ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Manifestations of control in the verbal grammar of Yucatec Maya are investigated. In the semantic structure of a situation, a distinction between participant features, situation features and role features is made. In general, role features are grammaticalized to a much higher degree in Yucatec Maya than participant or situation features, and also to a higher degree than in other languages. There is a highly regular association of control properties with intransitive conjugation classes. Transitive verbs are more confined to the typical "transitive" situation, i.e. one with a clear control incline, than in many other languages. There are derivational operations which convert control into non-control verbs and vice versa and which are sensitive to control properties of their base.
CLIPP
Christiani Lehmanni inedita, publicanda, publicata
titulus
Control in Yucatec Maya
huius textus situs retis mundialis
w ww.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_control.pdf
dies manuscripti postremum modificati
18.12.1996
occasio orationis habitae
Table Ronde ‘Sémantiques des relations actancielles’,
Nancy 15-16 juin, 1995
volumen publicationem continens
François, Jacques (ed.), La sémantique des relations
actancielles à travers les langues. Actes de la table_ronde
franco-allemande .... Strasbourg: UMR du CNRS
"LanDisCo" & Université des Sciences Humaines (Scolia, 7)
annus publicationis
1996
paginae
105-127
Control in Yucatec Maya
Christian Lehmann
Universität Bielefeld
Abstract
The manifestations of control in the verbal grammar of Yucatec Maya are investigated. In the
semantic structure of a situation, a distinction between participant features, situation features and
role features is made. In general, role features are grammaticalized to a much higher degree in
Yucatec Maya than participant or situation features, and also to a higher degree than in other
languages. There is a highly regular association of control properties with intransitive conjugation
classes. Transitive verbs are more confined to the typical "transitive" situation, i.e. one with a
clear control incline, than in many other languages. There are derivational operations which
convert control into non-control verbs and vice versa and which are sensitive to control properties
of their base.
1. Prerequisites
Yucatec Maya (YM) is the Mayan language of the peninsula of Yucatan. §1.1 will introduce
those notions of grammatical structure of YM that have to be presupposed for the analysis. The
remainder of this contribution is intended to show how the concept of control structures the
verbal grammar of YM. This concept will be defined in §1.2.2.
It should be made clear at this point that while control is essentially associated with the verbal
sphere, it is not confined to it. It also plays a role in nominal possession. In the prototypical
possessive relationship, the possessor has control of the possessed item. YM responds to this in
two ways. On the one hand, it marks by a suffix on the head noun such adnominal relations where
the attribute does no designate a controlling possessor. On the other hand, it has a large and
productive paradigm of possessive classifiers to differentiate among such possessive relationships
which are essentially constituted by some particular kind of control that the possessor has of the
possessed item. Most of these possessive classifiers are derived from transitive verbs. For a
detailed treatment of this matter, the reader may be referred to Lehmann 1996.
1.1. Form classes of Yucatec Maya
YM has the following major word classes: nouns, adjectives, modals and verbs. Only the verbs
will occupy us here. A verb may be defined structurally as a word which can be preceded by an
2
Christian Lehmann
1An auxiliary is a complex of a tense/aspect/mood word and a subject clitic. Both of these sets are defined
extensionally.
2The -t suffix on a class of transitive verbs is not an inflectional, but a derivational suffix and thus cannot define a
conjugation class. More on this in §3.1.4.
3The personal enclitic morphemes which precede verbs are called subject clitics because their reference comprises
the actor of the transitive verb and — in incompletive TAM categories — the sole actant of the intransitive verb. The
personal suffixes are called absolutive suffixes because their reference comprises the undergoer of the transitive verb and
— in completive TAM categories — the sole actant of the intransitive verb.
