Cover not available
Part of
Antipassive: Typology, diachrony, and related constructions
Edited by Katarzyna Janic and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
[Typological Studies in Language 130] 2021
► pp. 549–578

Chapter 17
Antipassive and antipassive-like constructions in Mayan languages

 | University of Oklahoma
This chapter details the characteristics of the various constructions found in Mayan languages that exhibit some number of antipassive features (absolutive, incorporating, agent focus, reflexives/reciprocals). Although the label ‘antipassive’ has been applied to many of these structures historically, based on the features presented in this volume as diagnostics for antipassives cross-linguistically, only certain instantiations of the ‘absolutive’ antipassive qualify as antipassives.
Keywords: Mayan, ergativity, agent focus, incorporation, absolutive antipassive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on Mayan
    • 2.1Verb structure and alignment
    • 2.2Transitivity
    • 2.3Word order and syntax
  • 3.Antipassive-like structures
    • 3.1Absolutive constructions
      • 3.1.1An important note on K’ichean languages
      • 3.1.2Other major variations in absolutive constructions
      • 3.1.3Is the absolutive construction an antipassive?
    • 3.2Agent focus (AF)
      • 3.2.1Other major variations in AF constructions
      • 3.2.2Is the AF construction an antipassive?
    • 3.3Incorporating constructions
      • 3.3.1Are incorporating constructions antipassives?
      • 3.3.2Reflexive/reciprocal constructions
      • 3.3.3Are detransitivized reflexives/reciprocals antipassives?
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.130.17hea
References (65)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68(1): 43–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75(3): 451–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan. In Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ajsivinac, Juan & Henderson, Robert. 2011. Agent focus morphology without a focused agent: Restrictions on objects in Kaqchikel. In Proceedings of FAMLi 1: Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63], Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Jessica Coon (eds), 17–25. Cambidge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Ayres, Glenn. 1983. The antipassive “voice” in Ixil. International Journal of American Linguistics 49(1): 20–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Reflexives and reciprocal elements in Ixil. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2): 18–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Rusty. 1999. A Grammar of Sipakapense Maya. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Berinstein, Ava. 1985. Evidence for Multiattachment in K’ekchi Mayan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bricker, Victoria. 1978. Antipassive constructions in Yucatec Maya. In Papers in Mayan Linguistics, Nora C. England (ed.), 3–24. Columbia MO: University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 83–127.Google Scholar
Bricker, Victoria, Po’ot Yah, Eleuterio & Dzul de Po’ot, Ofelia. 1998. Dictionary of the Maya Language as Spoken in Hocabá, Yucatan. Salt Lake City UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in K’iche’. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 223–281. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. History and reconstruction of the Mayan languages. In The Mayan Languages, Judith Aissen, Nora C. England & Roberto Zavala Maldonado (eds), 43–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Can Pixabaj, Telma Angelina. 2007. Gramática uspanteka [Jkemiik yoloj li uspanteko]. Guatemala: Cholsamaj. Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2010. Rethinking split ergativity in Chol. International Journal of American Linguistics 76(2): 207–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Aspects of Split Ergativity. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Mayan morphosyntax. In Language and Linguistic Compass, Special issue of Mayan Linguistics 10(10): 515–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Pedro, Pedro Mateo & Preminger, Omer. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14(2): 179–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, Collette Grinevald. 1977. The Structure of Jacaltec. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1979. The antipassive and Jacaltec. In Papers in Mayan Linguistics, Laura Martin (ed), 139–164. Colombia MO: Lucas Brothers.Google Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 1996. Split intransitivity and active-inactive patterning in Mopan Maya. International Journal of American Linguistics 62(4): 379–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, William D. & Sam-Colop, Luis Enrique. 1990. K’iche’ and the structure of antipassive. Language 66(3): 522–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayley, Jon P. 1981. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 3–82.Google Scholar
