Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp.548–605

Subject and agentivity in Teotitlán Zapotec

ORCID logo | Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
| University of Texas at Austin
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.
Keywords: Zapotec, subject, agentivity, stem alternation
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminary remarks
    • 1.1Introduction
    • 1.2Language background
      • 1.2.1Morphosyntax
      • 1.2.2Phonology
  • 2.Subject in Teotitlán Zapotec
  • 3.Agentivity in Teotitlán Zapotec: Stem alternation
    • 3.1Intransitive verbs
      • 3.1.1With stem alternation (agentive)
      • 3.1.2No stem alternation (non-agentive)
      • 3.1.3With or without stem alternation (variable verbs)
    • 3.2Transitive verbs
      • 3.2.1With stem alternation (agentive)
      • 3.2.2No stem alternation (non-agentive)
      • 3.2.3With or without stem alternation (variable)
    • 3.3Summary
  • 4.Nature of the stem alternation
    • 4.1Voice prefix alternation
    • 4.2Tone alternation
      • 4.2.11sg
        • 4.2.1.1Modal vowel
        • 4.2.1.2Creaky vowel
        • 4.2.1.3Glottalized vowel
      • 4.2.21pl
        • 4.2.2.1Modal vowel
        • 4.2.2.2Non-modal vowel
      • 4.2.3Summary of tone alternation
    • 4.3Phonation alternation
    • 4.4Weak suppletion
    • 4.5Strong suppletion
    • 4.6Summary
  • 5.Stem alternation as the only exponent of agentivity
    • 5.1Covert subject construction
    • 5.21sg with an object enclitic
    • 5.3Summary
  • 6.Interactions with other grammatical categories and phenomena
    • 6.1Transitivity and valence
      • 6.1.1Transitivity
      • 6.1.2Voice prefixes
        • 6.1.2.1“Causative” u-
        • 6.1.2.2“Restorative” a-
      • 6.1.3Valence alternation
    • 6.2Verb classes
    • 6.3Imperatives
    • 6.4Tense/aspect/mood category
    • 6.5Summary
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 3 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18025.uch
References (69)
References
Arellanes, Francisco. 2009. El sistema fonológico y las propiedades fonéticas del Zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá. Tlalpan: El Colegio de México Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2016. Primitivos tonales y patrones tonales en el zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá: divergencias inesperadas entre nombres y verbos. Paper presented at Coloquio de Lenguas Otomangues y Vecinas VII, 7–10 April 2016.
Arkadiev, Peter. 2008. Thematic roles, event structure, and argument encoding in semantically aligned languages. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 101–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avelino, Heriberto, John Foreman, Pamela Munro & Aaron Sonnenschein. 2004. Covert subjects in Zapotecan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of SSILA, Boston, MA, 8–11 January 2004.
Beam de Azcona, Rosemary. 2004. A Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec Grammar. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2019. Southern Zapotec Verb Classes. In Mathew Baerman, Timothy Feist & Enrique Palancar (eds.), Inflectional complexity and verb classes: A view from the Oto-Manguean languages of Mexico. Amerindia 411: 121–166.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Greville Corbett. 2012. Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure 51. 52–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickmore, Lee & George A. Broadwell. 1998. High tone docking in Sierra Juarez Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics 641. 37–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briggs, Elinor. 1961. Mitla Zapotec grammar. México City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano and Centro de Investigaciones Antropólogicas de México.Google Scholar
Butler, Inez M. 1976. Reflexive constructions of Yatzachi Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics 421. 331–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Eric. 2011. Zenzontepec Chatino aspect morphology and Zapotecan verb classes. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(2). 219–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Valency classes in Zenzontepec Chatino. In Andrey Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 21, 1391–1426. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aiden. 2000. Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences 221. 447–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 91. 11–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3). 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Agentivity and syntax. In William 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
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 551. 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Suppletion in word formation, In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics – historical word-formation, 97–112. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 681. 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Foley, William & Robert Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 2017. Verbal classes in Teotitlán del Valle Zapotec: From a comparative perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on American Indian Languages 20, May 12 2017, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Foreman, John. 2006. The Morphosyntax of Subjects in Macuiltianguis Zapotec. Los Angeles: UCLA Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Ronald. L. Trail (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics No.7. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 95–106.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Some functional relationships in grammar. Language 51(1). 89–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri. 1983. The fortis/lenis question: Evidence from Zapotec and Jawoñ. Journal of Phonetics 111. 177–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1989. The phonology and morphology of Zapotec verbs. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject & topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Felicia A. 1999. Antisymmetry and the Syntax of San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec. Los Angeles: UCLA Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject & topic, 459–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
López Cruz, Ausencia. 1997. Morfología verbal del zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá. Mexico City: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia BA thesis.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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: [URL] (Last access 10 April 2020).