TAM category
class label \
incompletive completive
examples
Vitr -0 -0 -n(-ah/-ak)meyah <work’, xiknal <fly’
Vitr -Vl -Vl -0 lúub <fall’, ch'íih <grow’
Vitr -tal -tal -chah - -lah xol <kneel’, kux <live’
F1. Intransitive conjugation classes
auxiliary.1 A transitive verb (Vtr) is one which may be (and most often is) preceded by a subject
clitic and followed by an absolutive suffix. Examples include kon <sell’ and áan-t <help’.2
Transitive roots are typically monosyllabic and have the canonical phonotactic shape CVC. An
intransitive verb (Vitr) is one which only takes one of the two devices marking the transitive verb
at a time.3
Three major conjugation classes of intransitive verbs will be distinguished according to suffixes
which appear in certain tense/aspect/mood (TAM) categories. They are displayed in F1.
The second intransitive conjugation class (Vitr -Vl) contains a few irregular verbs such as bin <go’.
It is profitable to assign the three conjugation classes to two major groups, namely those that take
a suffix in incompletive TAM categories and those that do not. All of these classes are
productive. However, some facts indicate that the first conjugation class is the unmarked one for
intransitive verbs. Polysyllabic roots, among them all Spanish loan verbs, generally join this
class.
1.2. The functional criteria
1.2.1. Classificatory features
We may conceive of the meaning of a predicate as a bundle of semantic features, some of which
relate to the situation designated, others to the participants involved and yet others to the specific
roles that the participants have in the situation. They will be called situation features,
participant features and role features, respectively (cf. Lehmann 1991 and 1993 for details).
The situation features generate a gamut of situations ordered according to their dynamicity. It
is displayed in F2 and will here be presupposed without further argument. The word classes of
noun, adjective, modal and verb essentially manifest the situation types in this order.
3
Control in Yucatec Maya
stative 7))))))))))))))))))))))) 6dynamic
class
inclusion
property state durative
process
terminative
process
ingressive
event
punctual
event
F2. Situation features
centrality
control 7))))))))))8))))))))6 affectedness
A * P
E
*
*G
S*
9
marginality
F3. Involvement of participants
a. -én! < !’
b. -eh! < it!’
F4. Imperative test frame
The most important participant features are those relating to the animacy hierarchy. Their
subdifferentiation is presently of no concern.
The role features can be represented in a two-dimensional space, as in F3. The vertical
dimension relates to the degree of involvement, of centrality vs. marginality of the participant to
the situation. Sources (S) are less directly involved than goals (G), experiencers (E) less directly
than patients. The horizontal dimension differentiates between directly involved participants
according to the extent to which they control or are controlled by the situation, i.e., to which they
are actors rather than undergoers. At the pole of the prototypical actor we find the agent (A); at
the pole of the prototypical undergoer, the patient (P). Between them, there is a gradience of
control where, among others, the participants of a predicate such as k'áat <ask’ find their places.
1.2.2. Operationalizing the notion of control
For a participant to control a situation means for it to have the power to let the situation realize
or not. This presupposes that the participant may be animate. It will, in fact, generally be animate.
The lifeless forces of the kind of the lightnings and falling stones that kill people are conceived
as controllers in analogy with animate beings. Moreover, the situation has to be dynamic.
Properties allow of no control, states only marginally. A situation that has a controlling
participant is an action. A verb designating an action is called agentive.
One of the tests of control is the imperative test. It consists in inserting an intransitive verb in the
frame F4.a, and a transitive one, in F4.b.
4
Christian Lehmann
Tu path u báah u .<He dared/tried to .’
F5. Control test frame
--a'n. <It is -ed.’
F6. Controlledness test frame
E1. a. kul-en!
sit-IMP <sit down!’
b. u'y-eh!
hear-IMP <listen!’
If the resulting sentence can designate a true command (cf. Dik 1978), as in E1, then the
participant represented by the subject has control of the situation, and the verb can be classed as
agentive.
Another test is usually more reliable than the imperative test, and this is the frame <John hesitated
to .’ However, YM does not seem to have the verb <hesitate’, so that this test is inapplicable.
