Split Intransitivity and Active-Inactive Patterning in ...

Split Intransitivity and Active-Inactive Patterning in Mopan Maya Author(s): Eve Danziger Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 62, No. 4, (Oct., 1996), pp. 379-414 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1265707 Accessed: 03/06/2008 23:04 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org

SPLIT INTRANSITIVITY AND ACTIVE-INACTIVE PATTERNINGIN MOPAN MAYA EVE DANZIGER MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

1. Introduction. The languages of the Yucatecan branch of the Mayan family (Yucatec, Lacandon, Itzaj, and Mopan) have for some time been analyzed as cases of morphological split ergativity (see, e.g., Bricker 1977; 1981b; 1986, Hofling 1982:173-79, Larsen and Norman 1979, and Robertson 1992:220). This paper provides evidence, however, that certain characteristics of Mopan Maya set it apart from its sisters, and warrantfor it an analysis as a predominantly Active-Inactive or split-S marking (Klimov 1974; 1979 and Dixon 1979; 1994) language.1 In what follows, the existence in Mopan of case-role-markingpatterns which apply alike to the Transitive Undergoer and to the single participant of certain(semantically "Stative")intransitivepredicates,while consistently excluding both the Transitive Actor and the single participant of certain other (semantically "Active") intransitive predicates is demonstrated.In a complementarypattern, other case-role-markingrules apply exclusively to the single participantof semantically "Active" intransitives while excluding the single participantof semantically "Stative"intransitives.2 The existence of these case-role-markingregularities means that the appearanceof one or the other of the two Mopan case-role-markingpronouns is, for the majority of intransitive predicates, lexically conditioned. Morphological conditioning, including conditioning by aspect, plays a relatively 1This research was supported by the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research (grant no. 4850), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (award no. 452-87-1337), and the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. The Department of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize also provided help and supportduring eighteen months of fieldwork from 1986 to 1993. I am grateful to all of my Mopan hosts and language consultants; special thanks for intensive work on participantmarking are due to Maximo Balona, Matilde Kaal, and Genovevo Peck. I am also grateful for conversations with Paulette Levy, John Lucy, and David P. Wilkins whichwithout implicating the particularviews of those individuals-were instrumentalin influencing the direction of the argument.Any flaws are of course my own responsibility. 21 have used the term "Stative" to indicate predicate cases in which the argument has, roughly, a resultative, affected, or statelike relationship to the event described, and the term "Active"to indicate predicate cases in which the argumenthas, roughly, an initiatory,controlling, or causal relationship to the event described. [IJAL, vol. 62, no. 4, October 1996, pp. 379-414] ? 1996 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0020-7071/96/6204-0003$01.00

379

380

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS

minor role. As a matter of pure structuraldescription, appearanceof the case-role-markingpronouncan be seen to be inflectionally conditioned to a much lesser degree in Mopan than in its sister languages. It is quite clear in addition that a lexically encoded semantic parameterwhich indexes the nature of participantinvolvement in the predicate action is linked to this structuralfact. On semantic grounds as well as on purely structuralones, then, characterizationof Mopan as a Split Ergative language is not clearly appropriate. 2. Typological issues in split intransitivity. The typological discussion which contrasts Active-Inactive language types with Split Ergative ones takes as a starting point the identification of three kinds of predicate participants: the transitive Actor [A], the Transitive Undergoer [O], and the single participantof the intransitiveverb [S] (Dixon 1979). In NominativeAccusative languages, [S] normallytakes the same case-role markingas [A]. In consistently Ergative-Absolutive languages, [S] normally takes the same case-role marking as [0].3 Split Ergative languages have been defined (Dixon 1979; 1994) as those in which [S] is marked sometimes like [A] and sometimes like [0]. In certain cases, variable identificationof [S] with [0] and with [A] comes about because [A] and [0] themselves are marked differently under different semantic or structuralcircumstances. Factors such as the relative animacy of [A] or the morphological aspect of the transitive clause may play a role (Dixon 1979; 1994; see also Silverstein 1976). In these cases, all scholars seem to agree that a characterizationof Split Ergative is appropriate.However, where variable identification of [S] with [0] and with [A] is due to variationin the markingof [S] itself ("Split Intransitivity"),theorists begin to part company. DeLancey (1981:629; see also DeLancey 1985), for example, finds that these cases can be considered Split Ergative only "in a sort of backwardway" and prefers to deal with them as a distinct, nonergative type. Such an approachdoes justice to possible similarities in the semantics which motivate both morphological and lexical conditioning of [S] marking. 3"Active" and "Inactive" are the terms proposed (Klimov 1974) as direct counterpartsto "Nominative-Accusative" and "Ergative-Absolutive" in other languages. These terms have the disadvantage(like "Ergative,""Accusative,"etc.) that at least one of the pair designates not only the particularkind of participantmarking("accusative case," "ergative pronoun,""active marker")but also the typological status of the language or linguistic subsystem that is being characterized("Ergative/ Active language"). In addition, the term "Active" is often used, as here, to designate a semantic type of predicate. Only the compound term "Active-Inactive" will be used here for discussion of the typological status of languages, with the abbreviations SA and SO constituting the preferrednotation for structurallydefined intransitive predicates patterninglike [A] and like [0] respectively. When enclosed in squarebrackets, [SA] and [So] designate the argumentsof SA and SO predicates.

SPLIT INTRANSITIVITY IN MOPAN

381

Most theorists, however (Dixon 1979; 1994, Klaiman 1991, and Verhaar 1990), accept that cases in which variation in the marking of [S] can be traced to morphological factors (such as the inflectional aspect of the intransitive clause) can continue to be regarded as instances of Split Ergativity. In these cases, since participant marking of intransitive predicates varies predictably with other inflectional morphology (which itself applies across all, most, or many intransitive predicates), there are no structural processes which either treat [A] exclusively like the [S] of some lexically and semantically consistent predicate class, or which treat [O] exclusively like the [S] of some other such class. In certain of the world's languages, however, variation in the markingof [S] is not conditioned by the construction in which the predicate appears, but is lexically specified in a way which is apparentlyrelated to the inherent semantics of the predicatesinvolved, especially with respect to the natureof the involvement of the single participantin the action which they denote (Chafe 1980, Durie 1987, Harris 1982, and Sapir 1917). These are the candidate Active-Inactive languages of the world. In these languages, a given intransitive predicate appears EITHER (1) only with case-role marking like that of [A] or only with case-role markinglike that of [O], OR(2) any change in case-role marking of [S] for a given predicate shows no morphological conditioning but instead results in a different reading of the clause with respect to the natureof the participant'sinvolvement (with respect, e.g., to issues of volition, control, causality, etc.) in the activity encoded in the predicate (see Holisky 1987 for extended discussion and exemplification of such a case). Dixon (1979; 1994) continues to characterizelanguages of this description as Split Ergative while giving them a distinct status in that category.4 Many theorists, however, follow Klimov (1974), who argues that a patternof "Active-Inactive" case marking exists in these languages which is quite distinct from that of either Nominative-Accusative or ErgativeAbsolutive marking (Dahlstrom 1983, DeLancey 1981; 1985, Durie 1988, Harris 1990, Klaiman 1991, Mithun 1991, and Verhaar1990). Although Active-Inactive status is ordinarily determined and demonstrated on structuralgrounds, a semantic motivation for the patterningobserved is, for most theorists, a crucial partof the phenomenon(Merlan 1985, Mithun 1991, Verhaar1990, and Van Valin 1990-although not for all, see Nichols 1990 and, perhaps, Perlmutter1978). The expectation is that a semantic parameteroperates in case-role-marking in these languages which reflects the nature of participantinvolvement in the event specified by the predicate, in some way which can be understood as analogous to the kinds of involvement characteristicof Transitive Actors (for [SA]) or of Transitive Undergoers (for [So]). Intransitive predicates patterning with [A] are 4For (1) above, Dixon uses the term "Split-S marking";for (2) above, "Fluid-S marking."

382


expected to be roughly those whose argumentstake some voluntary,initiatory, perhaps agentlike role, while predicates patterning with [0] are expected to be those denoting states or involuntaryresults, whose arguments take a more affected or "Stative" role. Klimov (1974:14) argues for separate recognition of Active-Inactive languages in the following terms: "instead of an opposition of transitive and intransitiveverbs, an opposition is presented here of active and stative verbs. Active verbs ... render various activities, motion, events (for example: 'to burn (tr)/ to burn (intr)','to make dry/ to become dry', 'to lay/ to lie down', 'to give a seat to/ to sit down', 'to place in a standing position/ to stand up', 'to lead/ to come' etc.). On the other hand the stative verbs ... signify some state or quality (for example: 'to be standing','to be red', 'to be pleasant',etc.)." This means that while documentation of lexically conditioned split intransitive structuralpatterningis certainly necessary to any demonstration of Active-Inactive status, such documentation is not by itself quite complete without parallel documentation of semantic patterning along the expected lines. Demonstration of such patterning may involve documenting the more purely structuralfact that individual predicates in a language split lexically, so that certain predicates (those with a more Active semantics) patternwith [A] while certain others (those with a more Stative semantics) pattern consistently with [O] (Dixon's "split-S marking").The demonstration may, however, also involve showing that the same lexical predicate takes case-role markinglike [A] under a semantically more active construal and patterning like [O] under a semantically more stative construal (Dixon's "fluid-S marking").Both types of demonstrationfor Mopan will be pursued here. 2.1. Outline of the argument. A brief sketch of the general patterns of case-role marking across the Yucatecan languages, largely based on the work of other scholars, is presented first. This is followed by the identification (also based on previous descriptions) of the three basic derivational classes of intransitive predicate roots found in all of the Yucatecan languages. The patterns of aspect inflection and case-role marking which have motivated a Split Ergative designation for this branch of the Mayan family are then demonstrated,with examples from the Yucatec language in particular.5

5The term "Yucatec" designates the more or less homogenous Mayan language variety which is spoken throughoutthe Yucatan peninsula and in Mexico and Northern Belize. The term "Yucatecan" designates the entire language subfamily to which Yucatec belongs and includes not only Yucatec itself but also Itzaj, Lacandon,and Mopan. The latter three varieties are spoken in the Pet6n regions of Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala.All four languages are mutually intelligible with one another.


