1887
image of Subject and agentivity in Teotitlán Zapotec
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In Teotitlán Zapotec, some, but not all, verbs undergo stem alternation in the 1st person forms, in addition to the attachment of the pronominal enclitics that encode the subject argument. We argue that stem alternation and pronominal cliticization are independent from one another and that each encodes different grammatical features, agent and subject, respectively. The phenomenon discussed in this paper is peculiar in two respects. First, stem alternation as the exponent of the agent is cross-linguistically rare (although it is common within the Otomanguean languages). Furthermore, the category of agentivity has not been studied in detail in Zapotecan languages, but this paper shows the pervasiveness of agentivity in the Teotitlán Zapotec grammar.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18025.uch
2020-08-03
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arellanes, Francisco
    2009 El sistema fonológico y las propiedades fonéticas del Zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá. Tlalpan: El Colegio de México Ph.D. dissertation.
  2. 2016 Primitivos tonales y patrones tonales en el zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá: divergencias inesperadas entre nombres y verbos. Paper presented atColoquio de Lenguas Otomangues y Vecinas VII, 7–10 April 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkadiev, Peter
    2008 Thematic roles, event structure, and argument encoding in semantically aligned languages. InMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 101–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Avelino, Heriberto, John Foreman, Pamela Munro & Aaron Sonnenschein
    2004 Covert subjects in Zapotecan. Paper presented at theannual meeting of SSILA, Boston, MA, 8–11 January 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beam de Azcona, Rosemary
    2004 A Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec Grammar. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation.
  6. 2019 Southern Zapotec Verb Classes. InMathew Baerman, Timothy Feist & Enrique Palancar (eds.), Inflectional complexity and verb classes: A view from the Oto-Manguean languages of Mexico. Amerindia41: 121–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baerman, Matthew & Greville Corbett
    2012 Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure5. 52–68. 10.3366/word.2012.0019
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2012.0019 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bickmore, Lee & George A. Broadwell
    1998 High tone docking in Sierra Juarez Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics64. 37–67. 10.1086/466346
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466346 [Google Scholar]
  9. Briggs, Elinor
    1961Mitla Zapotec grammar. México City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano and Centro de Investigaciones Antropólogicas de México.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Butler, Inez M.
    1976 Reflexive constructions of Yatzachi Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics42. 331–37. 10.1086/465437
    https://doi.org/10.1086/465437 [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell, Eric
    2011 Zenzontepec Chatino aspect morphology and Zapotecan verb classes. International Journal of American Linguistics77(2). 219–46. 10.1086/659216
    https://doi.org/10.1086/659216 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2015 Valency classes in Zenzontepec Chatino. InAndrey Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol.2, 1391–1426. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Coveney, Aiden
    2000 Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences22. 447–481. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00014‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00014-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cruse, D. Alan
    1973 Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics9. 11–24. 10.1017/S0022226700003509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003509 [Google Scholar]
  15. Curnow, Timothy Jowan
    2002 Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics40(3). 611–627. 10.1515/ling.2002.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.025 [Google Scholar]
  16. DeLancey, Scott
    1985 Agentivity and syntax. InWilliam H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st regional meeting, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55. 59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dowty, David R.
    1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language67(3). 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dressler, Wolfgang U.
    1985 Suppletion in word formation, InJacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics – historical word-formation, 97–112. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dryer, Matthew
    1992 The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language68. 81–138. 10.1353/lan.1992.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, Charles
    1968 The case for case. InEmmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Foley, William & Robert Van Valin
    1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gutiérrez, Ambrocio
    2014 Construcciones de verbos seriales en el zapoteco de Teotitlán del valle. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social MA thesis.
  24. 2017 Verbal classes in Teotitlán del Valle Zapotec: From a comparative perspective. Paper presented at theWorkshop on American Indian Languages 20, May 12 2017, University of California, Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Foreman, John
    2006 The Morphosyntax of Subjects in Macuiltianguis Zapotec. Los Angeles: UCLA Ph.D. dissertation.
  26. Hale, Austin
    1980 Person markers: finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. InRonald. L. Trail (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics No.7. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 95–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Heath, Jeffrey
    1977 Some functional relationships in grammar. Language51(1). 89–104. 10.2307/413151
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413151 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56. 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jaeger, Jeri
    1983 The fortis/lenis question: Evidence from Zapotec and Jawoñ. Journal of Phonetics11. 177–89. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30814‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30814-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaufman, Terrence
    1989 The phonology and morphology of Zapotec verbs. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Keenan, Edward
    1976 Towards a universal definition of “subject”. InCharles Li (ed.), Subject & topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, Felicia A.
    1999 Antisymmetry and the Syntax of San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec. Los Angeles: UCLA Ph.D. dissertation.
  33. Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson
    1976 Subject and topic: A new typology of language. InCharles Li (ed.), Subject & topic, 459–489. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. López Cruz, Ausencia
    1997 Morfología verbal del zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá. Mexico City: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia BA thesis.
  35. López Nicolás, Oscar
    2016 Estudios de la fonología y gramática del zapoteco de Zoochina. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social Ph.D. dissertation.