1985. Tzutujil Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2007. Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224–275. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1981. The Sacapultec Language. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 1983. A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora. 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57(4): 446–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Maya linguists, linguistics, and the politics of identity. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Symposium about Language and Society, Inger Mey, Ginger Pizer, Hsi-Yao Su & Susan Szmania (eds), 33–45. Austin TX: University of Texas Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(2): 429–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furbee-Losee, Louanna. 1976. The Correct Language: Tojolabal: A Grammar with Ethnographic Notes. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Heaton, Raina. 2017. A Typology of Antipassives, with Special Reference to Mayan. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Heaton, Raina, Kamil Deen, and William O’Grady. 2016. The status of syntactic ergativity in Kaqchikel. Lingua 170: 35–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Robert & Coon, Jessica. 2018. Adverbs and variability in Kaqchikel agent focus: A reply to Erlewine (2016). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(1): 149–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2000. Itzaj Maya Grammar. Salt Lake City UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Hou, Liwen. 2013. Agent Focus in Chuj Reflexive Constructions. BA thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Imanishi, Yusuke. 2014. Default Ergative: A View from Mayan. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
INALI. 2009. Catálogo de las lenguas indígenas nacionales: Variantes lingüísticas de México con sus autodenominaciones y referencias geoestadísticas. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI).Google Scholar
Justeson, John, Norman, William, Campbell, Lyle & Kaufman, Terrence. 1985. The Foreign Impact of Lowland Mayan Languages and Script. New Orleans LA: Tulane University.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1976. Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and associated areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology 8(1): 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Outline of comparative Mayan grammar I: Morphology and particles. Paper presented at the First Spring Workshop on Theory and Method in Linguistic Reconstruction, University of Pittsburgh.
. 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas Mayances con referencia especial al K’iche’. In Lecturas Sobre la Lingüística Maya, Nora C. England & Stephen Elliott (eds), 59–114. Antigua, Guatemala: CIRMA.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kondic, Ana. 2016. Antipassive in South Eastern Huastec (Maya, Mexico). Paper presented at the 49th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Naples, Italy.Google Scholar
Larsen, Tomas & Norman, William. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 347–370. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Law, Danny. 2014. Language Contact, Inherited Similarity and Social Difference: The Story of Linguistic Interaction in the Maya Lowlands [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 328]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, Danny, Robertson, John & Houston, Stephen. 2006. Split ergativity in the history of the Ch’olan branch of the Mayan language family. International Journal of American Linguistics 72(4): 415–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateo Toledo, B’alam Eladio. 2003. Ergatividad mixta en Q’anjob’al (Maya): Un reanálisis. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Indigenous Languages of Latin America (CILLA 1).Google Scholar
. 2008. The Family of Complex Predicates in Q’anjob’al (Maya); their Syntax and Meaning. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondloch, James L. 1981. Voice in Quiche-Maya. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed). 2007. Reciprocal Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palosaari, Naomi Elizabeth. 2011. Topics in Mocho’ Phonology and Morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Utah.Google Scholar
Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del Tseltal de Oxchuc. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.Google Scholar
Pye, Clifton. 1992. The acquisition of K’iche’ (Maya). In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 3, Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), 221–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Robertson, John S. 1980. The Structure of Pronoun Incorporation in the Mayan Verbal Complex. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Schröder, Helga. 2006. Antipassive and ergativity in Western Nilotic and Surmic. Annual Publication in African Linguistics 4: 91–108.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions. In Papers in Mayan Linguistics, Nora C. England (ed.), 169–187. Columbia, MO: The Curators of the University of Missouri.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 501–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2007. Agent focus and voice in Yucatec Maya. In Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Malcolm Elliott (ed.), 540–558. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús. 2011. A Grammar of Chol, a Mayan Language. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Zavala, Roberto. 1997. Functional analysis of Akatek voice constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 63(4): 429–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2018. Transitivity discord constructions: Unity and diversity. Presentation at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Tallinn, Estonia.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Creissels, Denis
2024. Transitivity, Valency, and Voice, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 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.