383

Turningto Mopan, I show how the three intransitivepredicateroot classes of common Yucatecan show patternsof aspect inflection and of case-rolemarking that are quite different from those of Yucatec. As in Yucatec, the Mopan class containing semantically Stative (So) roots patternsexclusively like the TransitiveUndergoer.But in Mopan, in addition, the class containing semantically Active (SA) roots patterns exclusively like the Transitive Actor. It is only with respect to predicates in the third morphologically identified root class (containing roots which denote dynamic activity that results in a new state of affectedness for the single participant)that caserole-markingin Mopan is conditioned by inflectional morphology. In the section which then follows, consideration of Actor-only detransitivized constructions shows how, in Mopan but not in Yucatec, case-rolemarking like the Transitive Undergoer is prohibited from occurring where the single participantis the original Transitive Actor. Finally, in a detailed discussion of the formally identifiableclass of Mopan Positional predicates (two-placed state predicates of the type 'sit', 'lie', 'stand' which are potentially ambiguous as to their construal in terms of the nature of participant involvement in predicate action), the role of a dedicated morphology which specifically indexes the nature of participantinvolvement in predicate action in a particularutteranceis examined. This morphology and the resulting shifts in construal of participantinvolvement with respect to Stative and other construals of the same lexeme are clearly associated with selection of the Mopan case-role-markingpronoun. Stative reading of the Positional is in Mopan always accompanied by case-role-marking like that of [O]. Case-role-marking like that of the Transitive Actor cannot occur in this Mopan context, if the single participantis understood to have an Undergoer-like relation to the predicate action. Once again, this contrasts with Yucatec patterns. In conclusion, I argue that Mopan Maya, a little-described Mayan language exhibiting split intransitivityand long considered an example of the aspectually conditioned type of Split Ergative language, is instead one more example of a largely lexicosemantically conditioned case, characterizable as showing Active-Inactive structuraland semantic patterning. But separatetypological classification of Mopan and its sisters obscures the high degree of similarity among them. This similarity operates both at the level of case-role-markingstructuresand at the level of the predicate form-class semantics which underlie these structures. I therefore suggest that the effort to distinguish Split Ergative from Active-Inactive language types in cases of split intransitivity may in general be a misplaced one. These notions are better seen as points on a continuum of relative morphological as against relative lexical conditioning of case-role marking within a globally similar case-role-marking"type"probablybest characterizedsimply as that of Split Intransitivity.

384


3. Common Yucatecan case-role marking.6 All of the Yucatecan languages mark the case-role identity of predicate participants by means of two sets of verbal affix pronouns obligatorily affixed to the predicate (see figure 1). One of these, a set of largely prefixed pronouns (called "Set A" by Mayanists), marks the actor [A] of a transitive verb and also the possessor [POSS]of nouns. The other, a set of suffixed pronouns (called "Set B"), marks the Undergoer [O] of a transitive verb.7 Mopan: Transitive Incompletive (1) Tan u-jdtz'-ik-en! DUR 3A-beat-TR

INC-lB

'He's hitting me!' Mopan: Transitive Completive (2) In-wuy-aj-e'ex. 1A-hear-TR

CMP--2B PL

'I heard you (pl.)'. Mopan: Transitive Subjunctive (3) Ko'ox in-wichn-es-0-ech. HORT

1A-bathe-CAUS-TR

SUBJ-2B

'Let's go and I'll bathe you'. 6For further general documentation of Yucatec predication, the reader is referred to Bricker (1981a), Lehmann (1993), Lucy (1994), and Straight (1976). For Itzaj, refer to Hofling (1982; 1991; 1994). For Lacandon, Bruce (1968) is one of the few available sources. The present description of Mopan may be supplemented with reference to Danziger (1994), Ulrich and Ulrich (1976), and Ulrich, Ulrich, and Peck (1984). 7 The morpheme glosses that accompany Mopan examples are my own, as are any English renditions for glosses originally provided in Spanish by other scholars. In the text, Mopan terms are italicized, free glosses are enclosed in single quotation marks and morphemic glosses in square brackets. Orthographyfor Yucatec examples is as it appears in the source from which the example is drawn. Although Mopan is spoken in Belize as well as in Guatemala, and although my data come from Belize, I use the orthographyfor Mopan which is recommended by the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (see England and Elliot 1990:viii). Vowel harmonyis indicated with a capital V It is worth noting, for purposes of comparison, that because of differences in orthographicconventions, the Mopan sound which is renderedwith the letterj is equivalent to the Yucatec one which is renderedwith the letter h. In example glosses, the following abbreviations are used: A = A pronoun, B = B pronoun, CAUS = Causative, CL = Classifier, CMP = Completive, CONJ = Conjunction, CTN = Caution, DET = Determiner, DUR = Durative, DX = Deictic, F = Feminine, FOC= Focus, HAB = Habitual, HORT = Hortative, IMP = Imperative, INC = Incompletive, INCH = Inchoative, INT = Intensifier, INTERROG = Interrogative, INTR = Intransitive, M = Masculine, MAN = Manner, N = Neuter, NOM= Nominalizer, PL= Plural, POS= Positional, POSS= Possessive, PREP= General Preposition, QUOT= Quotative, R = Realis, s = Stativizer, SUBJ = Subjunctive, TR = Transitive; 1 =

first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person.


1 2 3 1 PL 2 PL 3 PL

A [Transitive Actor] inauti(-o'on)

385

B [Transitive Undergoer] -en -ech -0; -ij; -V'

a-

(-e'ex)

-o'on -e'ex

u-

(-00')

-00

FIG. 1.-Pronoun predicate affixes in Mopan. Similar patterns occur in Yucatec, Itzaj, and Lacandon.

Figure 1 summarizes the person forms of the two pronoun series in Mopan. The patternsin Yucatec, Lacandon, and Itzaj are in all relevant respects extremely similar. 3.1. Case-role marking in Yucatecan intransitives. In Yucatecan intransitive predicates, one or the other of the two case-role-markingpronouns appears. Where Yucatecan intransitive predicates are morphologically inflected for aspect, appearance of the Set A [Transitive Actor] or the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun varies with the inflection. Three inflections in paradigmaticalternationwill concern us here: The "Incompletive" [INC]aspect indicates ongoing or unfolding action. The "Completive" [CMP]aspect indicates that the predicateaction has been completed. Finally, the "Subjunctive" [SUBJ]inflection indicates irrealis time and is used, for example, in subordinateclauses and with negation. Because of variation among the languages it is not possible to give a general summaryof the aspect morphology of common Yucatecan. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that, in all of the Yucatecan languages, the single argument of the intransitive predicate [S] is indicated with the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronounif the predicatehas incomplete inflection, and with the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun if it has completive or subjunctive inflection. All of the Yucatecan languages, however, also exhibit some single-participantpredicate forms which are never inflected for aspect. Appearanceof the case-role-markingpronouncan in these cases be considered to be lexically conditioned. A major portion of this paper involves the description of differences between Mopan and Yucatec, in the natureand occurrence of inflectional morphology in the aspect paradigm. 3.1.1. Three classes of intransitive roots in Yucatecan. The intransitive roots of Yucatecan can readily be divided into three basic formclasses according to their morphology under transitivization. Each of the three classes thus defined also shows distinct patterns of aspect inflection (cf. Bricker 1981a and Hofling 1982:181; 1991:31-32; see especially

386

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS

Lucy 1994 and Straight 1976 for fuller development of the type of analysis which now follows). A pronounced semantic coherence can be noted within and among these classes of Yucatecan intransitive roots. Although the three classes are defined on strictly formal grounds, the appropriatenessof their membership to characterizationin terms of cross-linguistically attested semantic classes which have elsewhere been associated with Active-Inactive patterning(Van Valin 1990) is striking. A first class of Yucatecan intransitive predicates (e.g., Mopan saak'be afraid, fear', chdk- 'be red', tin- 'sit', xon- 'kneel') transitivizes with the inchoative-causative marker/-kunt/ or /-kint/ (the phonological alternation between these variants is conditioned by the vowel of the predicate stem). A second class (e.g., Mopan tal- 'come', tik- 'dry out', em- 'descend') takes the causative transitivizer /-(e)s/. The third class of Yucatecan intransitive predicates (e.g., Mopan alka- 'run',siit' 'jump',che'ej, 'laugh')takes the simple transitivizer/-t/. 3.1.1.1. State semantics in Yucatecan /-kunt; -kint/ [inchoative causative] transitivizers. The class of Yucatecan intransitive roots transitivizing in /-kunt/ or /-kint/ is composed of predicates denoting qualities or states of affairs. They can be likened to Vendlerian State predicates or to Klimov's Statives. These STATIVE roots represent a large number of intransitive roots in the languages, since the class includes adjectival and nominal predicates. A partial list of Mopan forms in this class appears in Appendix A. 3.1.1.2. Change-of-state semantics in Yucatecan /-(e)s/ [causative] transitivizers. In general, those Yucatecan roots which transitivize in causative /-(e)s/ can be understood to denote actions which are not necessarily under the voluntary control of the participant(Foley and Van Valin 1984:53 and Perlmutter1978) and in which the denoted (incompletive) action results in a new (nonincompletive) state for the participant(see Lyons 1977 and Talmy 1985:87). The state of the participantduring the action is different from the state of the participantafter the action is completed. The members of this class can be semantically likened to VendlerianAchievement predicates (Dowty 1979, Foley and Van Valin 1984, Lehmann 1993, Van Valin 1990, and Vendler 1967) in that they incorporate features both of Activity and of State predicates.The membersof this class are similar to those which, in other languages and under other analyses, have been called "unaccusative" predicates (Perlmutter 1978). In an effort to capture the quintessential "change-of-state"element of the semantics of this class, I refer to its Mopan members henceforth as the MUTATIVE predicates. A partial list of Mopan forms in this class appears in Appendix B.


