Erlewine 2016: Anti-Locality and Optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus #
@cite{erlewine-2016} @cite{erlewine-2018}
@cite{erlewine-2016} analyzes Kaqchikel Agent Focus as the optimal
output of an OT competition between two derivations, ranked by
Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality (SSAL) ≫ XRef (cross-referencing).
The fragment in Fragments/Mayan/Kaqchikel/AgentFocus.lean carries
typology-neutral data (verb-form types, extraction patterns, the
empirical AF profile); this study file adds the theory-laden OT
machinery (competing derivations, constraints, ranking) and verifies
@cite{erlewine-2016}'s results.
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.
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 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
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. SSAL traces to @cite{abels-2003}'s
anti-locality theory, with refinements in @cite{boskovic-1997} and
many subsequent papers; @cite{erlewine-2016}'s contribution is the
specific application to Kichean AF as an OT-competing-candidate
analysis.
Connection to Core.Constraint.OT #
The OT tableau uses the lexicographic comparison from
Core/Constraint/OT/Basic.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 of 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 under agent extraction, Trentino Italian nominative under extraction, Karitiâna absolutive under extraction. All derive from 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 restricts extraction to the pivot
position (structural restriction), while Kaqchikel repairs the
derivation via AF (alternation strategy). Both use
specToSpecAntiLocality from Position.lean.
A candidate derivation for clause-local transitive agent extraction. The OT competition evaluates these: which structure best satisfies the ranked constraints? Both candidates share the same clausal spine (CP > TP > vP > VP); they differ in the v head and the agent's movement path.
- transitiveExtraction : AFCandidate
Normal transitive derivation: transitive v introduces agent in Spec,vP. A-probe on T attracts agent to Spec,TP (triggering Set A agreement). Subsequent Ā-extraction from Spec,TP to Spec,CP violates SSAL because CP immediately dominates TP.
- agentFocusExtraction : AFCandidate
Agent Focus derivation: intransitive-like v, agent NOT in Spec,vP. Agent extracts directly to Spec,CP without passing through Spec,TP. No SSAL violation, but cross-referencing is incomplete: no Set A (ergative) agreement because the agent never enters Spec,TP.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Studies.Erlewine2016.instDecidableEqAFCandidate x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The verb form that surfaces for each candidate.
Equations
Instances For
Does this candidate violate Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality (SSAL)? The transitive derivation does: the step Spec,TP → Spec,CP crosses no intervening maximal projection (CP immediately dominates TP).
Equations
Instances For
Does this candidate violate the XRef (cross-referencing) constraint? AF loses Set A agreement because the agent never enters Spec,TP where the A-probe resides. The transitive candidate maintains full cross-referencing (Set A + Set B).
Equations
Instances For
Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality (highest-ranked): movement from Spec,XP to Spec,YP is banned when YP immediately dominates XP.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
XRef (cross-referencing, lower-ranked): every argument DP must be cross-referenced by a pronominal morpheme on the verb (Set A for ergative, Set B for absolutive).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The ranked constraint list for Kaqchikel AF: SSAL ≫ XRef.
Equations
Instances For
The two candidates in the OT competition.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
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.
The two candidates have different violation profiles: they disagree on at least one constraint.
AF is the unique optimal candidate. SSAL ≫ XRef means the derivation that avoids anti-locality wins, even though it loses Set A agreement. This is the central result of @cite{erlewine-2016}.
The winning candidate surfaces with AF morphology: -Vn suffix, no Set A (ergative) agreement.
Under componentwise ≤ (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. OT's lexicographic ranking is what breaks the tie in favor of AF.
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 SSAL constraint
assigns 1 violation to the transitive candidate and 0 to AF,
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).