Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp. 548–605

Subject and agentivity in Teotitlán Zapotec

| 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
Published online: 03 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18025.uch
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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 41: 121–166.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Greville Corbett
2012 Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure 5. 52–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickmore, Lee & George A. Broadwell
1998 High tone docking in Sierra Juarez Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics 64. 37–67. CrossrefGoogle 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 42. 331–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Eric
2011 Zenzontepec Chatino aspect morphology and Zapotecan verb classes. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(2). 219–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Valency classes in Zenzontepec Chatino. In Andrey Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 2, 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 22. 447–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan
1973 Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan
2002 Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3). 611–627. CrossrefGoogle 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 55. 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67(3). 547–619. CrossrefGoogle 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 68. 81–138. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri
1983 The fortis/lenis question: Evidence from Zapotec and Jawoñ. Journal of Phonetics 11. 177–89. CrossrefGoogle 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: https://​www​.sil​.org​/resources​/archives​/35298 (Last access 10 April 2020).
Mel’čuk, Igor
1976 On suppletion. Linguistics 170. 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 46. 92–105. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palancar, Enrique & Timothy Feist
2015 Agreeing with subjects in number: The rare split of Amuzgo inflection. Linguistic Typology 19(3). 337–383. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 61. 821–48. CrossrefGoogle 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. 2, 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 62. 351–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uchihara, Hiroto
2016 Tone and registrogenesis in Quiaviní Zapotec. Diachronica 33(2). 220–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uchihara, Hiroto & Ambrocio Gutiérrez
2019 El texto Don Crescencio: ilustración del sistema tonal del zapoteco de Teotitlán del Valle. Tlalocan XXIV. 127–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.
1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66(2). 221–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert
2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Uchihara, Hiroto & Ambrocio Gutiérrez
2020. Teotitlán Zapotec: An ‘activizing’ language. Linguistic Typology 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. 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.