However, F5 is similar.
E2. t-u pat-h u báah u ku-tal
PAST-SBJ.3 dare-CMPL POSS.3 self SBJ.3 sit-PROC
<he tried to sit down’
As in F4, if the resulting sentence makes sense, the verb imputes control to its subject, as in E2,
otherwise not (e.g. with ah <wake up’). In particular for the latter verb, F5 is clearly more reliable
than F4.
A participant is controlled by a situation if this happens to it, rather than the participant bringing
it about. For a subject, failure on the tests F4 or F5 usually implies that the participant represented
by it is at least mildly controlled by the situation. For intransitive verbs, the resultative participle,
i.e., F6, can serve as a test frame.
E3. a. kul-a'n
sit-RSLTV <(he is) seated, at home’
b. ah-a'n
wake-RSLTV <(he is) awake’
If the form is possible, as in E3, this means that the participant is more controlled by, than
controller of, the situation. For positionals such as kul <sit’, this means that the ingressive action,
as in E1.a and E2, may be controlled, while the resulting state, as in E3.a, may not.
With transitive verbs, the subject usually represents the actor, the object the undergoer. Cases
such as mùuk'yah-t (Vtr) <suffer, stand’ are no exceptions: application of F4 and F5 shows that the
subject does retain some control. Therefore, the question of the degree of being controlled
generally arises for the direct object.
Among affected undergoers, there is a scale extending from very weak mental affectedness (e.g.
k'áat <ask’) over stronger mental affectedness (tus <lie, deceive’), mild physical affectedness
(méek' <embrace’) down to strong physical affectedness (ch'ak <hack’). While these degrees are
5
Control in Yucatec Maya
Hach chich u -ah. <He -ed it very hard.’
F7. Affectedness test frame
as yet largely a matter of intuition, F7 is at least an example of the sort of test that may be
applied.
A transitive verb has to be inserted. The resulting sentence is fine with predicates that strongly
affect their undergoers (e.g. hats' <beat’, <hit’), and awkward with those that only weakly control
them (e.g. áan-t <help’).
Finally, a useful distinction can be made between total and partial affectedness. Examples are
kìin-s <kill’ (total) vs. lòobit <damage’ (partial). All the predicates that entail some sort of
movement of their undergoer (e.g. hok <pull out’, k'ex <change’) affect it totally.
2. Structural manifestation of role features
The distribution of roots of different morphological classes over the semantic classes of
predicates is noteworthy. While many of the more stative multi-participant situations are
expressed by verbs that have been transitivized with the -t suffix (cf. §3.1.4 below), most of the
basic transitive roots are found in the most dynamic predicate classes. There is not a single basic
transitive root among stative predicates and relatively few among durative predicates. This
means, evidently, that multi-participant predicates are prototypically more dynamic, while
one-participant predicates are prototypically more stative.
In one-participant predicates, there is a clear association of control properties with intransitive
conjugation classes. If lack of control is to be expressed, one of the two incompletive (overt)
suffix classes is chosen (-Vl or -tal). If no lack of control is to be expressed, the incompletive
suffixless class comes in. As was said in §1.1, this functions as the default class. As a
consequence, it does contain all the agentive verbs, but also many non-agentive verbs that for
some reason were not assigned to either of the incompletive suffix classes.
There are several bivalent intransitive verbs which designate two-participant concepts. In these
cases, one of the participants is a non-entity, viz. a proposition or a place. Such situations
typically evince a less pronounced control incline. Such predicates as k'a'h <remember’, tu'b
<forget’ (E4), which involve less than complete control on the part of one participant, or less than
complete affectedness on the part of the other participant, are typical examples.