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1976. On suppletion. Linguistics 1701. 45–90.Google Scholar
Merrifield, William R. 1968. Palantla Chinantec grammar (Papeles de la Chinantla 5, Serie científica 5). México City: Museo Nacional de Antropología.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 60(3). 510–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 2006. Modal expression in Valley Zapotec. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 177–209. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2007. A definite mystery. Berkeley Linguistic Society 33(2). 91–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Valence alternation in the Tlacolula Valley Zapotec lexicon. In Natalie Operstein & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein (eds.), Valence changes in Zapotecan: Synchrony, diachrony, typology, 73–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela, Brook Danielle Lillehaugen & Felipe H. Lopez. 2007–2008. Cali Chiu? A course in Valley Zapotec. New York, NY: lulupress.Google Scholar
Nakamoto, Shun. 2016. The morphology of person in Temalacayuca Popoloca (Ngiwa). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies BA thesis.Google Scholar
Nellis, Donald G. & Barbara E. Hollenbach. 1980. Fortis versus lenis in Cajonos Zapotec phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 461. 92–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Operstein, Natalie. 2002. First-person plural and the aspect morphology of Zapotec. In Jeanie 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
. 2017. Suppletion in Zapotec. Linguistics 55(4). 739–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Operstein, Natalie & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein (eds.). 2014. Valence changes in Zapotecan: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique. 2008. Emergence of active/stative alignment in Otomi. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 357–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palancar, Enrique & Timothy Feist. 2015. Agreeing with subjects in number: The rare split of Amuzgo inflection. Linguistic Typology 19(3). 337–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Báez, Gabriela. 2014. Morphological valence-changing processes in Diidza Za. In Natalie Operstein & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein (eds.), Valence change in Zapote: Synchrony, diachrony, typology, 103–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pérez-Báez, Gabriela & Terrence Kaufman. 2016. Verb classes in Juchitán Zapotec. Anthropological Linguistics 58(3). 217–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1948. Tonemic perturbations in Mazateco, with special emphasis on tonemic fusion. In Chapter VIII of Tone 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
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions. Language 611. 821–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies [New Jersey: Humanities Press].Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas. 2000. Primera persona plural. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
. 2002. Las clases verbales del zapoteco de Chichicapan. In Las actas del VI Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste. Memorias, Hermosillo, Universidad de Sonora, vol. 21, 165–212. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas & Fernín Tapia García. 2002. El amuzgo como lengua activa. In Paulette Levy (ed.), Del cora al maya yucateco: estudios linguísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, 81–129. Mexico City: UNAM.Google Scholar
Suárez, Jorge A. 1983. La lengua tlapaneca de Malinaltepec. México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Thompson, Chad. 1996. The Na-Dene middle voice: an impersonal source of the D-element. International Journal of American Linguistics 621. 351–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uchihara, Hiroto. 2016. Tone and registrogenesis in Quiaviní Zapotec. Diachronica 33(2). 220–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uchihara, Hiroto & Ambrocio Gutiérrez. 2019. El texto Don Crescencio: ilustración del sistema tonal del zapoteco de Teotitlán del Valle. Tlalocan XXIV1. 127–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66(2). 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villard, Stéphanie. 2015. The phonology and morphology of Zacatepec Eastern Chatino. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2008. The study of semantic alignment: retrospect and state of the art. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 3–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Case relations in Tlapanec, a head-marking language. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 797–807. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zubin, David. 1979. Discourse function of morphology: the focus system in German. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 469–504. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Beam de Azcona, Rosemary G.
2024. The tonal morphology of the potential in Coatec Zapotec (Di′zhke′). Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Gutiérrez, Ambrocio, Hiroto Uchihara & Ausencia López Cruz
2022. Morphosyntactically Conditioned Tone Change in Central Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics 88:3 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
Uchihara, Hiroto & Ambrocio Gutiérrez
2021. Teotitlán Zapotec: An ‘activizing’ language. Linguistic Typology 25:2 ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.