Predicate Type Stative [or "State"] Mutative [or "Achievement," "Unaccusative"] Active [or "Agentive," "Activity,""Unergative"]

387

Transitivizing Morphology -kunt; -kint -(e)s

-t

FIG.2.-Intransitive predicate root classes of Yucatecan: the morphology of transitive derivation.

3.1.1.3. Active semantics in Yucatecan /-t/ [simple] transitivizers. Those Yucatecan roots which transitivize in /-t/ express action to which the single participanthas an active, effecting, initiatory, volitional, or controlling relationship. As will be apparentfrom inspection of the partial list of Mopan predicates in this class which is provided in Appendix C, they might easily be characterized as "Agentive" predicates, as this term is often used in discussions of Active-Inactive patterning(Merlan 1985 and Mithun 1991). Equally, they might be termed "Activity predicates"(Dowty 1979, Foley and Van Valin 1984, Lehmann 1993, Van Valin 1990, and Vendler 1967). In yet another terminology, these might be called predicates of the "unergative"type (Perlmutter1978). I refer to the Mopan forms in this class simply as the ACTIVE predicates of the language. the 2 summarizes description above, which holds for all of the Figure Yucatecan languages. In the next section, I discuss the morphology of aspect inflection of each of these root classes, as it appears in the Yucatec language in particular, and as it relates to case-role marking. Later in the paper, I compare the aspect inflection and case-role-marking paradigms of Yucatec with those of Mopan and consider the implications of their differences for case-role-marking typology. 4. Aspect inflection and case-role marking in Yucatec intransitive roots. 4.1. Aspect inflection and case-role marking of Yucatec Stative roots. When Yucatec Stative predicates appearas bare root forms, they are uninflected for aspect and their case-role marking is always indicated by

388


the Set B pronoun.8 Because they lack the inflectional possibilities displayed by other, more verblike, predicates in Yucatec, root Statives are regarded by many analysts (e.g., Lucy 1994:644) as less than full predicate roots. Nevertheless, where they function as main predicates, they do occur with a case-role-markingpronoun, and they therefore constitute part of our currentuniverse of description.9 Yucatec: Stative Root (after Lehmann 1993:211) (4) K'oha'n-en. sick- B 'I am sick'. Yucatec: Stative Root (after Lehmann 1993:211) (5) Wi'h-en. hungry-IB 'I'm hungry'. 4.2. Aspect inflection and case-role marking of Yucatec Mutative roots. The Yucatec roots in this class occur with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun when they are inflected for Incompletive aspect, and with the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun under other inflections. Straight (1976) and Lucy (1994) note that in Yucatec, forms in this class take overt aspectual marking when they appearwith the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun (i.e., in the incompletive) and zero (unmarked) aspectual inflection when they appear with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun in the completive.10 Yucatec: Mutative Incompletive (after Bricker 1981a:viii)1 (6) Tdan k-hook'-ol. DUR IA

PL-leave-INC

'We are leaving'. 8 The reflex of completive aspect in intransitives is the realization of the third singular form of the Set B (Transitive Undergoer) pronoun as /-ij/ rather than as zero (Bricker 1986:23 and Verbeeck 1992). The /-ij/ form is not found with underived Stative roots in any Yucatecan language. 9 In addition, as we shall see, lack of aspect inflection of the cognate forms in Mopan constitutes a crucial part of the similarity between Stative and Active intransitive roots, upon which the current argument in large part rests (see figure 4). 10 Straight (1976) and Lucy (1994) present convincing evidence, which, if applied to Mopan, would indicate that the predicates here called root Mutatives have their primarysemantic affinity with a stative construal of their single argument. 1IThe form of the Yucatec first-person plural pronoun of the Set A series is /k-/. See Bricker (198la:vii).


389

Yucatec: Mutative Completive (after Bricker 1981a:viii) (7) Hdok'-O-o'on. leave-CMP-1B PL 'We left'. Yucatec: Mutative Subjunctive (after Bricker 1981a:viii) (8) Kd'ah hook'-ok-o'on. CONJ

leave-suBJ-1B

PL

'We might leave'. 4.3. Aspect inflection and case-role marking in Yucatec Active roots. In Yucatec, roots of this kind occur with the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronounwhen they are inflected for incompletive aspect, and with the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun under other inflections. The marking relations between aspect and case-role in this form-class are complementaryto those shown by the Mutative roots. Straight (1976) and Lucy (1994) have shown that Yucatec predicates in what is here called the Active intransitive root class are morphologically unmarkedwhen they occur with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun and marked when they occur with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun. A suffix /-n/ accomplishes this marking function. The suffix appearsimmediately preceding the relevant aspect morphology, whenever an Active intransitive root in Yucatec takes participant marking with the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun. Yucatec: Active Incompletive (after Bricker 1981a:xiii) (9) Tdan in-tz'fib'W-. DUR

1A-write-INTR

INC

'I am writing'. Yucatec: Active Completive (after Bricker 1981a:xiii) (10) Tz'iib'-n-ah-en. write-MARKED

PRONOUN-INTR

COMP-1 B

'I wrote'. Yucatec: Active Subjunctive (after Bricker 1981a:xiii) (11) Kd'ah tz'fib'-n-ak-en. CONJ

write-MARKED

PRONOUN-INTR

SUBJ- IB

'I might write'. Figure 3 summarizes the inflectional morphology just outlined, as it is distributedamong the types of Yucatec intransitive roots, classified on the basis of their morphology of transitivization.

390


Derive Transitive Stative

-kunt; -kint

Mutative

-(e)s

Active

-t

Inflect INC

Inflect CMP

-Vi

-0

Inflect SUBJ

+B -ak

+A

+B

+B

+A

-n-ah +B

-n-ak +B

-0

FIG.3.-Inflections of Yucatec intransitivepredicateroots. The associatedcase-role-marking pronounset (+A [TransitiveActor] or +B [TransitiveUndergoer])is indicated. Similarpatterns occur in Itzaj and Lacandon.

4.4. Characterizing Yucatec case-role marking. On the basis of the case-role-markingpatternsexhibited by the two form-classes of Active and of Mutative Yucatec roots, the Yucatec language can be characterizedas Split Ergative, with selection of the case-role-markingpronounconditioned by inflectional aspect. Straight (1976) and Lucy (1994), however, have shown how case-role marking and aspect inflection in Yucatec are intimately entwined, such that pronoun selection in many Yucatec predicates covertly reflects participant-relatedfeatures of inherent predicate semantics (see also DeLancey 1985:49) as well as mere morphological aspect. Through the complementarymarkednessrelations obtaining between these two classes of aspect-inflected intransitive predicates, incompletive aspect is allied with what are here called semantically Active characteristics of predicate-argument relations; and completive aspect is allied with what are here called Stative characteristics.On this basis, Straight (1976) in fact presented an alternative to the prevailing typological view and suggested that Yucatec should be characterizedas an Active-Inactive language. We note also that a minimum structuralrequirementfor Active-Inactive characterizationis in fact met in the Stative predicate roots of common Yucatecan. Strictly speaking, these predicates represent a class of true SO predicates-inflecting always and exclusively like the Transitive Undergoer. The case-role-markingprocess which characterizes the Stative roots as a class, however, is not-in Yucatec, Lacandon, or Itzaj-itself exclusive to the markingof [0] and [So]. In these languages the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun can and does occur on semantically nonstative intransitiveroots (such as 'jump'or 'fly'), when conditioned by completive or subjunctive inflectional marking and when marked by the /-n/ morpheme. Stated another way, no Yucatecan language has to date been de-


391

scribed as possessing a class of true SA predicates, inflecting exclusively with the Set A (TransitiveActor) pronoun. In the strictest sense, then, it remains superfluous to invoke any factor other than morphological conditioning to account for pronoun selection in Yucatec. The simplest statement of the rule governing selection of the case-role-markingpronoun in the intransitive in Yucatec is to specify "select Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun in the Incompletive; select Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun elsewhere." The description of common Yucatecan case-role-markingpatterns to this point continues to warrantat least under a conservative analysis-a characterizationas "aspectually conditioned Split Ergativity."12It seems clear that, although semantic factors which in other language families function to govern Active-Inactive patterning are clearly present in Yucatec, they cannot be said actually to "condition"case-role-markingpronoun selection in this language. 5. Aspect inflection and case-role marking in Mopan intransitive roots. In direct contrast to the Yucatec case, a distinct structuralclass of semantically appropriateSA intransitiveroots indeed exists in Mopan. This class of roots inflects exclusively with the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun. The kinds of semantic factors relevant to the nature of participant involvement, which function only covertly and in concert with morphological aspect to affect case-role pronoun selection in Yucatec, also function independently of aspect, and on the basis of lexical encoding, in Mopan. The structuralfacts of case-role-markingpronoun selection cannot therefore, in this language, alone among its sisters, be accounted for purely with reference to morphological aspect. In order to demonstratethis, we document first the areas of case-role-markingsimilarity between Mopan and Yucatec. 5.1. Aspect inflection and case-role marking of Mopan Stative roots: like Yucatec. As in Yucatec, Stative roots in Mopan are not inflected for aspect and appear only with the Set B (Transitive Undergoer) pronoun. (Again, as in Yucatec, the same roots may be inflected with inchoative aspectual suffixes, in which case they inflect with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun in the incompletive aspect, and with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun elsewhere.) Mopan: Stative Root a suuk-u! (12) Sak'-O be

itchy-3B

DET

N grass-FOC

'The grass is itchy!' 12From the

perspective of DeLancey (1981), we would prefer the characterization"aspectually conditioned Split Intransitivity."

