The Tlachichilco Tepehua “passive” and its functions

James K Watters

SIL International

International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics

California State University, Fullerton. February 22-23, 2013

from Brown, Beck, et al. 2011:333

WALS, Chapter 107: Passive Constructions (Anna Siewierska)

A construction has been classified as passive if it displays the following five properties:

• it contrasts with another construction, the active;

• the construction displays some special morphological marking of the verb;

WALS, Chapter 107: Passive Constructions (Anna Siewierska)

• the subject of the active corresponds to a non-obligatory oblique phrase of the passive or is not overtly expressed;

• the subject of the passive, if there is one, corresponds to the direct object of the active;

• the construction is pragmatically restricted relative to the active.

World Atlas of Linguistic Structures

Totonac-Tepehua -kanHighland Totonac, Aschmann & Wonderly

1952:If a verb is unmarked for person, “the

subject is implicitly third person, singular and identified [i.e. definite].”

e.g., paʃiː-y “s/he/it bathes him/her/it.”

bathe-IPF

Totonac-Tepehua -kanHighland Totonac, Aschmann & Wonderly

1952 (cont)ː

-kan “marks unidentified character of the third person subject, replacing the identified meaning implicit in the verb stem. It may follow either intransitive or transitive stems.” (135-36) e.g.,

paʃiː-kan “someone bathes him/her/it.”

bathe-USBJ(IPF)

-kan in Totonac-Tepehua

Coatepec Totonacː

McQuown ([1940]1990) noted that -kan is “un afijo que señala un sujeto indefinido”

paːʃkiː-y “lo quiere”love-IPFpaːʃkiː-kan “lo quiere uno” (161-3)love-USBJ(IPF)

“Mackay (1999) argues that the suffix –kan… from Misantla Totonac is an indefinite subject suffix, since the notional object is represented by an object prefix.

“But she notes that, in the closely related language Tepehua, the notional object is represented on the verb by subject affixes rather than object affixes with verbs bearing this suffix, arguing that it is a passive in Tepehua.” (Keenan and Dryer 2006)

-kan in Misantla Totonac(Mackay 1999:191,2)

“In sentences which lack any overt indication of a subject, /-kan/ ‘I.S.’ serves to indicate that the subject of the verb is indefinite or unspecified… In Tepehua, Watters (1988) has found that when /-kan/ occurs on transitive verbs, the verb takes subject inflection to mark the notional object, as would be expected in a passive construction. In Misantla Totonac this never happens.”

the –kan construction…

In Totonac languages, if the undergoer is first or third person, the verb is inflected for first or third object, as one would expect in an impersonal construction.

the –kan construction…However, for Totonac languages

other than Misantla, if the undergoer (the notional object) is second person, the verb is inflected for second person subject—the object is apparently “advanced to subject,” as one would expect in a passive construction.

Totonac of Filomena Mata(McFarland 2009)

a) laaqtsin-k'ḁsee-USBJ\2SBJ(PFV)

“You saw yourself.” or “You were seen.”

b) kaa-laaqtsin-kḁOBJ.PL-see-USBJ(PFV) (Filomena Mata Totonac; McFarland 2009:188)

“They saw themselves.” or ”Someone saw them.”

Here, for the “indefinite subject” in Totonac

“… the ‘someone does X’ gloss is formally appropriate; that is, in the sentence ‘someone sees me’, for example, the verb ‘see’ is inflected with the first person object prefix and with –kan. However, verbs in –kan with second person subjects take 2nd person subject markers, have the formal characteristics of an atypical passive, and are more appropriately glossed as, for example, ‘you are seen’.” [my emphasis] (McFarland 2009:206)

— —

kin–tuks–kán-Ø

1OBJ–hit–IDF–IMPF

‘I was hit’

‘I hit myself’

tuks–kán–å

hit–IDF–2SG.SUBJ:IMPF

‘you were hit

‘you hit yourself’

Ø–tuks–kán–Ø

3OBJ–hit–IDF–IMPF

‘s/he was hit

‘s/he hit her/himself’

Ø–kA–tuks–kán–Ø

3OBJ–PL.OBJ–hit–IDF-IMPF

‘they were hit

‘they hit themselves’

Upper Necaxa Totonac (Beck 2004)

Filomena Mata Totonac:kin-kaa-laaqtsin-kan-ni1OBJ-OJB.PL-see-USBJ-2OBJ“Someone sees us.” or “We see ourselves.”