E4. h tu'b tèen le ba'l-o'
PAST forget(ABS.3) me DEF thing-D2
<I forgot that thing’ (lit. <that thing got forgotten to me’)
Such bivalent non-agentive verbs are intransitive. They require the use of a preposition (mostly
ti' LOCATIVE or éetel <with’) with the second actant. Agentive bivalent verbs are transitive. YM
thus confirms the well-known principle (cf. Hopper & Thompson 1980) that the prototypical
transitive verb is one that represents a maximally dynamic event controlled by one participant
and completely affecting the other participant. The prototypical intransitive verb, on the other
hand, represents a durative one-participant predicate.
6
Christian Lehmann
4Cf. François & Broschart 1994 for a general survey of the assignment of semantic roles to subject function.
5Terminology in this realm is in an unsatisfactory state. What is here called <deagentivization’ is often dubbed
<anticausative’, as if deagentivization were in any systematic way based on causativization. Again, what is here, following
Tchekhoff 1987, called <introversion’ and <extraversion’, is mostly called by inappropriate terms, viz. either by the more
general terms <detransitivization’ and <transitivization’, respectively, or by the misleading terms <direct object deletion’
and <direct object addition’.
role affected
valency change
actor undergoer
detransitivization deagentivization introversion
transitivization agentivization extraversion
F8. Operations of valency change
In YM, transitive verbs are more narrowly confined to the typical "transitive" situation, i.e. one
with a clear control incline, than in many other languages. Strong evidence for this generalization
is provided by phasal predicates such as <start’, <continue’, <finish’. While in English and other
European languages, these are normally constructed personally (e.g. I start working), this is not
so in YM. They are impersonal intransitive verbs, as illustrated by E5.
E5. k-u chúun-ul in meyah
IMPF-SBJ.3 start-INCMPL SBJ.1.SG work
<I start working’ (lit. <my working starts’)
It is true that such predicates as il <see’ and u'y <hear’ are transitive verbs, too. However, they do
pass the control tests of F4 and F5 (cf. E1.b). All in all, this means that the semantic role
properties of the syntactic subject are more narrowly defined in YM than in English.4 This is in
consonance with the ingredient of ergativity to be found in YM grammar.
3. Change of role features
3.1. Verbal valency change
YM grammar is extremely sensitive to role features of participants. It makes a decisive difference
for verbal morphology and syntax whether a verb is transitive or intransitive, and if it is
intransitive, what the role of the actant is. In English and many other languages, it is possible to
use a given verb in different valency frames. The verb sell, e.g., may be used with both actor and
undergoer specified (Helen sells books), or only with actor (Helen is selling), or only with
undergoer (the books sell well). This is impossible in YM. In reviewing the derivational
morphology for the change of role features, we limit ourselves to verbal derivation. By valency
increase, an intransitive verb may get an actor or an undergoer slot added. Similarly, by valency
decrease, a transitive verb may loose its actor or its undergoer slot. The relevant operations are
summarized in F8.5 In the following subsections, more or less formal definitions will be provided
for each of the respective derivational processes in YM.
7
Control in Yucatec Maya
6Stefflre 1972:87 even claims chup <fill’ to be excluded.
base
Vtr
meaning deagentive
Vitr -Vl
meaning
bul submerge búul sink
ch'ul wet (Vtr) ch'úul get wet
kach break káach break
k'al shut k'áal close oneself
hay extend háay extend oneself
p'at leave p'áat stay
F9. Examples of simple deagentivization
3.1.1. Deagentivization
To deagentivize a base is to block its actor slot. The result designates a situation core which has
no actor, which entails that the situation is not controlled. YM has a variety of such operations
which differ mainly in the emphasis being put on the idea that the situation, typically contrary
to normal expectations, happens without the intervention of any instance that would bring it
about.
3.1.1.1. Simple deagentivization
Base: monosyllabic transitive verb root.
Morphological change: root vowel gets high tone; derived stem joins Vitr -Vl class.
Syntactic change: actor role and direct object slot of base disappear; undergoer role is mapped
on subject slot.
Semantic change: situation happens by itself, without agentive control.
F9 enumerates some examples, E6 illustrates the mechanism.