392


Mopan: Stative Root (13) "Top nene'-en" INT be_small-IB

kut'an. QUOT "'I'm too small," he said'.

Mopan: Stative Root u (14) Yaab'-oo' yal' be many-3B P1 3A[Poss] child-of-woman 'She has many children' (Lit., 'Her children are many'). 5.2. Aspect inflection and case-role marking of Mopan Mutative roots: like Yucatec. In Mopan, as in Yucatec, roots in this derivational class inflect with the Set A (Transitive Actor) pronoun in the incompletive aspect, and with the Set B (TransitiveUndergoer) pronoun elsewhere. Mopan: Mutative Incompletive ti alka' a winik-i. (15) Tan u-jok'-ol DUR

3A-exit-INTR

INC

PREP

run

N

DET

man-FOC

'The man is coming out at a run'. Mopan: Mutative Incompletive u-nak'-dl. (16) Walak-oo' PL 3A-ascend-INTR

HAB-3B

INC

'They always climb up'. Mopan: Mutative Incompletive (17) Waye' walak ti-tal-el. here

HAB

1A

PL-come-INTR

INC

'We always come here'. Mopan: Mutative Completive (18) Jok'-0-ij exit-INTR

CMP-3B

jun CMP one

tuul

noxi

animate CL large

ayin. alligator

'An enormous alligator came out'. Mopan: Mutative Completive (19) Man-O-e'ex pass-INTR CMP-2B

waj ti P1 Q

jaj

tilo'-jij?

PREP true there

3

'Did you (pl.) really go by there?' Mopan: Mutative Completive t-u-wich (20) Nak'-O-ij ascend-INTR_CMP-3B

CMP PREP-3A

'He climbed up onto a stone'.

visible-Foc

tunich. Poss-face

stone

393


Mopan: Mutative Subjunctive tal-ak-ech (21) Ka' CONJ come-INTR

tukaye'.

SUBJ-2B

again

'You should come back again'. Mopan: Mutative Subjunctive tal-ak-0 (22) B'ik CTN

come-INTR

a

SUBJ-3B

b'aalche'.

DET

N

animal

'Be careful that animals don't come'. Mopan: Mutative Subjunctive (23) K'och-ok-o'on arrive there-INTR SUBJ-I 1B

PL

toj already

ich in

naj.... house

'When/if we get home .. .'. 5.3. Aspect inflection and case-role marking in Mopan Active roots: a class of SA predicates in Mopan. In striking contrast to the situation in Yucatec, Itzaj, and Lacandon, in Mopan, semantically Active, /-t/ transitivizing intransitive predicates never occur with any morphological marking for completive or for subjunctive inflection. No markingconstruction analogous to the Yucatec constructions shown in examples (10) and (11) exists in Mopan for allowing these Mopan forms to occur with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun. They are markedfor case-role always and exclusively with the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun. The semantically Active, /-t/ transitivizingpredicatesof Mopan thereforeconstitute, alone among the Yucatecan languages, a class of true SA predicates. 5.3.1. Incompletive aspect inflection in Mopan Active roots. In the Active intransitive roots of Yucatec, incompletive aspect is marked with a zero suffix. Since, in Mopan, no inflection for completive and subjunctive is found on this class of roots, the /-0/ of Yucatec incompletive aspect inflection can contrastin Mopan with no other inflection. It collapses in this language thereforeto mere absence of marking.In short, no morphological inflection for any aspect occurs on Active intransitiveroots in Mopan. Mopan: Active with "Incompletive" Contour u-cha'an ich ch'e'en. (24) Tan DUR

3A-look

in

hole

'He's looking into the hole'. Mopan: Active with "Incompletive" Contour jab'ix tan tz'ub'-u, (25) A DET_N

child-Foc

like

DUR

'The child, seems like he's yelling'.

u-yawat. 3A-yell

394

INTERNATIONAl.

JOIJRNAI

Derive Transitive Stative Mutative Active

OF AMERICAN

Inflect INC

Inflect CMP

-kunt; -kint -(e)s

LINGUISTICS

Inflect SUBJ

+B -Vl +A

-0 +B

-ak +B

-t +A

FIG.4.-Inflections of Mopan intransitivepredicateroots. The associated case-role-marking pronoun set (+A [TransitiveActor] or +B [TransitiveUndergoer]) is indicated.

This fact creates a parallel between Active and Stative roots in Mopan. Like the Stative roots, the Active roots of Mopan take no inflectional aspect, and selection of the case-role-markingpronoun is, for both classes, purely lexically conditioned. Figure 4 summarizesthe aspect inflection and case-role-markingpatterns of Mopan intransitive predicates discussed in this section. A comparison with figure 3 makes clear the differences from Yucatec which constitute the currentargument.In Mopan, but not in Yucatec, Active semantic roots take no aspect inflection. Selection of the case-role-markingpronoun does not, in the case of these Mopan intransitiveroots, exhibit a split conditioned by morphology. Instead, it is purely lexically conditioned. 5.3.2. Temporal modulation of Mopan Active intransitive roots. In the absence of morphological aspect inflection on Mopan Active intransitive roots, it is worth pausing to inquire how temporal modulation is expressed on this class of forms. Where a completive or a subjunctivereading is desired for one of these predicates,Mopan makes use of analytic and not of morphological means to achieve it. To express temporalmodulations of the action encoded in an SA root in Mopan, the root appears as a nominal, which plays the syntactic role of argument to a Stative or Mutative (therefore Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] inflectable) main verb. The participant of the SA predicate is renderedas Possessor, in a construction which preserves its representation with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun (Danziger 1990; 1993).13 13Recall that the Set A pronoun marks the Possessor of nominals as well as the transitive Actor. Temporalcontour may also be expressed in these and other Mopan predicates through subordinationto the general preposition (cf. Hofling 1984). This construction avoids altogether pronoun case-role marking on the subordinatedform. Like the Active predicates, Mutative predicates may also occur in these subordinatednominal constructionsin Mopan.

395


Mopan: Active with "Completive" Contour in-lox (26) Uch-0-ij Occur-INTR CMP-3B

CMP 1A-fight

'I fought' (Lit., 'My fighting happened'). Mopan: Active with "Completive" Contour (27) Job'-0-ij u-xej finish-INTR_CMP-3B

a

CMP 3A-vomit

DET

tz'ub'. N

child

'The child stopped vomiting' (Lit., 'The child's vomiting finished'). Mopan: Active with 'Subjunctive'Contour a-siit'. uch-uk-0 (28) ... ka' ...

CONJ occur-INTR

SUBJ-3B

2A-jump

'. .. that you should jump' (Lit., 'that your jumping should happen'). 5.3.3. A note on nominalization. It is not unusual in the Mayan languages for verbs to nominalize in certain syntactic circumstances, and for case-role-marking patterns to reflect this. The Yucatecan languages are no exception, and it even seems clear that it was in the context of possessed nominal usage, similar to that which has just been exemplified in Mopan, that the distinctive "Split" in common Yucatecan case-role-marking patterns first arose historically (Bricker 1981b and Robertson 1992).14 In the context of the Mayan, and especially the Yucatecan, tendency to nominalize, it is perhaps necessary to emphasize once again the more unusual features of the Mopan case. Put simply, the fact most to be emphasized about the appearanceof Mopan Active intransitiveroots as nominals is that these are not optional or exceptional constructions, functioning as

alternatives to other means in the language for expressing temporal modulations on the Active semantic forms. In Mopan, as against other Mayan languages, there simply is no way, other than through the use of analytic constructions of the type illustrated, to express temporal modulations on

the Active semantic forms. This fact is noteworthy in the context of the current argument to the extent that it underlines the fact that there exists in Mopan no inflectional morphology whatever which licenses the 14It would be possible to analyze all of the set A [Transitive Actor] marked intransitive forms of Mopan as nominals (see Lehmann 1993). This analysis of Mopan is certainly a coherentone, and it has some appeal. Under such an analysis, Mopan would be seen to have come full circle back to the full ergativity of the non-Yucatecan Mayan languages, since all intransitive forms which are markedwith the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronounwould be analyzed as syntactic nouns. But the stock of intransitiveverbs in the language thus analyzed would be unusually limited, since all Active semantic functions, as well as those of the Mutative predicates under incompletive temporal contour, would be accomplished by syntactic nouns.

