Minimalism Bridge: Kaqchikel Agent Focus @cite{erlewine-2016} #
@cite{erlewine-2018}
Connects the Kaqchikel Agent Focus fragment to the Minimalist analysis: anti-locality (Position.lean) drives OT competition (ConstraintEvaluation.lean), and the AF derivation emerges as optimal.
The Derivation (@cite{erlewine-2016}, §§3, 5) #
Why the transitive derivation crashes #
In a normal Kaqchikel transitive, the agent base-generates in Spec,vP and is attracted to Spec,TP by the A-probe on T (receiving Set A agreement). For Ā-extraction, the agent must then move from Spec,TP to Spec,CP. But CP immediately dominates TP, so this step crosses no intervening maximal projection — violating Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality (SSAL).
Why AF is selected #
The grammar generates a competing candidate — the AF structure — with an intransitive-like v that does NOT introduce the agent in Spec,vP. The agent extracts directly to Spec,CP without passing through Spec,TP, so no SSAL violation occurs. But the agent never enters Spec,TP, so the A-probe cannot establish Set A (ergative) agreement — violating the lower-ranked XRef (cross-referencing) constraint.
The OT evaluation selects AF because SSAL >> XRef: avoiding the too-local movement outranks maintaining cross-referencing agreement.
Key insight: locality, not extraction per se #
AF is triggered by the locality of movement, not simply by agent extraction. Long-distance agent extraction does NOT trigger AF: successive-cyclic movement through intermediate Spec,CP avoids the too-local Spec,TP → Spec,CP step.
Connection to Position.lean #
The specToSpecAntiLocality predicate (Position.lean) formalizes
exactly the constraint that blocks the transitive derivation: movement
from Spec,XP to Spec,YP is blocked when YP immediately dominates XP.
In Kaqchikel, XP = TP and YP = CP.
Connection to ConstraintEvaluation.lean #
The OT tableau in Fragments/Kaqchikel/AgentFocus.lean uses the
lexicographic comparison from Core/Logic/ConstraintEvaluation.lean.
The key result af_is_optimal shows that AF beats the transitive under
strict ranking — and satisfaction_ordering_incomparable shows this
requires OT's lexicographic comparison, not satisfaction ordering's
subset inclusion.
Anti-agreement #
AF is an instance of a broader cross-linguistic pattern: anti-agreement. When extraction forces a DP to skip an A-position (to avoid SSAL), the agreement morphology associated with that position is lost:
- Kaqchikel: Set A (ergative) lost when agent skips Spec,TP
- Trentino Italian: nominative agreement lost under extraction
- Karitiâna: absolutive agreement lost under extraction
All are derived by the same mechanism: SSAL forces skipping an A-position, and agreement with the head at that position fails.
Contrast with Toba Batak #
Both Kaqchikel and Toba Batak have extraction restrictions derived from anti-locality in predicate-fronting contexts. But the repair strategies differ:
- Toba Batak: Voice alternation determines the pivot; extraction is restricted to the pivot position (structural restriction strategy).
- Kaqchikel: Anti-locality blocks agent extraction entirely; the grammar repairs the derivation via AF (agent focus alternation strategy).
Both use specToSpecAntiLocality from Position.lean, but Toba Batak's
pivot restriction is about nominal licensing while Kaqchikel's AF is
about OT candidate competition.
The transitive candidate violates SSAL. The agent, having moved to Spec,TP via the A-probe, cannot continue to Spec,CP because CP immediately dominates TP — the movement is too local.
The AF candidate does NOT violate SSAL. The agent skips Spec,TP and extracts directly to Spec,CP, crossing enough structure to satisfy anti-locality.
AF is the unique optimal candidate. SSAL >> XRef means the derivation that avoids anti-locality wins, even though it loses Set A agreement.
The winning candidate surfaces with AF morphology: -Vn suffix, no Set A (ergative) agreement.
Under satisfaction ordering, neither candidate dominates: the transitive satisfies XRef but violates SSAL, while AF satisfies SSAL but violates XRef. Each satisfies a constraint the other violates — they are incomparable.
This is why OT's lexicographic comparison (strict ranking) is necessary: it breaks the tie by giving priority to the higher-ranked constraint. Kratzer's satisfaction ordering cannot select a winner.
The transitive candidate is lexicographically worse because it violates the HIGHER-ranked constraint (SSAL, position 0). AF violates only the lower-ranked constraint (XRef, position 1).
The transitive candidate's violation profile reflects
specToSpecAntiLocality from Position.lean. The constraint at
position 0 (SSAL) has 1 violation for the transitive candidate,
grounding the OT violation count in the structural predicate.
AF wins because it has 0 violations of the highest-ranked constraint.
The connection to specToSpecAntiLocality: the transitive derivation
would require movement from Spec,TP to Spec,CP where CP immediately
dominates TP — exactly what the predicate bans. AF avoids this
by not placing the agent in Spec,TP at all.
Patient extraction does NOT trigger AF: the patient starts in complement position (Comp,VP), not Spec,vP. It does not pass through Spec,TP on its way to Spec,CP, so no SSAL violation arises.
AF is asymmetric: only clause-local agent extraction triggers it (because only the agent occupies Spec,vP → Spec,TP, creating the too-local Spec,TP → Spec,CP step). Patient extraction uses the normal transitive form. This asymmetry is the morphological signature of syntactic ergativity in Kaqchikel.
AF is locality-sensitive: long-distance agent extraction does NOT trigger AF. When the agent extracts from an embedded clause, successive-cyclic movement avoids the too-local Spec,TP → Spec,CP step.
This is the paper's deepest empirical claim: AF is about the locality of movement, not about agent extraction per se.
Kaqchikel uses agent focus alternation, not structural restriction (Toba Batak) or dedicated morpheme (Mam). Different repair strategy, same underlying problem (anti-locality).