn shoes bought bread and Mary it sold'John bought shoes and bread Mary sold'

b) Joan bocham jinuk maria into panim nenkakJohn shoes bought Mary and bread sold'John bought shoes and Mary sold bread'

Following Grimshaw (1995), and Choi (2002), among others, I assume that topicand focus are marked in the input, such as illustrated below:

(158) <sing (x), x=topic, x=John>

In what follows, I propose the constraints responsible for the patterns of Yaquicoordination. The first one is related to the topicalization process which places topicalizedelements at the beginning of the sentence. It is defined as follows and it belongs to thefamily of Information information structuring constraints.

Lee (2001:81):(159) Top-L

Topic aligns left in the clause.

In order to be more concrete, let's define some members of the family mentioned in (159)as follows:

45

(160) Top-SubjA subject bearing a topic feature aligns left in the clause13.

(161) Top-Post-PA Postpositional Phrase (Post-P) bearing a topic feature must aligns left in the

clause.

The constraint responsible for coordinators' allocation is defined as follows. It isderived from the function covered by a coordinator: it is the glue between two units (NP's,VP's, S's) and, therefore, must be at the leftmost edge of the following conjoined element.A well-formed structure was seen in section (….). The next constraint stands too for afamily of constraints (languages usually have several coordinators).

(162) Coord-L14

A coordinator must occupy the leftmost edge of XP.

The constraint that will place the coordinator into 'and' at the beginning of acoordinated sentence is defined as follows. I am using the word into for mnemonic reasons.The constraint is universal and not particular of Yaqui.

(163) Into-LA logical coordinator must be allocated to the leftmost edge of XP (S in this case).

From the data with into ‘and’ in second position, we can conclude that Top-Subjdominates Into-L. In other words, the family of Topicalization constraints must dominateInto-L. well, not completely! If both the subject and a PP are topics, they don’t bothprecede into, do they? Or is there another, independent reason that a sentence cannot havetwo topics? This is illustrated in the following table (164). The winning candidate containsthe subject in Spec of JP, therefore, it doesn't violate the highest ranked Top-Subj and, inspite it violates the lower ranked constraint Into-L, it emerges as optimal.

(164) Table indicating the ranking Top-Subj >> Into-L.

Top-Subj Into-L

Although these constraints resemble alignment constraints in phonology (M&P (1993) , P&S (1993)), it seems that they can not bedefined in such terms. This is because the satisfaction of them doesn't relate to the measure of how far the elements in the candidatesare from the edge. Suppose that in the hypothetical example in (i) the constraint A requieres XPy to be fronted. A candidate like (ia)will be optimal, but the candidate (ib) which violates the constraint once, is not necessarily better than the candidate (ic) whichviolates the constraint four times.

(i) Candidates Constraint Aa. F XPy+XPz+XPu+XPv+XPwb. XPz+XPy+XPu+XPv+XPw !*c. XPz+XPu+XPv+XPw+XPy !****

This constraint is defined in a broad sense (family of constraints). Beyond addmitting coordination of sentences, it allowscoordination of two VP's (ate and drink), or two single NP's (John and Mary). In the face of more complicated data the definition couldbe refined, however, for the present purposes, it is enough well defined.

46

input: {maria<Top>, into...}

a. CP[DP mariai CP[Coor into IP[Spec ti...]]] *

b. CP[ Ø CP [Coor into IP[Spec maria...]]] !*

The data in (155), where into ‘and’ may be in first or second position, dependingover on topicalization facts, are explained too by ranking Top-Post-P >> Into-L. In thefollowing table, the input contains a Post-P (ho'o-t 'on his back)' marked for topic. Thewinning candidate (165a) doesn't violate Top-PostP because the Post-P, being marked fortopic, appears in the highest position in the projection of IP. The candidate (165b) does notviolate the lower ranked constraint Into-L, but violates the higher ranked Top-Post-P,therefore, it is ruled out as non-optimal.