396


occurrenceof the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronounwith an Active Intransitive root. 5.4. Characterizing Mopan case-role marking. Among the Mopan intransitive roots, only the Mutatives, with their semantics denoting ongoing activity in the incompletive, and leading to a change of state for the participant, are susceptible to inflectional expression in terms of degrees of completedness and realization (Dowty 1979:133-39). Only these, consequently, can be said to show a switch of case-role-markingpronoun on the basis of such inflection. In Mopan, as in Yucatec, however, the inflectional and caserole-marking patterns seen on Mutative roots also characterize many derived forms (e.g., Inchoatives formed on Stative roots, and the Passive and Middle detransitivizedconstructions).The occurrence,in a significant number of Mopan predicates, of a case-role-markingpatternin which selection of the pronoun is indeed based on aspect inflection cannot be denied and should not be underestimated. In general, however, because the Mopan Active intransitive roots take no morphological inflection for aspect, the appearanceof such inflection in intransitives is clearly sharply reduced in this language when compared to the others of the Yucatecan branchof the Mayan family. Consequently,the importance of morphological aspect inflection as a conditioning factor in case-role-markingselection is also reduced. In determining choice of case-role-marking pronoun in Mopan, before one can ask "which aspect?"one must ask "whetheraspect?"at all. The degree of completedness of the denoted action can be a factor in Mopan pronoun selection only where the action is semantically susceptible to variation in completion and incompletion-that is, within the class of Mutative roots. For non-Mutatives, another semantic factor is relevant-that of the nature of the involvement of the participantin the action specified by the predicate. Semantically Active roots (having a high degree of energetic involvement of the participant in the action specified by the predicate) take the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun. Semantically Stative roots (having little energetic involvement of the participantin the action specified by the predicate) take the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun. By virtue of the contrastin occurrence of the case-role-markingpronoun between Stative (So) and Active (SA) predicates in Mopan, the SO predicates cease in this language to be a uniform residual or "elsewhere" class, optionally specifiable in the context of a general rule about conditioning by aspect. In general, it becomes clear that, for the purposes of case-role-marking pronounselection in Mopan intransitiveroots, the question of predicate class assignment (a matter of the semantic nature of participantinvolvement in predicate action) must be resolved before aspect conditioning can come into play.


397

Contrary to the pattern found in the other three languages of the family, then, case-role marking of many intransitive roots in Mopan cannot be said to be conditioned by morphological aspect. Instead, such roots uniquely select one or the other of the case-role-markingpronouns in a patternthat reproduces the cross-linguistically attested contrast between lexical States, having Undergoer-only,and lexical Activities, having Actor-only arguments (Mithun 1991). This pattern of occurrence makes possible the claim that there is an Active-Inactive patternof case-role markingin Mopan. 6. Detransitives. The proposal that pronoun selection in Mopan intransitives is often based on matching the inherent semantics of pronoun and predicate, rather than purely on morphological conditioning, may be further investigated throughexamination of detransitiveconstructions. In certain Yucatec detransitiveconstructions, only the original transitive Actor is preserved, and morphological conditioning by aspect contradicts the pronoun selection predicted by Active participantsemantics. What happens in Mopan in such cases?15 6.1. Aspect inflection and case-role marking in Yucatec Actor-only detransitives. The /-n/ morph, which in Yucatec, Itzaj, and Lacandon marksappearanceof the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer]pronounwith /-t/ transitivizing, semantically Active intransitive roots (see figure 3), also plays a role in these languages, in the so-called Antipassive (Bricker 1981a) detransitivizing process which preserves only the original TransitiveActor as the single participant. In Yucatec, the detransitivized Antipassive (Actor-only) verb stem is distinct from the intransitive (Bricker 1978; 1981a) in displaying a falling tone in the root vowel. The Yucatec Antipassive detransitive thus displays a morphological marker which distinguishes it from the other Yucatec forms which take /-n/ (i.e., intransitiveroots of the Active type). The Antipassive stem is, in these three languages, inflectable for aspect, and it follows the general rules of morphological conditioning of pronoun selection. The suffix /-n/ appears in the completive and subjunctive, followed by the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun (Bricker 1978; 1981a

151do not undertakehere a full consideration of all forms of detransitivizationin Mopan. However, it is of interest to the currentargumentto note that Mopan detransitiveconstructions cognate to the Yucatec "Middle" voice (Bricker 1981a), which assign qualities of volition or control to [O] as the single participantof the detransitive, regularly accept inflection with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun in the incompletive (Danziger 1990). Mopan Passive constructions, however, which assign no such Agentive qualities to [O], often resist markingwith the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun and may appear in the incompletive without any caserole marking at all (Danziger 1993 and Ulrich, Ulrich, and Peck 1984:47).

398


and Hofling 1982), where it once again indicates a marked occurrence (cf. Lucy 1994). Yucatec: Actor-Only Detransitive, Incompletive (after Bricker 1981a:xi) in-heek'-O. (29) k HAB

1 A-break

ANTIP-INTR

INC

'I break' (cf. TRhek'- 'break'). Yucatec: Actor-Only Detransitive, Completive (after Bricker 1981a:xi) (30) Heek'-n-ah-en. break

ANTIP-MARKED

PRONOUN-INTR

CMP-1 B

'I broke' (cf. TRhek'- 'break'). Yucatec: Actor-Only Detransitive, Subjunctive (after Bricker 1981a:xi) (31) Kd'ah heek'-n-ak-en CONJ

break

ANTIP-MARKED

PRONOUN-INTR

SUBJ-1B

'I might break' (cf. TRhek'- 'break'). 6.2. Aspect inflection and case-role marking in Mopan Actor-only detransitives. Mopan (similar in this respect to Itzaj and Lacandon)makes no distinctions of tone, and it can thereforebe difficult to distinguish Antipassive detransitivesfrom root intransitives in this language.16 In the case of the Yucatec neutral vowel /a/, however, distinctions corresponding to those between Yucatec neutral and falling tone are exceptionally preserved in Mopan (Fisher 1976). Yucatec falling tone /aa/ corresponds to Mopan short /a/, while Yucatec neutral /a/ corresponds to the Mopan mid-centralvowel /l/. Many Mopan transitives with root vowel in /-a-/ have correspondingintransitives in /-a-/ (Ulrich, Ulrich, and Peck 1986:22). Mopan: Transitive in aros. (32) Tan in-pdk'-ik-0 DUR

1A-plant-TR

INC-3B

1A[POSS]

rice

'I'm planting my rice'. Mopan: Intransitive (33) Tan in-pak'. DUR

1A-plant

'I'm planting'. 16In losing distinctions of tone, Mopan has lost the possibility of distinguishing intransitive from detransitive forms within the group of predicates showing Agentive semantics (the /-t/ transitivizingintransitivesand the root transitives). De-emphasis of the transitive/ intransitive distinction in favor of the Active/ Stative distinction is one of the original hallmarks of Active-Inactive patterningas cited by Klimov (1974:14).

399


On the basis of this evidence, we can conclude that the Mopan intransitive with root vowel in /-a-/, which has a correspondingtransitiveform with root vowel in /-a-/, descends from an Actor-preservingdetransitive and is cognate with the Yucatec falling tone Antipassive stem. No Antipassive suffix (/-n/ or other) appearson these forms or on any other in spontaneousMopan speech. Explicit questioning and prompting with sample sentences on the Yucatec model has also consistently failed to elicit such a form. Although a detransitivestem cognate with the Antipassive stem of the other Yucatecan languages can be identified in Mopan, Mopan does not make use of an Antipassive voice on the general Yucatecan or, indeed, the pan-Mayan model (Dayley 1981).17 Once again, temporal contour is expressed through possessed nominals which play the syntactic role of argumentto a Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] inflectable main predicate. Mopan: Actor-Only Detransitive Cognate, "Completive" Contour (34) Uch-0-ij in-pak'. occur-INTR

CMP-3B

1A-plant

DETR

'I did (some) planting' (cf. TRpak'- 'plant'). Mopan: Actor-Only Detransitive Cognate, "Subjunctive"Contour uch-uk-0 (35) ... ka' a-pay. ..

CONJ

Occur-INTR

SUBJ-3B

2A-call

out

DETR

'... that you should call out' (Lit., '. . . that your calling out should occur') (cf. TRpay- 'call someone'). No process of voice change exists in this language to allow the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun to represent the original Transitive Actor. The Set B pronoun in Mopan is exclusive to the rendering of the Transitive Undergoer [O] of the single participantof Stative predicates [So], and to the nonincompletive reading of aspect-inflected (Mutative) intransitive predicates. 7. Semantic conditioning. Having established that separate and structurally identifiable individual predicate root classes which pattern exclusively like [0] and like [A] exist in Mopan, we have documented the existence of something that might legitimately be called lexical ActiveInactive patterning at the level of individual predicates (Dixon's split-S marking). We have also seen that the Mopan Transitive Actor cannot be 17 Cross-linguistically, the absence of an antipassive with verbs having Activity-like semantics is perhaps not unusual. In the Mayan context, however, and given the existence of close cognate forms which do make such a voice distinction, its absence in Mopan is worthy of note.

