Cover not available
Part of
Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and typological perspectives
Edited by Albert Álvarez González and Ia Navarro
[Typological Studies in Language 120] 2017
► pp. 165–192

Tlachichilco Tepehua

Semantics and function of verb valency change

| SIL InternationalUniversity of North Dakota
Tlachichilco Tepehua, like other Tepehua and Totonacan languages, has a rich system of morphology that modifies verb valency. There are five constructions that affect core arguments of the verb: the dative and causative and the four valency-decreasing constructions ─ passive, antipassive, body-part incorporation, and the decausative. These morphological processes typically affect inherent aspect and lexical semantics or facilitate tracking referents in discourse. The three applicative prefixes, and, in some cases, the dative suffix, license non-core arguments which function as direct arguments of the verb. Syntactically, the applicatives allow non-core arguments to be questioned or relativized. Semantically, their arguments manifest roles that are frame-internal ─ determined by the scene associated with the base verb ─ or frame-external, such as the benefactive.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphosyntax of verb valency changes
    • 2.1Core arguments
      • 2.1.1Decreasing core arguments
        • 2.1.1.1Antipassive: ‑nVn
        • 2.1.1.2Passive-reflexive: -kan
        • 2.1.1.3Body-part Incorporation
        • 2.1.1.4Decausativization
      • 2.1.2Increasing core arguments
        • 2.1.2.1Dative or indirect object
        • 2.1.2.2Causative
    • 2.2Adjuncts: The periphery
      • 2.2.1Benefactive
      • 2.2.2Comitative
      • 2.2.3Means or Instrumental
      • 2.2.4Direction
  • 3.A frame-semantics interpretation of applicatives
    • 3.1Frame-external readings
    • 3.2Frame-internal readings
  • 4.Syntactic function of verb valency change
  • 5.Final comments and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.120.07wat
References (24)
References
Baker, Collin F. & Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2002. FrameNet’s frames vs. Levinʹs verb classes. In Proceedings of 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, J. Larson & M. Paster (eds), 27–38. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2004. A Grammatical Sketch of Upper Necaxa Totonac. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence & Smith-Stark, Thomas. 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62: 530–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica VI(2): 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, Michaelis, Laura & Sag, Ivan A. 2007. Sign-based construction grammar. <[URL]> (14 March 2013).
Haspelmath, Martin & Müller-Bardey, Thomas. 2001. Valency change. <[URL]> (14 March 2013).
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kung, Susan Smythe. 2004. External possession in Huehuetla Tepehua. In Proceedings from the Seventh Workshop on American Indigenous Languages [Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 15], Lea Harper & Carmen Jany (eds), 25–39. Santa Barbara CA: Department of Linguistics, UCSB.Google Scholar
. 2007. A Descriptive Grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Mackay, Carolyn J. 1999. A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City UT: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Mackay, Carolyn J. & Trechsel, Frank R. 2003. Reciprocal laa‑ in Totonacan. International Journal of American Linguistics 69: 275–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Tepehua de Pisaflores, Veracruz. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The Phonology and Morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Petruck, Miriam. 1996. Frame semantics. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Jan-Ola Östman, Jef Verschueren & Jan Blommaert (eds), 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watters, James K. 1988. Topics in Tepehua Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
1994. Forma y función en la morfología verbal de segunda personal en tepehua. In Investigaciones Lingüísticas en Mesoamerica [Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas 1], Carolyn J. MacKay & Verónica Vázquez (eds), 211–26. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
1996a. Frames and semantics of applicatives in Tepehua. In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods [Cognitive Linguistics Research 6], Eugene H. Casad (ed.), 971–996. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. The interpretation of deverbal nominals in Tepehua. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 323–340. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007. Tepehua verb morphology, operator scope, and the encoding of arguments. In Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, Lilián Guerrero, Sergio Ibáñez Cerda & Valeria A. Belloro (eds), 247–268. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
2013a. The Tlachichilco Tepehua “passive” and its functions. Paper presented at the International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics, Cal-State Fullerton.
2013b. Transitivity, constructions, and the projection of argument structure in RRG. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in Grammars [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 23–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zambrano Bonilla, José. 1752. Arte de la lengua totonaca, conforme a el Arte de Antonio Nebrija. Puebla: Impr. de la viuda de M. de Ortega.Google Scholar