  36. Marlett, Steve
    2010 Personal pronouns: Distribution. Cheryl A. Black, H. Andrew Black & Stephen A. Marlett (eds.), The Zapotec grammar files, SIL International. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/35298 (Last access10 April 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mel’čuk, Igor
    1976 On suppletion. Linguistics170. 45–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Merrifield, William R.
    1968Palantla Chinantec grammar (Papeles de la Chinantla 5, Serie científica 5). México City: Museo Nacional de Antropología.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mithun, Marianne
    1991 Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language60(3). 510–546. 10.1353/lan.1991.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0015 [Google Scholar]
  40. Munro, Pamela
    2006 Modal expression in Valley Zapotec. InWilliam Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 177–209. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007 A definite mystery. Berkeley Linguistic Society33(2). 91–102. 10.3765/bls.v33i2.3504
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i2.3504 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014 Valence alternation in the Tlacolula Valley Zapotec lexicon. InNatalie Operstein & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein (eds.), Valence changes in Zapotecan: Synchrony, diachrony, typology, 73–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Munro, Pamela, Brook Danielle Lillehaugen & Felipe H. Lopez
    2007–2008Cali Chiu? A course in Valley Zapotec. New York, NY: lulupress.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nakamoto, Shun
    2016 The morphology of person in Temalacayuca Popoloca (Ngiwa). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies BA thesis.
  45. Nellis, Donald G. & Barbara E. Hollenbach
    1980 Fortis versus lenis in Cajonos Zapotec phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics46. 92–105. 10.1086/465639
    https://doi.org/10.1086/465639 [Google Scholar]
  46. Operstein, Natalie
    2002 First-person plural and the aspect morphology of Zapotec. InJeanie Castillo (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on the American Indigenous Languages, Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 53–64. Santa Barbra, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2017 Suppletion in Zapotec. Linguistics55(4). 739–782. 10.1515/ling‑2017‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Operstein, Natalie & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein
    (eds.) 2014Valence changes in Zapotecan: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Palancar, Enrique
    2008 Emergence of active/stative alignment in Otomi. InMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 357–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  50. Palancar, Enrique & Timothy Feist
    2015 Agreeing with subjects in number: The rare split of Amuzgo inflection. Linguistic Typology19(3). 337–383. 10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0011 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pérez-Báez, Gabriela
    2014 Morphological valence-changing processes in Diidza Za. InNatalie Operstein & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein (eds.), Valence change in Zapote: Synchrony, diachrony, typology, 103–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pérez-Báez, Gabriela & Terrence Kaufman
    2016 Verb classes in Juchitán Zapotec. Anthropological Linguistics58(3). 217–257. 10.1353/anl.2016.0030
    https://doi.org/10.1353/anl.2016.0030 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pike, Kenneth L.
    1948 Tonemic perturbations in Mazateco, with special emphasis on tonemic fusion. In Chapter VIII ofTone languages: A Technique for Determining the Number and Type of Pitch Contrasts in a Language, with Studies in Tonemic Substitution and Fusion, 95–165. (University of Michigan Publications in Linguistics, No.4) Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1985 Passives and related constructions. Language61. 821–48. 10.2307/414491
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414491 [Google Scholar]
  55. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InRobert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies [New Jersey: Humanities Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Smith-Stark, Thomas
    2000 Primera persona plural. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2002 Las clases verbales del zapoteco de Chichicapan. InLas actas del VI Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste. Memorias, Hermosillo, Universidad de Sonora, vol.2, 165–212. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Smith-Stark, Thomas & Fernín Tapia García
    2002 El amuzgo como lengua activa. InPaulette Levy (ed.), Del cora al maya yucateco: estudios linguísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, 81–129. Mexico City: UNAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Suárez, Jorge A.
    1983La lengua tlapaneca de Malinaltepec. México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Thompson, Chad
    1996 The Na-Dene middle voice: an impersonal source of the D-element. International Journal of American Linguistics62. 351–78. 10.1086/466304
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466304 [Google Scholar]
  61. Uchihara, Hiroto
    2016 Tone and registrogenesis in Quiaviní Zapotec. Diachronica33(2). 220–254. 10.1075/dia.33.2.03uch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.2.03uch [Google Scholar]
  62. Uchihara, Hiroto & Ambrocio Gutiérrez
    2019 El texto Don Crescencio: ilustración del sistema tonal del zapoteco de Teotitlán del Valle. TlalocanXXIV. 127–153. doi:  10.19130/iifl.tlalocan.2019.487
    https://doi.org/10.19130/iifl.tlalocan.2019.487 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Valin, Robert D.
    1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language66(2). 221–260. 10.2307/414886
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414886 [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Valin, Robert
    2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla
    1997Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  66. Villard, Stéphanie
    2015 The phonology and morphology of Zacatepec Eastern Chatino. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin Ph.D. dissertation.
  67. Wichmann, Søren
    2008 The study of semantic alignment: retrospect and state of the art. InMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 3–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2009 Case relations in Tlapanec, a head-marking language. InAndrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 797–807. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Zubin, David
    1979 Discourse function of morphology: the focus system in German. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 469–504. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004368897_020
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_020 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18025.uch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18025.uch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Zapotec; agentivity; subject; stem alternation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error