(165) Table indicating the ranking Top-Subj >> Into-L. The postpositional phrase ismarked for topic in the input.

Input: {ho'o-t<Top>, into...} Top-PostP Into-L

a. CP[Post-P [ho'o-t]i CP[Coor into...Post-P[ti] ]] *

b. CP[Ø CP[Coord into... Post-P[ ho'o-t ]]] !*

2.3.2 Into in first position.This section shows that into ‘and’ occurs in first position, when there is not an XP

marked for topic in the sentence. Interestingly enough, when postpositional phrases are notmarked for topic, Top-Post-P is inert and coordination must appear at the beginning of thesentence. This is illustrated by the following table where the winning candidate does notviolate any constraint.

(166) Table illustrating the ranking Top-Post-P >> Into-L. The postpositional phrase isnot marked for topic in the input.

input: {ho'o-t, into,...} Top-PostP Into-L

a. CP[Coord into... Post-P[ ho'o-t ]]

b. CP[Post-P [ho'o-t]i CP[Coor into...Post-P[ti] ]] !*

The explanation given for the possibilities for placing into ‘and’ relative topostpositional phrases can be extended to the following pattern of coordination. In the

47

example (167) the coordinator conjoins two clauses without an overt subject and, as theexample indicates, it does not have to appear in second position:

(167) tu'isi kaa aa ye'e intok kaa aa eteho, kia tene-ka kik-neegood not able dance and not able converse, only mouth-having

stand-FUT'He was not able to dance well, and he was not able to tell stories very well, hewould just stand there with his tongue in his mouth.'

The example (167) is explained by the absence of a topicalized element to befronted in the conjoined sentence. The lack of an overt subject -—which has been solidifiedas topic—- implies that if there is not a topicalized element in the clause, the coordinatordoes not have to appear in second position in S.

2.3.2 Analysis of two coordinators.More challenging is the pattern where two lexical elements which usually function

as coordinators are found in the same clause. The following example contains thesequentcial coordinator junak 'then' and the logical coordinator into 'and'. As exemplified,junak must always be in first position, into in second and the subject in third position.

(168) a) junak into joan kaa yepsakthen and John not arrived'And then John didn't arrive'

b) *into junak joan kaa yepsak c) *joan junak into kaa yepsak

The constraint responsible for the allocation of junak 'then' belongs to the familydefined in (162). The constraint is defined as follows.

(169) Junak-LA sequential coordinator must be allocated to the leftmost edge of S.

The data in (168) suggest that Junak-L is ranked over Into-L. The following tableshows that in the presence of an input containing both junak and into, the former alwaysoccupies the first position in S15. In the next table, the winning candidate (170a) does notviolate the undominated constraint Junak-L, and, in spite of the fact that it violates Into-L, itemerges as optimal. The candidate (170b) violates the undominated constraint Junak-L andis ruled out as non-optimal. If we reverse the ranking, we have the output of languages suchas English and Spanish (and then... ; y entonces...).

(170) Table indicating the ranking Junak-L >> Into-L.

The constraint Junak-L is dominated in languages such as Gaviao and Guaraní. In the following example from Gaviao (Stute (1986:10))the demostrative appears first and the coordinator second:(i) è bó tá-máh mató-á

that connector 3Pl-Decl+Past 3Sg+Show+final'Then they showed it' ...but I’m puzzled, if the demontrative is first and the coordinator second, then how does this show that

‘Junak-L’ is dominated? is there a word here that means ‘then’? I can’t find it in the gloss. Is it the -a suffix on the verb ‘show’?