400

INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN

LINGUISTICS

rendered by the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun in detransitive constructions,although this is possible in Yucatec, Itzaj, and Lacandon.We now turn to the description of certain Mopan morphological structures which index the construalof participantinvolvement in the action specified by the SAME intransitivepredicate, along semantically Active-Stative lines. In endeavoring to illustrate the difference he was trying to draw between "Active" and "Stative" predicates, Klimov (1974:14) did not rely only on examples exploiting the semantic differences between distinct predicates (such as the difference, e.g., between 'to burn (TR/INTR)' [Active] and 'to be pleasant'[Stative]). He also contraststhe semantic differencesbetween predicate constructionsinvolving the same lexeme, which differ only in the construal of the nature of the involvement of the participant(s)in the action specified. Thus, he contrasts'to place in a standingposition/ to standup' [Active] with 'to be standing' [Stative]. In predicates like English stand, a property Talmy (1976:46) has called "internalself-agency" leads to a fundamentalambiguity of construalpossibilities when the predicate appears with only a single participant.It is this ambiguity which Klimov exploits in his exposition. The single participant of such a predicate may function semantically either in a dynamic, causal, initiatory, and controlling way ('to assume a standing position'), or it may function semantically in a stative and affected way ('to be in a standing position'). In English, for example, an ambiguity exists in expressions like I am standing or she is sitting about whether the participantis to be understood as having an Active (assuming the position) or a Stative (being in the position) role with respect to the action expressed. However, we expect that in a language showing Active-Inactive semantic patterning, no such ambiguity will exist, and that the difference between Active and Stative relationships of argumentto predicatewill be faithfully distinguished, even in potentially ambiguous cases like these. 7.1. Yucatecan Positional predicates. All of the Yucatecan languages boast a special form-class of intransitive "Positional"predicates which are inflected for aspect and which show switch of case-marking pronoun on this basis. Notionally, these "refer to physical states or positions such as standing, sitting, kneeling, hanging, lying down, leaning, bending, and bowing, thathumanbeings, animals, and inanimateobjects can assume"(Bricker 1981a:xvii). They are formally recognizable by their occurrence with the distinctive positional suffix /-1-/ [pos] in the completive and subjunctive (Bricker 1981a, Bruce 1968, and Hofling 1982; 1991). Positionals (e.g., Mopan ch'uy- 'hang',sttz' 'stretch')may have simple transitive counterparts in which the Actor and the Undergoer are semantically one and the same, making them ideal exemplars of Talmy's "internal self-agency" (cf. Dan-


401

ziger 1991). A partiallist of Mopan positional predicatescollected in Belize is provided in Appendix D. Like the root Statives, these verbs transitivize in /-kunt; -kint/. They never occur as single-participantpredicates in their bare root form, however. Instead, they appear with the aspectual suffixes which elsewhere derive Inchoative stems from Stative roots. Case-role-markingpatterns also follow those of Inchoative stems: The Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun occurs in the incompletive, and the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun occurs elsewhere.'8 Yucatec: Positional Incompletive (after Bricker 1981a:xlv) (36) Tdan in c'uy-tal DUR

IA

hang-INCH

INC

'I am hanging' > I am in a hanging position/I am getting into a hanging position. Yucatec: Positional Completive (after Bricker 1981a:xlv) (37) ('uy-l-ah-en hang-POS-CMP- B

'I hung' > I was in a hanging position/I have completed the act of getting into a hanging position. Yucatec: Positional Subjunctive (after Bricker 1981a:xlv) (38) Ka'ah c'uy-l-ak-en CONJ

hang-POS-SUBJ-1 B

'I might hang' > be in a hanging position/get into a hanging position. 7.2. Semantic construal of Yucatec positionals with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun: Active-Stative ambiguity. In Yucatec, the possibility of a Stative ('being in the position') reading of Positional predicates appearing with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun exists in addition to the possibility of an Active ('assuming the position') reading (Lehmann 1993:267). The argument for Active-Inactive patterning in that language is correspondingly weakened, since we expect semantically Active and Stative readings of the same predicate to be carefully distinguished under Active-Inactive patterning. 18 The status of the Positional root with respect to predicate form-class assignment is an interesting one. Both Stative and Inchoative forms of the Mopan Positional are derived, presumably from an original transitive form (Bricker 1981a and Danziger 1991). This form has, however, in many cases disappearedfrom the language in favor of anotherderived form-the transitivized one in /-kunt/ or /-kint/.

402


7.3. Semantic construal of Mopan positionals with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun: no Active-Stative ambiguity. In Mopan, by contrast, there is no possibility of a Stative reading of the Positional when it occurs with the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun. Stative and other construals of the Positional are distinguished from one another with dedicated morphology,and use of the semantically appropriatecase-role-markingpronoun always follows. The Stative reading of the Positional is morphologically indicated in Mopan by means of a suffix /-ka'al/ [pos s], which always appears with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun. This suffix produces a Stative form which contrasts with the now unambiguously non-Stative inchoative series, of which the incompletive form is inflected with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun.19 Mopan: Positional Stative (39) Tin-ka'al-en. sit-POS

S-IB

'I am/was sitting' > in a seated position. Mopan: Positional Stative (40) Xon-ka'al-ech. kneel-pos s-2B 'You are/were kneeling' > in a kneeling position. Mopan: Positional Stative (41) Koy-ka'al-0. lie-Pos

S-3B

'She is/was lying down' > in a lying-down position. The incompletive form of the Mopan Positional thus contrasts, with respect to pronounselection, not only with the other inchoative forms, on the basis of aspect inflection, but ALSOwith the Stative forms, on the basis of the semantics of participantinvolvement. Mopan: Positional, Inchoative Incompletive (42) Tan in-tin-tal. DUR

1A-Sit-INCH

INC

'I am sitting' > in the act of seating myself. 19Ulrich, Ulrich, and Peck (1984:36) identify the Mopan /-ka'al/ suffix but do not appearto recognize that it is unique to Positionals. Meanwhile, the /-ka'al/ Positional Stative suffix does not seem to appearin the other Yucatecan languages. A similar form, however, appearsin the Cholan positionals (Knowles 1984).


403

Mopan: Positional, Inchoative Completive (43) Tin-l-aj-en. Sit-POS-CMP-1B

'I was sitting' > in the act of seating myself. Mopan: Positional, Inchoative Incompletive (44) Tan a-xon-tal. DUR

2A-kneel-INCH

INC

'You are kneeling' > in the act of kneeling down. Mopan: Positional, Inchoative Completive (45) Xon-l-aj-ech. kneel-Pos-cMP-2B

'You were kneeling' > in the act of kneeling down. Mopan: Positional, Inchoative Incompletive (46) Tan u-koy-tal DUR

3A-lie-INCH

INC

'She is lying down' > in the act of lying down. Mopan: Positional, Inchoative Completive (47) Koy-l-aj-ij lie-POS-CMP-3B

CMP

'She was lying down' > in the act of lying down. By virtue of this contrast with the Stative form, the forms of the inchoative series always receive an aspectually modulated reading. This generalization crucially includes the (incompletive) form inflected with the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun, which now excludes any possible Stative reading. Even in occurrence with Positional predicates, therefore, the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun in Mopan is systematically excluded from conveying a semantically Stative construal. 7.3.1. The subjunctive of the Mopan Positional. For descriptive purposes, it is worth pausing here to note that the Mopan Stative Positional in /-ka'al/, like other Yucatecan Stative predicates, is free of any inflection which contrasts completive and incompletive aspect. Mopan Stative Positionals with /-ka'al/ may, however, take subjunctive inflection. Such inflection contrasts with subjunctiveinflection of the inchoative series formed on the same root. Since both uninflected Statives and forms inflected for the subjunctive uniformly take the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun, this fact does not affect the current argument. It does, however, suggest that the Mopan subjunctive would best be analyzed as belonging to a slightly different paradigmfrom that of the incompletive and completive aspects.

404

INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN

LINGUISTICS

Mopan: Positional Inchoative Subjunctive tin-l-ak-ech. ka' k'ati (48) In 1A

want

CONJ

sit-POS-SUBJ-2B

'I want you to sit' > telling someone to do it now. Mopan: Positional Stative Subjunctive ka' tin-ka'al-ak-ech. k'ati (49) In 1A

want

CONJ

sit-POS

S-SUBJ-2B

'I want you to be sitting' > e.g., the whole time we're out (instructing a child prior to departure). Mopan: Positional Inchoative Subjunctive k'ati ka' (50) In koy-l-ak-ech. want CONJ lie-POS-SUBJ-2B 1A 'I want you to lie down' > telling someone to do it now. Mopan: Positional Stative Subjunctive ka' k'ati (51) In koy-ka'al-ak-ech. 1A

want

CONJ

lie-pos

S-SUBJ-2B

'I want you to be lying down' > e.g., when the boss comes (if you told him you were sick). Mopan: Positional Inchoative Subjunctive ka' xon-l-ak-oo'. k'ati (52) In 1A

want

CONJ

kneel-Pos-suBJ-3B

PL

'I want them to kneel' > telling them to do it now. Mopan: Positional Stative Subjunctive ka' xon-ka'al-ak-oo'. k'ati (53) In 1A

want

CONJ

kneel-pos

S-SUBJ-3B_PL

'I want them to be kneeling' > e.g., already, by the time I get there.

Figures 5 and 6 summarizewhat has been said regardingPositional morphology in Yucatec and in Mopan. To return now to the main argument, recall that this section has shown how the Stative ('be-in-position')reading of potentially ambiguous, internal self-agency predicates such as those in the Yucatecan Positional class is compatible in Mopan only with the appearance of the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun. The language thus reliably encodes the Stative construalof the participantof ANYintransitivepredicate-including that of the inherently ambiguous positional-with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun. Switch of case-role-markingpatterningin the same lexeme is, in these Mopan Positional cases, directly related to the participant-relatedsemantics encoded in the contrast between the Positional Stativizer /-ka'al/

405


Active Construal Stative Construal

Inflect

Inflect

Inflect

INC

CMP

SUBJ

-tal

-l-ah

-I-ak +B

+A

+B

FIG.5.-Positional morphology and Active-Stative construal possibilities in Yucatec.