(McFarland 2009:188)Tlachichilco Tepehua:k-laqts’in-kan-a-w1SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1PL“We are seen.” or “We see ourselves.” (Watters

1988)

Common Tepehua verb inflection for subject

Subject sing. plural1 k- (k-) -w2 ʔ ʔ -t’ik3 Ø ta-

Object sing. plural1 kin- kin-ta-…-w2 -n ta-…-n3 Ø lak-

extension of reflexive to passive

Langacker 1976; Langacker & Munro 1975S S

N N V N N V

x x Δ x“in both configurations, the subject

and direct object are non-distinct” (801)

-kan constructions

with intransitives (Tlachichilco):

ʔantʃa ʔalin-kan “someone’s there”

there exist-USBJ(IPF)

ʔakamin-kan tehkan haːntu ka-p’aʃ-t’i

smell-USBJ(IPF) when NEG IRR-bathe-2SBJ

“one really smells when you don’t bathe”

-kan constructions

with intransitives (Pisaflores):

ʔan láka čaʔaʔ wíilá-ka-ɬ

DET PREP casa sentado-SI-PFV

“En la casa hay gente.”

(MacKay and Trechsel 2010)

-kan constructionswith transitives (Tlachichilco):

reflexive

laqts’in-k’an (me-ʔeman)

see-USBJ/2SBJ(IPF) (2POSS-self)

“you are seen” “you see yourself”

nonreflexive: impersonal or passive?

hun-kan ni ʃaːpay

tell-USBJ(IPF) the man

“the man is told” “the man tells/calls himself”

with transitives (Pisaflores):nonreflexiveːk'a-la'ts'in-k'an-t'itIRR-see-USBJ-2PLSBJ “(that) you(pl) may be seen”k'a-ʃt'aʔ-ni-k'an-a'i-t'itIRR-give-DAT-USBJ-FUT-S2PLSBJ “you(pl) will be given it”kin-ta-la'ts'in-kan-a-n1OBJ-3PL-see-USBJ-IPF-2OBJ “we are seen”

functions of –kan constructiondeverbal nominals (Watters 1996)ː

action

ʔiʃ-maqniː-ka p’aʃni “the killing of a pig”

3POS-kill-USBJ(NOM) pig

object

ʔiʃ-paː-maqniː-kan p’aʃni

3POS-INS-kill-USBJ(NOM) pig

“killing instrument of a pig”

Tauncha julchan laqataun p'axni junil one day one pig said.toni burro: “¿Vali'iycha kos saqnancha the burro why very

gather.firewoody jantu mast'akni-k'an?

and not make.rest-USBJ(2SBJ)

One day a pig said to the burroː “Why do you get firewood so much and you aren’t made to rest?”

Functions of –kan : unknown or irrelevant subject

Functions of –kan : unknown subject

”Kit'in jantu aqtaunk-mapatsa-kan.

I neg once 1SBJ-use-USBJSi ox k-vava-kan” va naul

ni p'axni.

always good 1SBJ-feed-USBJ FOC said the pig.

“I’m never made to work. I’m always fed well,” the pig said.

functions of –kan constructionparticipant identification, as in quotation

formulas:…waː naw-ɬ yuː maːnaːvin ni kuxtu,FOC say-PFV the owner the cornfield waː hun-ka-ɬ ni ʃanati.

FOC tell-USBJ-PFV the woman.“The cornfield owner told the woman.” Lit: “The cornfield owner said, the woman was

told.”

functions of –kan construction: topic chains (“switch function”)

‘Yes, I’m cooking,’ says the girl.

‘Sit down,’ the woman is told[-kan], was set[-kan] a chair and then sat down.

The girl was cooking real nice tortillas, she makes everything that she takes to the cornfield, she put it in (a basket); she put in mole and turkey, and then she began to be gossiped to [-kan], is told[-kan] words that are not true.’ (see discussion of this example in Van Valin 2005:104-5)

distinguishing passives and impersonals

…the near-universal recognition of passives and the corresponding neglect of impersonals introduce a tacit descriptive bias in favor of passives. Constructions that occupy the communicative niche associated with the passive are often treated as passives, even when they differ from passives in respects that are clearly noted in the traditional, specialist, and pedagogical literature. (Blevins 2003)

Is verb inflection for person decisive?

Legate 2012 argues that Acehnese has a true passive construction, in which “the raised object...behaves as a grammatical subject”(506), even though the “verbal prefix bears... features of the (implicit) agent.” (521)

Syntactic test? the infinitive construction

ʔa-ɬ ʔiː-niʔ ni stapu [subj-control of the infinitive]

go-PFV get-INF the beans“s/he went to get the beans”*ʔan-ka-ɬ ʔiː-ni ni stapu

go-USBJ-PFV get-INF the beans

ʔan-ka-ɬ [NP ʔiʃ-ʔiː-ka ni stapu]

go-USBJ-PFV 3POS-get-USBJ(NOM) the beans

“the getting of the beans was gone for”

Morphosyntactic test?the desiderative

Tlachichilco:

k-ʔi:-putun-kan

1SBJ-get/buy-DES-USBJ(IPV)

“I want to be bought [married]” (preferred rdg.)