48

input: {junak, into...} Junak-L Into-L

a. F CP[Coord junak CP[Coord into ...]] *

b. CP[Coord into CP[Coord junak...]] !*

In order to explain all the data in (168), we need to appeal to another constraintwhich is defined below. It is derived from the observation that subjects tend to occur in theSpec of IP. In the minimalist framework this fact is attributed to Nominative Case marking(It is assumed a Split IP, where the higher projection is AGRs, for simplicity reasons, I onlytalk about Specifier of IP) [AgrPs having fallen out of fashion, it probably isn’t evennecessary to mention them here.]:

(171) Subj-SpecIP16

Subjects must check case overtly in the Spec of IP.

The pattern introduced in (168) is explained by the following table. We can see thatthe winner candidate is (172a). It does not violate the constraint which requires thatsubjects check Nominative Case in the Spec of IP. Its closer competitor (172b) has thesubject in a higher position in the sentence and, therefore violates the constraint Subj-SpecIP and is ruled out as non optimal. It is important to realize that the evaluation overconstraints requiring fronting of lexical elements, does not count how far the lexicalelements are from the edge. For example, in the optimal candidate (172a) the subject istwice far away from the left edge compared with to the candidate (172b), which has onlyone lexical element between it and the left edge. If the evaluation of those constraints werecounting lexical elements, the candidate (172b) would be the winner, however, theevaluation process only look at the satisfaction or nont satisfaction of constraints. Becauseneither candidate (172a) or (172b) satisfiesd it, both are starred. The final decision in favorof (172a) is done enforced by the lower ranked constraint Subj-SpecIP. With respect to thecandidates (172c) and (172d) which contain the subject in first position, they are ruled outbecause Junak-L is ranked over Top-Subj and can not emerge as optimal. The candidates(172e) and (172f) which contain the coordinator into ‘and’ in first position, are ruled outtoo because the constraint Junak-L dominates Into-L. The constraints Into-L and Subj-SpecIP are unranked with respect each other.

(172) Table indicating the ranking Junak-L >> Top-Subj >> Into-L; Subj-SpecIP.

Grimshaw define the constraint responsible for the subject allocation in the Spec-of-AGRs as follows:SUBJECT: The highest A-specifier in an extended projection

must be filled.The difference in the definition of this constraint and that adopted here is clear. Grimshaw's definition will allow the filling of

Spec-of-AGRs by another element, whereas the one adopted here does not. I leave this matter unsolved until more evidence in favor ofone or another be found.

49

Input: {junak, into, hoan<Top>...} Junak-L

Top-Subj

Into-L

Subj-SpecIP

a. CP[ Coor junak CP[Coor into IP[Spec hoani...[ti]]]] * *

b. CP [Coor junak CP[DP joani CP[Coor into IP[Spec ti ...]]]] * * *

c. CP[DP joani CP[Coor junak CP[Coor into [ IP[Spec ti ...]]]]] !* * *

d. CP[DP joani CP [Coor into CP[Coor junak IP[ Spec ti...]]]] !* * *

e. CP[Coor into CP[Coor junak IP[Spec joani ...[ti] ]]]] !* *

f. CP[Coor into CP[DP joani [Coor junak IP[ Spec [ti]...]]]] !* * *

2.3.3 Into in last position.

We have seen that coordination can be viewed as the adjunction of a coordinator whichintroduces the feature [+coor] in the top node of the projection to which it is adjoined to.This process of adjunction of a coordinator allows to have the possibility of anotheradjunction to the same category. This fact explains into ‘and’ in second position as result ofraising and adjunction to the maximal node of a topicalized subject NP, as illustrated inwhat follows:

(173) CP

NP CP[coord]

Maríai into IP

NP VP

ti ye’eka

50

This idea of adjunction allows us to explain too into(ko) ‘and (just)’ in finalposition. We can see that into(ko) ‘and’ in final position dominates the entire clause whichis coordinated. It only is aligned to the right, that is the reason why we don’t attest a mirrorimage of second position phenomena in coordinators (i.e. there is not into ‘and’ before thefinal word). The following illustration indicates the way in that the coordinator is aligned tothe right and appears in final position:

(174) CP

NP CP[coord]

jitái

IP

FN FV intoko

María ti jinuk

The constraint responsible for the adjunction of intoko ‘and just’ to the right of IP,conflicts with the constraint into-L which requires fronting of the coordinator. There aretwo conditions under which intoko goes in final postion: a) when intoko ‘and (just)’ hasadditional to its conjunctive meaning an adverbial meaning. It is like an adverb. b) when itis forced by other particles which introduces a sentence such as the particle bweytuk‘because’.