Active Construal Stative Construal

Inflect

Inflect

Inflect

INC

CMP

SUBJ

-tal

-l-ah

-l-ak +B

+A -ka'al

+B -ka'al-ak

+B

+B

FIG.6.-Positional morphology and Active-Stative construal possibilities in Mopan.

and the markers which derive a Mutative predicate susceptible to aspect inflection. Just as the examination of the Actor-only detransitives showed how the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun was excluded from representationof the original Transitive Actor, we see in this examination of the Mopan positional how the Set A [TransitiveActor] pronoun is excluded from representation of the Stative participant. In these cases, each of the Mopan case-role-markingpronounsdisplays some restrictionof function, such that they mark only that participantwhose relationshipto the predicate action is semantically appropriate. 8. Conclusions: Active or Ergative. In various parts of the world, the existence of Active-Inactive case-role markinghas only recently been recognized-languages showing such marking having been in the past routinely analyzed as Split Ergative (see, e.g., Harris 1982; 1990 and Hewitt 1987). This is hardly surprising,since many languages in fact show ActiveInactive patterns only in one part of their predicate system and conditioning by inflectional morphology, for example, in another.Nor (cf. DeLancey 1985 and Lucy 1994) are the notions involved in distinguishing semantically "Active" from semantically "Stative" predicates always very clearly different from the aspect or tense semantics, which, where they operate to

406


condition the marking of [S], universally assign it to the same category as [O] in the past or the completive (Dixon 1994). On the basis of the data considered here, I argue that Mopan Maya, long considered an example of the morphologically conditioned type of Split Ergative language, is one more example of such a typologically difficult case. Contraryto the patternfound in the other three languages of the Yucatecan family, the majorityof intransitiveroots in Mopan uniquely occur with one or the other of the case-role-marking pronouns. Although some very regular aspect conditioning of pronoun selection in intransitive roots is observable, it is restricted to the class of Mutative predicates which alone are inflected for temporal aspect. Most participantmarking of intransitive roots in Mopan is determined according to the participant-semanticsrelated lexical category of the root, and not according to morphological conditioning by aspect. Semantically Stative intransitive predicates are always marked like [O], while semantically Active intransitive predicates are always markedlike [A]. In addition, both sets of Mopan case-role-marking pronouns display a restriction of semantic function when compared to that of the cognate Yucatec forms. In Mopan Actor-only detransitives, case-role-markingwith the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun is not found. In addition, Stative construalof predicatesshowing "internalself-agency" (Positionalpredicates) are always distinguished from other possible construals, and the Stative construal is clearly associated with case-role markinglike [O]. To take full account of these structuralfacts of Mopan, an analysis in which selection of the intransitivecase-role-markingpronounis understood to be largely lexico-semantically conditioned (Split-S marking or ActiveInactive), along lines correspondingto features of the natureof participant involvement in the action specified by the predicate, must be incorporated into the prevailing typological view. Under certain understandingsof these terms, it is defensible to characterize Mopan and Yucatec separately as typologically "Active-Inactive" and "Split Ergative," respectively. But such very different typological designation of two languages which show a high degree of similarity, both in their case-role-markingstructuresand in the predicateform-class semantics which appearto motivate these structures,is in some sense misleading. It is therefore perhaps preferable to follow DeLancey (1981) in eschewing the label "Split Ergativity"for languages in which it is the marking of [S] and not that of [0] and [A] which shows variation. It seems preferableto characterize Mopan and Yucatec similarly (perhaps as "Split-S marking"or as "Split Intransitive"),while indicating the difference between them by specifying that the one shows more lexical, and the other more morphological, conditioning with regardto selection of the case-role-markingpronoun.


407

APPENDIX A STATIVE PREDICATE EXAMPLES

Some SO predicates of Mopan, selected from Ulrich and Ulrich (1976). Predicate roots lacking inflectional aspect and occurring exclusively with the Set B [Transitive Undergoer] pronoun. They transitivize in /-kunt; -kint/. al 'heavy' b'ak 'thin, bony' (of body) b'ek'ech 'thin, small in diameter' b'es 'mute' b'ik' 'coarse' b'ox 'black' biildx 'dirty, moldy' chawak 'long' cha'aj 'rough' che'ej 'raw' chich 'hard' chilam 'clear' chukul 'enough' chdk 'red' chdkdj 'hot' ch'ooch' 'savory, salty' ch'oop 'blind' ch'uuk 'sweet' ich'ib' 'revolted, nauseated' jak' 'greedy, envious' jay 'thin, fine' (e.g., of paper, cloth) jobon 'hollow' jot 'spotted, stained' ka'b'al 'low' ka'nal 'high, tall' keel 'cold' kelem 'fat' ket 'the same, equal' kich'pan 'pretty,healthy' kisin 'surprising, evil, devilish' ki' 'good' kook 'deaf' kooch 'loose, too big' koom 'short, small' ko'oj 'expensive' kurut' 'hard'(e.g., of beans) kus 'moldy, rusty' ku'un 'soft' kdnxuuk' 'four-cornered,square, cubic'

408


k'aj 'bitter' k'as 'bad' k'omoj 'rancid-smelling' k'o'ox 'cautious, shy' k'dn 'yellow' laal 'acrid' mech 'short-legged' mejen 'small' motz 'angry, grudging, hating' mulix 'curly' mun 'unripe, green' muux 'lumpy' nan 'stupid' na'aj 'full, satisfied' nene' 'little' nooch 'big' nukuch 'big, tall' nuut' 'stretched out, tight' ot' 'bald' paap 'spicy, hot' pim 'thick' puuch 'swollen-faced' ptij 'rotten, spoiled' p'u'us 'acrid-smelling' siis 'cold' soj 'wormy, damaged' (of crops) suk 'accustomed' sud'ak 'embarrassed,ashamed, modest, shy' sup 'plain, bland' suul 'flexible, supple' suutz 'fruity, acid' sdk 'white' tam 'deep' toj 'straight, correct' tot 'stilted' tu'uj 'stink' tat 'dense, compact' tzaam 'burnt-smelling' tz'iik 'be angry' tz'u'ut 'pitiful' tz'u'uy 'durable' uchben 'old' wdj 'easily shelled' (of corn) xid'al 'male' xow 'damaged, wormy' (of crops) yan 'exist'


409

ya'ax 'blue, green, fresh, first' yulis 'rounded, smooth' ydk 'bad-smelling' APPENDIX B MUTATIVE PREDICATE EXAMPLES

Some mutative predicates of Mopan, selected from Ulrich and Ulrich (1976). Predicate roots showing inflectional aspect and occurring with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun in the Incompletive and with the Set B [TransitiveUndergoer] pronoun in the Completive. They transitivize in /-(e)s/. aj- 'despair' b'el, b'inij 'go' b'ul- 'sink, drown' chuw- 'burn' ch'ij- 'grow' ch'an- 'heal' ch'ul- 'get/be wet' em- 'descend' ichkil, ichnij 'bathe' jan- 'eat' jel- 'rest' job'- 'come to an end' jok'- 'exit' kaj- 'begin' ka'n- 'get/be tired' kim- 'die' k'al- 'get/be stuck' (mechanical) k'ax- 'fall' k'och- 'arrive elsewhere' lik'- 'arise' man- 'pass by' nak'- 'ascend' ok- 'enter' sa't- 'get/be lost' sut- 'turn' tal- 'come' tik- 'get/be dry' tub'- 'forget' tul- 'get/be full' tdk'- 'cook' tza'k- 'increase, multiply' tzo'p- 'sink' usk'al, usk'ajij 'go/come home'

410


ul- 'arrive here, return' wdydl, wuynij 'sleep' xul- 'heal' APPENDIX C ACTIVE PREDICATE EXAMPLES

Some SA predicates of Mopan, selected from Ulrich and Ulrich (1976). Predicate roots lacking inflectional aspect and occurring exclusively with the Set A [Transitive Actor] pronoun.They transitivize in /-t/. akan 'moan, complain' alka' 'run'(person, animal) awat 'yell' b'axdl 'play' koj 'poison fish' kol 'chop' (milpa) k'ay 'sing' che'ej 'laugh' chukub' 'hiccup' chu' 'suck' jayam 'yawn' joop 'burn, sting' (of sore) juum 'sound of fire/water/wings, buzz, hum' laaj 'bounce, hop, trot' matan 'beg' meyaj 'work' muculja' 'swim' nook' 'snore' ok'ol 'cry' ok'ot 'dance' oom 'boil' pax 'play instrument' peek 'make a noise or movement' petz' 'gamble' lox 'fight' keeb 'burp' kilkab' 'sweat' kis 'break wind' k'iich 'heat up' sa'ap 'worry,grieve' siit 'jump' sut 'visit' suut' 'whistle' tus 'tell an untruth' t'an 'speak'


411

tz'iib' 'write' xej 'vomit' xik' 'fly' xoob' 'pant' APPENDIX D POSITIONAL PREDICATE EXAMPLES