“I’m wanted to be bought [married].”

lak-ʔi:-putun-kan

3OBJ-get/buy-DES-USBJ(IPV)

“They want to be bought [married]” (preferred rdg.)

“They are wanted to be bought”

Tepehua: Pisaflores and Tlachichilco

Pisaflores:

kin-ta-laʔts'in-kan-a:-n1OBJ-3PL-see-USBJ-IPF-2OBJ

“We are seen.”

Tlachichilcoː

k-laqts'in-kan-a-w

1SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1PL

“We are seen.” (Pisaflores: OK, dispreferred)

Tepehua: Pisaflores and Tlachichilco

Pisaflores:

k-laʔts'in-kan-aː-w ki-ʔakstu-k’an

1SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1PL 1POS-self-PLPOS

“We see ourselves.”

Tlachichilcoː

k-laqts'in-kan-aː-w ki-ʔaman-k’an

1SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1PL 1POS-self-PLPOS

“We see ourselves.”

When –kan “IDF” occurs on a transitive verb, the undergoer is

marked by…general Totonac & sing. pluralPisaflores 1 kin- OBJ (kin-ta…-w OBJ)*

2 ʔ SBJ (ʔ -t’ik SBJ)*3 Ø lak- OBJ

Tlach.Tepehua sing. plural1 k-/kin- SBJ or OBJ(k-) –w SBJ2 ʔ SBJ ʔ -t’ik SBJ3 Ø lak- OBJ

*in Northern Totonac, -kan does not occur with 1pl or 2pl

Totonac: Misantla OBJ OBJ

OBJ OBJOBJ

Other OBJ OBJSBJ SBJ

OBJTepehuaPisaflores: OBJ OBJ/SBJ

SBJ SBJOBJ

Tlachichilco: SBJ/OBJ SBJSBJ SBJ

OBJ

Is it a passive?

In Tlachichilco Tepehua, -kan may occur on• intransitives, marking an impersonal

construction• transitives, marking a reflexive, or on• transitives, marking a passive construction, as

seen by inflection for person and some tentative syntactic evidence.

For Pisaflores Tepehua, -kan may simply mark “unspecified subject” rather than “passive”

Some final observations

The inflection of verbs for person in the Totonac-Tepehua family, differ along a hierarchy reported elsewhere in the family (Beck 2003, Watters 1988:311-13):

2 > 1 > 3

more likely less likely

to be surface subject

Additional evidence for 2 > 1,3:

Tepehua directionals: neutralization of proximal vs. distal with 2nd person subject

family-wide irregularity in 2nd person motion verbs, perhaps from suppletion across paradigms “come” and “go”

ReferencesAschmann, Herman and William L. Wonderly. 1952. Affixes and implicit categories in

Totonac verb inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 18:130-145Beck, David. 2003. Person-hierarchies and the origin of asymmetries in Totonac verbal

paradigms. Linguistica Atlantica 23, 35 – 68.--------2004. A Grammatical Sketch of Upper Necaxa Totonac. LINCOM: Europa. Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. J. Linguistics 39, 473–520.Cecil H. Brown, David Beck, Grzegorz Kondrak, James K. Watters, Søren Wichmann. 2011.

Totozoquean International Journal of American Linguistics, 77. 3 323-372.Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.

Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/ Accessed on 2013-02-17.Keenan, Edward L. and Matthew S. Dryer. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages.. In

Timothy Shopen, Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Volume 1. 325-361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langacker, R.W. and P. Munro. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Language 51:789-830.Langacker, R.W. 1976. Non-Distinct Arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley: University of

California.Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language

88:495-525.MacKay, Carolyn J. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of

Utah Press.MacKay, Carolyn J. and Frank R. Trechsel. 2010. Tepehua de Pisaflores, Veracruz. México:

El Colegio de México.McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac.

Dissertation, UC Berkeley.

McQuown, Norman A. 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca. (Coatepec). México: UNAMVan Valin, R. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Watters, James K. 1988. Topics in Tepehua grammar. Dissertation, UC Berkeley. -------1996. The interpretation of deverbal nominals in Tepehua. In Masayoshi Shibatani and

Sandra A. Thompson eds., Grammatical Constructions: Their form and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.