The constraint responsible of for intoko in final position is an information-structuralive one., iIn Yyaqui completive information or background information which hasthe features [-prominent] is aligned to the right edge in a sentence, I suggest that thisconstraint is responsible for this pattern. Let’s take the following interaction:

(175) ¿Yooko jita empo ya’ak?Yesterday what you didAyer qué tú hiciste‘What did you do yesterday?’‘¿Qué hiciste ayer?

A possible answer could have the following two variations, where the conmitativenoun may appear in a preverbal or postverbal position. Let’s analyze first the answer (176).IOn it the speaker is highlighting the fact that he was accompanied by Maria.

(176) Inepo mariata-mak centro-u siika.I Maria-with center-DIR went:SGYo María-con centro-DIR fui:SG‘I with Maria went to the center’‘Yo con maría fui al centro’

51

In terms of features, the subject, being [-new, +prominent], is the topic and the restis the focus of the sentence. It is the focus because the lexical items have the features[+new, +prominent].

(177) Inepo mariatamak centro-u siika.-new +new +new +new+prom +prom +prom +prom

Now, lets analyze the answer (178)., Ion it, the speaker mentions Mary’s companyat the final end of the sentence., Tthis fact has the effect of resting giving? removing?importance to Mary’s company. The topic is still the subject referred by the pronoun inepo‘I’, the focus is centrou siika ‘went to the center’, but the conmintative noun is completiveinformation only.

(178) Inepo centro-u siika mariata-makI center-DIR went:SG Maria-withYo centro-DIR fui:SG María-con‘I went to the center with Mary’‘Yo fui al centro con María’

Because the speaker rest?gives? denies? importance to the company of the personreferred by the conmitative noun, it has the features [+new, -prom]., Iit only function ascompletive information and, therefore, is aligned to the right:

(179) Inepo centro-u siika mariatamak-new +new +new +new+prom +prom +prom +prom

If the first speaker, continues with the conversation and asks the following sentence,the lexical items will have the features indicated.

(180) ¿Jitá maria jinuk intoko?What Maria bought and¿QuéMaría compró y?‘And what did Maria buy?‘¿Y qué compró María?’

The subject, is the topic, and the object and the verb are the focused elements. Thecoordinator, functioning more like an adverb is [+new, -prom] and, therefore, it has to bealigned to the right:

(181) ¿Jitá maria jinuk intoko?+new -new +new +new+prom +prom +prom -prom

The answer could emphasize the thing bought for the person who asked the abovequestion. A, as illustrated next. The features are indicated below.

52

(182) aapo senu supem enchi betchi’ibo jinuk into senu ko’arimshe one shirt you for bought and oneella una camisa ti para compró y una falda‘Lit: She a shirt bought for you and a skirt’‘Lit: Ella una camisa para ti compró y una falda’

As we can see, the subject aapo ‘she’ is the topic, the NP object senu supem ‘oneshirt’ and the benefactive NP enchi betchi’ibo ‘for you’ are the focus of the sentencebecause they have the features [+new, +prom]., Tthe coordinator into ‘and’, being a logicalcoordinator, does not have adverbial meaning, it is not in final position, its features are[+new, -prom], the same than as when it is an adverbial, the NP senu ko’arim is completiveinformation [+new, -prom] and must be aligned to the right of the sentence. A questionarises here. Why is into ‘and’ is not in final position?. The answer is related to the fact thata coordinator must dominate the element which it coordinates. If we allocate it in finalposition, it would be understood as modifying or coordinating the entire sentence and notonly the NP senu ko’arim. In addition, the sentence would be ungrammatical because theextraposed NP would not have a coordinator which make the union with the previous NP.