Some Positional forms of Mopan, defined here by their appearancewith POS/-1-/ in the completive and subjunctive (under Inchoative construal) and by the possibility of their occurrence with /-ka'al/ (under Stative construal). b'dk- 'staggering' b'uuk- 'covered up, hidden' b'uy- 'coiled up, mixed up together' ch'ik- 'stuck on or clipped into something' ch'uy- 'hanging' etch'- 'spread-eagled on back' etz'- 'lying or standing in canonical position' jem- 'hanging' (on clothesline or in hammock) juk- 'pushed tightly in' (e.g., of stopper to bottle) juy- 'lying face up, hands at sides' koy- 'lying' (of person, in repose on back) kul- 'settled, being there' kum- 'at home' loch- 'not straight, lopsided' moch- 'crossed' mutz'- 'closed' (of eyes) ndk- 'leaning' (not lying on side) nok- 'standing on head, upside down' pdk- 'person or animal lying on front, hands showing' pam- 'left over, abandoned'(of food) pech- 'flat' rap- 'lying disorganized on floor' (of cloth) sdtz'- 'stretched out' sok'- 'carelessly dropped in a ball' (of cloth) t'el- 'lying in canonical position' t'uch- 'squatting, crouching' tdch- 'standing' tin- 'sitting' tutz'- 'lying out long and thin' tzel- 'leaning or on side' wa'- 'standing up, canonical or noncanonical' xit'- 'spread out flat' (of cloth) xon- 'kneeling'

412


REFERENCES VICTORIA REIFLER. 1977. Pronominal Inflection in the Mayan Languages. Middle BRICKER, American Research Institute Occasional Paper no. 1. New Orleans: Tulane University. .1978. Antipassive constructions in Yucatec Maya. Papers in Mayan Linguistics, Miscellaneous Publications in Anthropology, no. 6, Studies in Mayan Linguistics, no. 2, ed. Nora England, pp. 3-24. Columbia: University of Missouri. .1981a. Grammaticalintroduction.Yucatec Maya Verbs (Hocoba Dialect) / Los Verbos del Maya Yucateco (Dialecto de Hocoba), Eleuterio Po'ot Yah. New Orleans: Latin American Studies CurriculumAids, Center for Latin American Studies, Tulane University. .1981b. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journalof Mayan Linguistics 2:83-127. .1986. A Grammarof Mayan Hieroglyphs. Middle American Research Institute Publication no. 56. New Orleans:Tulane University. D. 1968. Gramdtica del Lacand6n. Departamento de Investigaciones BRUCE,ROBERTO Antropol6gicasPublicaciones no. 21. M6xico: InstitutoNacional de Antropologiae Historia. L. 1970. Meaning and the Structureof Language. Chicago: University of CHAFE,WALLACE Chicago Press. . 1980. Consequential verbs in the northern Iroquoian languages and elsewhere. American Indian and IndoeuropeanStudies: Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler, ed. KathrynKlar, MargaretLangdon, and Shirley Silver, pp. 43-49. The Hague: Mouton. AMY.1983. Agent-patient languages and split case-marking systems. ProceedDAHLSTROM, ings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Amy Dahlstrom et al., pp. 37-46. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. EVE. 1990. A clamour of voices: processes of intransitivizationin the Mayan lanDANZIGER, guages of the greater Yucatan peninsula. Paper presented at the Twenty-ninthConference on American Indian Languages, Eighty-ninth Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans. . 1991. Being and becoming: positionals and change of state verbs in Mopan Maya. Paper presented at the Workshop on Space in Mesoamerican Languages, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. .1993. Aspects of ergativity: the case for Mopan Maya as an active language. Paper presented at the Thirty-second Conference on American Indian Languages, Ninety-second Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington,D.C. .1994. Out of sight, out of mind: person, perceptionand function in Mopan Maya spatial deixis. Linguistics: An InterdisciplinaryJournalof the Language Sciences 32:885-907. DAYLEY,J. 1981. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2:3-82. SCOTT.1981. An interpretationof split ergativity and related patterns. Language DELANCEY, 57:626-57. .1985. On active typology and the nature of agentivity. Relational Typology, ed. Frans Plank, pp. 47-60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DIXON,R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity.Language 55:59-138. .1994. Ergativity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. DOWTY,DAVIDR. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar.Dordrecht:D. Reidel. DURIE,MARK.1987. Grammaticalrelations in Acehnese. Studies in Language 11:365-99. .1988. Preferredargumentstructurein an active language: argumentsagainst the category "IntransitiveSubject."Lingua 74:1-25. R. ELLIOTT. 1990. Lecturas Sobre la Lingiiistica Maya. NORAC., ANDSTEPHEN ENGLAND, Guatemala:Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoam6rica.


413

W. 1976. On tonal features in the Yucatecan dialects. Mayan Linguistics 1:29-43. FISHER, ANDROBERT D. VANVALIN.1984. Functional Syntax and Universal GramFOLEY,WILLIAM, mar. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. HARRIS,ALICEC. 1982. Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis. Language 58:290-306. .1990. Georgian: a language with active case marking-a reply to B. G. Hewitt. Lingua 80:35-53. B. G. 1987. Georgian: ergative or active? Lingua 71:319-40. HEWITT, ANDREW.1982. Itza Maya morphosyntax from a discourse perspective. CHARLES HOFLING, Ph.D. dissertation, WashingtonUniversity. . 1984. Irrealis subordinate clauses and related constructions in Itza Maya. Proceedings of the TenthAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. C. Brugmanand M. Macaulay,pp. 596-607. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. .1991. Itza Maya Texts, with a GrammaticalOverview. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. .1994. Transitivityand voice in Itzaj Maya: minor voices. Funci6n 15/16:161-86. DEEANN. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush(Batsbi). Lingua HOLISKY, 71:103-32. PAULJ., ANDSANDRAA. THOMPSON. 1980. Transitivity in grammarand discourse. HOPPER, Language 56:251-99. M. H. 1991. GrammaticalVoice. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. KLAIMAN, G. A. 1974. On the characterof languages of active typology. Linguistics 131:11-25. KLIMOV, [Reprintedfrom Voprosy Jazykoznanija4 (1972): 3-13.] .1979. On the position of the ergative type in typological classification. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of GrammaticalRelations, ed. Frans Plank, pp. 327-32. London: Academic Press. SUSANM. 1984. Cholan Maya positionals. Journalof Mayan Linguistics 4:7-33. KNOWLES, LARSEN,T. W., ANDM. NORMAN.1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar.Ergativity: Towards a Theory of GrammaticalRelations, ed. Frans Plank, pp. 347-70. London: Academic Press. 1993. Predicate classes in Yucatec Maya. Funci6n 13/14:195-272. CHRISTIAN. LEHMANN, LUCY,JOHNA. 1992. Change of state and change of position in Yucatec Maya verbs. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Conceptualization of Space in Mayan Languages, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. .1994. The role of semantic value in lexical comparison:motion and position roots in Yucatec Maya. Linguistics 32:623-56. LYONS,JOHN.1977. Semantics. London: CambridgeUniversity Press. McQuowN, NORMAN.1967. Classical Yucatec (Maya). Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 5, ed. R. Wauchope and Norman McQuown, pp. 201-47. Austin: University of Texas Press. FRANCESCA. 1985. Split intransitivity:functional oppositions in intransitive inflecMERLAN, tion. GrammarInside and Outside the Clause, ed. J. Nuckolls and A. Woodbury,pp. 32462. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. MITHUN,MARIANNE.1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67:510-46. JOHANNA. 1990. Some preconditions and typical traits of the stative-active lanNICHOLS, guage type (with reference to Proto-Indo-European).Language Typology 1987: Systematic Balance in Language, ed. W. P. Lehmann, pp. 95-113. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.

414


DAVIDM. 1978. Impersonalpassives and the unaccusative hypothesis. ProceedPERLMUTTER, ings of the FourthAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Jeri J. Jaeger et al., pp. 157-89. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. JOHNS. 1992. The History of Tense/Aspect/Mood/Voice in the Mayan Verbal ROBERTSON, Complex. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1917. Review of Uhlenbeck. IJAL 1:82-86. SAPIR,EDWARD. 1976. Hierarchyof features and ergativity.GrammaticalCategories in SILVERSTEIN,MICHAEL. AustralianLanguages, ed. R. M. W. Dixon, pp. 112-71. Princeton, N.J.: Humanities Press. 1976. Decompositional structurein Yucatec verbs. Mayan Linguistics STRAIGHT,H. STEPHEN. 1:189-201. TALMY,LEN. 1976. Semantic causative types. Syntax and Semantics 6:43-116. . 1985. Lexicalization patterns:semantic structurein lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, ed. T. Shopen, pp. 57-149. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. ULRICH.1976. Diccionario Bilingiie: Maya Mopdn y EsANDROSEMARY MATHEW, ULRICH, pafiol; Espafiol y Maya Mopan. Guatemala:Instituto Lingiiistico de Verano. .1982. Stories of the Sacred, Serious, Sensational and Silly from Mopan Maya Texts. Guatemala:Instituto Lingiiistico de Verano. PECK.1986. Mopan Mayan Verbs. ROSEMARY ULRICH;AND CHARLES ULRICH,MATHEW; Guatemala:Instituto Lingiiistico de Verano. VAN VALIN,ROBERTD., JR. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66:221-60. VENDLER,ZENO. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. LIEVE.1992. Absolutive third person singular markingin Mopan. Ms., Leiden. VERBEECK, VERHAAR,JOHNM. 1990. How transitive is intransitive?Studies in Language 14:93-168.

Split Intransitivity and Active-Inactive Patterning in ...

Split Intransitivity and Active-Inactive Patterning in ...

Suggest Documents