Скачать презентацию International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics California State University Скачать презентацию International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics California State University

34dff41178834712a3d06d2f7d7cc814.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 40

International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics California State University, Fullerton. February 22 -23, 2013 The International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics California State University, Fullerton. February 22 -23, 2013 The Tlachichilco Tepehua “passive” and its functions James K Watters SIL International

from Brown, Beck, et al. 2011: 333 from Brown, Beck, et al. 2011: 333

WALS, Chapter 107: Passive Constructions (Anna Siewierska) A construction has been classified as passive 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 WALS, Chapter 107: Passive Constructions (Anna Siewierska) • the subject of the active corresponds to a nonobligatory 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 World Atlas of Linguistic Structures

Totonac-Tepehua -kan Highland Totonac, Aschmann & Wonderly 1952: If a verb is unmarked for Totonac-Tepehua -kan Highland 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 -kan Highland Totonac, Aschmann & Wonderly 1952 (cont)ː -kan “marks unidentified character of Totonac-Tepehua -kan Highland 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 Mc. Quown ([1940]1990) noted that -kan is “un afijo -kan in Totonac-Tepehua Coatepec Totonacː Mc. Quown ([1940]1990) noted that -kan is “un afijo que señala un sujeto indefinido” paːʃkiː-y “lo quiere” love-IPF paːʃkiː-kan “lo quiere uno” (161 -3) love-USBJ(IPF)

“Mackay (1999) argues that the suffix –kan… from Misantla Totonac is an indefinite subject “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 -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 –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 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 (Mc. Farland 2009) a) laaqtsin-k'ḁ see-USBJ2 SBJ(PFV) “You saw yourself. Totonac of Filomena Mata (Mc. Farland 2009) a) laaqtsin-k'ḁ see-USBJ2 SBJ(PFV) “You saw yourself. ” or “You were seen. ” b) kaa-laaqtsin-kḁ OBJ. PL-see-USBJ(PFV) (Filomena Mata Totonac; Mc. Farland 2009: 188) “They saw themselves. ” or ”Someone saw them. ”

Here, for the “indefinite subject” in Totonac “… the ‘someone does X’ gloss is 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 2 nd person subject markers, have the formal characteristics of an atypical passive, and are more appropriately glossed as, for example, ‘you are seen’. ” [my emphasis] (Mc. Farland 2009: 206)

Upper Necaxa Totonac (Beck 2004) kin–tuks–kán-Ø 1 OBJ–hit–IDF– IMPF ‘I was hit’ ‘I hit Upper Necaxa Totonac (Beck 2004) kin–tuks–kán-Ø 1 OBJ–hit–IDF– IMPF ‘I was hit’ ‘I hit myself’ —— tuks–kán–å hit–IDF– 2 SG. SUBJ: IMPF ‘you were hit ‘you hit yourself’ Ø–tuks–kán–Ø 3 OBJ–hit–IDF– IMPF ‘s/he was hit ‘s/he hit her/himself’ Ø–k. A–tuks–kán–Ø 3 OBJ–PL. OBJ–hit –IDF-IMPF ‘they were hit ‘they hit themselves’

Filomena Mata Totonac: kin-kaa-laaqtsin-kan-ni 1 OBJ-OJB. PL-see-USBJ-2 OBJ “Someone sees us. ” or “We Filomena Mata Totonac: kin-kaa-laaqtsin-kan-ni 1 OBJ-OJB. PL-see-USBJ-2 OBJ “Someone sees us. ” or “We see ourselves. ” (Mc. Farland 2009: 188) Tlachichilco Tepehua: k-laqts’in-kan-a-w 1 SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1 PL “We are seen. ” or “We see ourselves. ” (Watters 1988)

Common Tepehua verb inflection for subject Subject 1 2 3 Object 1 2 3 Common Tepehua verb inflection for subject Subject 1 2 3 Object 1 2 3 sing. kʔ Ø sing. kin -n Ø plural (k-) -w ʔ -t’ik taplural kin-ta-…-w ta-…-n lak-

extension of reflexive to passive Langacker 1976; Langacker & Munro 1975 S N N extension of reflexive to passive Langacker 1976; Langacker & Munro 1975 S N N S 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 -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-2 SBJ “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 -kan constructions with intransitives (Pisaflores): ʔan láka čaʔaʔ wíilá-ka-ɬ DET PREP casa sentado-SI-PFV “En la casa hay gente. ” (Mac. Kay and Trechsel 2010)

-kan constructions with transitives (Tlachichilco): reflexive laqts’in-k’an (me-ʔeman) see-USBJ/2 SBJ(IPF) (2 POSS-self) “you are -kan constructions with transitives (Tlachichilco): reflexive laqts’in-k’an (me-ʔeman) see-USBJ/2 SBJ(IPF) (2 POSS-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): nonreflexiveː k'a-la'ts'in-k'an-t'it IRR-see-USBJ-2 PLSBJ “(that) you(pl) may be seen” k'a-ʃt'aʔ-ni-k'an-a'i-t'it IRR-give-DAT-USBJ-FUT- with transitives (Pisaflores): nonreflexiveː k'a-la'ts'in-k'an-t'it IRR-see-USBJ-2 PLSBJ “(that) you(pl) may be seen” k'a-ʃt'aʔ-ni-k'an-a'i-t'it IRR-give-DAT-USBJ-FUT- 2 PLSBJ “you(pl) will be given it” kin-ta-la'ts'in-kan-a-n 1 OBJ-3 PL-see-USBJ-IPF-2 OBJ “we are seen”

functions of –kan construction deverbal nominals (Watters 1996)ː action ʔiʃ-maqniː-ka p’aʃni “the killing of functions of –kan construction deverbal nominals (Watters 1996)ː action ʔiʃ-maqniː-ka p’aʃni “the killing of a pig” 3 POS-kill-USBJ(NOM) pig object ʔiʃ-paː-maqniː-kan p’aʃni 3 POS-INS-kill-USBJ(NOM) pig “killing instrument of a pig”