(183) Aapo senu supem enchi betchi’ibo jinuk into senu ko’arim-new +new +new +new +new -new +new +new +new+prom +prom +prom +prom +prom +prom -prom -prom -prom

(184) *aapo senu supem enchi betchi’ibo jinuk senu ko’arim into

Another interchange where we can attest the informational status of the lexicalitems which goes in final position is the following. In the answer, the NP juka mariata ‘theMaria’ is optional and correferential with the object clitic pronoun a= ‘her’:

(185) empo kaa maria-ta tu’ule?You not maria-AC likes?Tú no María-AC gusta?Don’t you like Mary?¿No te gusta María?

(186) Naaka, inepo a= waata juka maria-taYes, I her love DET:AC Maria-ACSí, yo la quiero DET:AC maría-AC‘Lit: Yes, I love her, the Maria’‘Lit: Si, yo la amo (a) la María’

The features of the answer are the following. As we can see, juka mariata ‘theMaría’ has the features [-new, -prom], it is background information. It is correferential withthe clitic pronoun a= and because it is background information, not prominent, it must go infinal position.

(187) Naaka, inepo a= waata juka maria-ta

53

+new -new -new +new -new -new+prom +prom +prom +prom -prom -prom

The constraint is defined as follows:

Lee (2001:81):(188) Non-Prom(inent)-R(ight): Information not prominent must be aligned right in the

clause.[Can one have more than one non-prominent, background information constituent at the farright? If so, can they occur in any order? Or is there a special ordering for intoko? forinstance, what about a sentence like, I yesterday bought it, (at Wal-mart) (the skirt)(moreover), ]—where both the location of the action and the object are backgroundinformation, and the focussed info is [bought yesterday]? ]

The next table indicates that given the input with intoko having the features <+new,-prom>, the optimal candidate is (140a) because it does not violate the constraint Non-Prom-R which is ranked higher than Into-L. The candidates (140b,c) violates fatally theconstraint Non-Prom-R and are left out as non optimal.

(189) Table indicating the ranking Prom-R >> Into-L.

input: {Jitá, maria, jinuk, intoko+new -new +new +new+prom +prom +prom -prom}

Non-Prom-R

Into-L

a. CP[NP Jitá [CP[[IP[SpecMaría[VP jinuk]]] [Coord

intoko]]*

b. CP[NP Jitá CP[Coor Intoko IP[Spec María [VP jinuk ]]]] !* *

c. CP[Coorintoko CP[NP jitá IP[Spec María [VP jinuk ]]]]!*

The explanation of bweytuk (or boetuk) ‘because’ in first position and into(ko) ‘and(just)’ in final position does not require additional machinery. Bweytuk have has thefeatures [+new, +prom] and intoko [+new, -prom]. Consequently, , the last one must be tothe right and the first one to the left by the constraint which states that coordinators must bealigned to the sentence left edge. Any candidate that does not fix to meet this theserequirements would lost lose the battle against the candidate which adjusts to bothrequierements. The requirements are not in conflict. The conflict arises only between into-Land Prom-R, as shown in the following table.

In this section I have shown how the constraints over topicalization and non-prominent information explain the different positions where the coordinator appears: first,second and last. I gave evidence that it is hard to maintain that the coordinator occupiesthese positions for clitic reasons. The coordinator itself can be a host for clitization and itseems to be derived from demonstratives [do you mean, ‘derived in a similar way to

54

demonstratives’? As you have it, ‘derived from demonstratives’ suggests that perhaps youmean the root int- is itself something that was a demonstrative at some point, but I don’tthink you did say that above, did you?. , Aalthough lexicalized, it is possible to detect someaffixes on it. The sequential coordinators behave sometimes in similar way.

3.4 Summary….3.5