Functions of –kan : unknown or irrelevant subject Tauncha julchan laqataun p'axni junil one Functions of –kan : unknown or irrelevant subject Tauncha julchan laqataun p'axni junil one day one pig said. to ni burro: “¿Vali'iycha kos saqnancha the burro why very gather. firewood y jantu mast'akni-k'an? and not make. rest-USBJ(2 SBJ) 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 subject ”Kit'in jantu aqtaun k-mapatsa-kan. I Si neg once Functions of –kan : unknown subject ”Kit'in jantu aqtaun k-mapatsa-kan. I Si neg once 1 SBJ-use-USBJ ox k-vava-kan” va naul ni p'axni. always good 1 SBJ-feed-USBJ pig. FOC said the “I’m never made to work. I’m always fed well, ” the pig said.

functions of –kan construction participant identification, as in quotation formulas: …waː naw-ɬ yuː maːnaːvin functions of –kan construction participant 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 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 Valin 2005: 104 -5)

distinguishing passives and impersonals …the near-universal recognition of passives and the corresponding neglect of 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 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 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 stapu go-USBJ-PFV get-INF the beans ʔan-ka-ɬ [NP ʔiʃ-ʔiː-ka ni stapu] go-USBJ-PFV 3 POS-get-USBJ(NOM) the beans “the getting of the beans was gone for”

Morphosyntactic test? the desiderative Tlachichilco: k-ʔi: -putun-kan 1 SBJ-get/buy-DES-USBJ(IPV) “I want to be bought Morphosyntactic test? the desiderative Tlachichilco: k-ʔi: -putun-kan 1 SBJ-get/buy-DES-USBJ(IPV) “I want to be bought [married]” (preferred rdg. ) “I’m wanted to be bought [married]. ” lak-ʔi: -putun-kan 3 OBJ-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: -n 1 OBJ-3 PL-see-USBJ-IPF-2 OBJ “We are seen. Tepehua: Pisaflores and Tlachichilco Pisaflores: kin-ta-laʔts'in-kan-a: -n 1 OBJ-3 PL-see-USBJ-IPF-2 OBJ “We are seen. ” Tlachichilcoː k-laqts'in-kan-a-w 1 SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1 PL “We are seen. ” (Pisaflores: OK, dispreferred)

Tepehua: Pisaflores and Tlachichilco Pisaflores: k-laʔts'in-kan-aː-w ki-ʔakstu-k’an 1 SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1 PL 1 POS-self-PLPOS “We see Tepehua: Pisaflores and Tlachichilco Pisaflores: k-laʔts'in-kan-aː-w ki-ʔakstu-k’an 1 SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1 PL 1 POS-self-PLPOS “We see ourselves. ” Tlachichilcoː k-laqts'in-kan-aː-w ki-ʔaman-k’an 1 SBJ-see-USBJ-IPF-1 PL 1 POS-self-PLPOS “We see ourselves. ”

When –kan “IDF” occurs on a transitive verb, the undergoer is marked by… general When –kan “IDF” occurs on a transitive verb, the undergoer is marked by… general Totonac & Pisaflores 1 2 3 Tlach. Tepehua 1 2 3 sing. plural kin- OBJ (kin-ta…-w OBJ)* ʔ SBJ (ʔ -t’ik SBJ)* Ø lak- OBJ sing. plural k-/kin- SBJ or OBJ (k-) –w SBJ ʔ -t’ik SBJ Ø lak- OBJ *in Northern Totonac, -kan does not occur with 1 pl or 2 pl

Totonac: Misantla Other Tepehua Pisaflores: Tlachichilco: OBJ OBJ SBJ SBJ/OBJ SBJ OBJ/SBJ SBJ OBJ Totonac: Misantla Other Tepehua Pisaflores: Tlachichilco: OBJ OBJ SBJ SBJ/OBJ SBJ OBJ/SBJ SBJ OBJ

Is it a passive? In Tlachichilco Tepehua, -kan may occur on • intransitives, marking 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 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 Additional evidence for 2 > 1, 3: Tepehua directionals: neutralization of proximal vs. distal with 2 nd person subject family-wide irregularity in 2 nd person motion verbs, perhaps from suppletion across paradigms “come” and “go”

References Aschmann, Herman and William L. Wonderly. 1952. Affixes and implicit categories in Totonac References Aschmann, Herman and William L. Wonderly. 1952. Affixes and implicit categories in Totonac verb inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 18: 130 -145 Beck, 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. Mac. Kay, Carolyn J. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Mac. Kay, Carolyn J. and Frank R. Trechsel. 2010. Tepehua de Pisaflores, Veracruz. México: El Colegio de México. Mc. Farland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. Dissertation, UC Berkeley.

Mc. Quown, Norman A. 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca. (Coatepec). México: UNAM Van Mc. Quown, Norman A. 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca. (Coatepec). México: UNAM Van 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.