E6. a. t-in ch'ul-ah in xanab
PAST-SBJ.1.SG wet-CMPL POSS.1.SG shoe
<I wetted my shoes’
b. h ch'úul in xanab
PAST wet\DEAG POSS.1.SG shoe
<my shoes got wet’
Deagentivization applies most easily to verbs signifying processes which can conceivably affect
their undergoer without the intervention of an actor, which can, so to speak, happen by
themselves. This presupposes, among other things, that no too specific requirements are made
on the part of the actor, especially that no specific instruments are used. For this reason, for
instance, ho'p <dig out’, xot <cut’, xok <read’ are excluded from deagentivization.6
8
Christian Lehmann
base
Vtr
meaning deagentive
Vitr -Vl
meaning
chun start chúumpah start (intr.)
he' open hée'pah open (intr.)
t'och spit, pick t'óochpah stumble
chuk fill, stuff chúukpah become complete
xa'k'-t mix xáa'k'pah mix oneself
F10. Examples of extended deagentivization
3.1.1.2. Extended deagentivization
Base: monosyllabic transitive verb root.
Morphological change: root vowel gets high tone, root is suffixed with -pah; derived stem joins
Vitr -Vl class.
Syntactic change: actor role and direct object slot of base disappear; undergoer role is mapped
on subject slot.
Semantic change: process happens by itself, without agentive control.
F10 enumerates some examples, E7 illustrates the mechanism.
E7. a. t-in he'-ah le hòol-o'
PAST-SBJ.1.SG open-CMPL DEF door-D2
<I opened the door’
b. h hée'-pah le hòol-o'
PAST open-EXT.DEAG(ABS.3) DEF door-D2
<the door opened’
The process also applies to some roots such as chuk (cf. Barrera Vásquez et al. 1980 s.vv. chuk
chi', chuk olah) which do not (i.e., probably, no longer) directly provide word stems. As some
of the examples show, the semantic change is sometimes irregular.
3.1.2. Introversion
To introvert a base is to block its undergoer slot, so that the situation designated does not extend
beyond the actor itself.
Base: transitive verb stem.
Morphological change: root vowel gets low tone; derived stem joins Vitr -0 class.
Allomorphy: some verbs take a -Vl suffix in addition to the tone change, others, including all
derived or polysyllabic stems, take a -bal suffix instead.
Syntactic change: undergoer role and direct object slot of base disappear.
Semantic change: actor acts on unspecified undergoer (the undergoer being the typical one or the
action being habitual).
F11 enumerates some examples, E8 illustrates the mechanism.
9
Control in Yucatec Maya
7Examples of free variation are luk'(e)s <move away’ and sa't(e)s <forgive’.
base
Vtr
meaning introversive
Vitr -0
meaning
kol clear (wood) kòol clear wood
xok read xòok study
kach break kàach break (things)
chuy sew chùuy sew
k'ay sing k'àay sing
p'at leave p'àat quit
F11. Examples of introversion
E8. a. tíin chuy-ik (le nòok'-a')
PROG:SBJ.1.SG sew-INCMPL DEF cloth-D1
<I am sewing it/this cloth’
b. tíin chùuy
PROG:SBJ.1.SG sew\INTROV
<I am sewing’
Introversion applies most easily to verbs with narrow selection restrictions as to their direct
object, as e.g. tak <put on (cloth)’. If the meaning of a verb is completely open as to the kind of
undergoer it may affect, such as cha' <let’ or sat <lose’, the action is not easily typified, and the
verb does not easily lend itself to introversion.
An example of the -bal suffix appears below in E10.b. It may be morphologically complex. The
-b could be identified with the -b which forms the passive, and the -al could be a derivational
variant of the -Vl suffix that attaches to non-agentive intransitive bases. We will come back to
this possibility in §3.1.3.1.2.
3.1.3. Agentivization
To agentivize a base is to provide it with an actor slot. This new participant then has most control
in the designated situation, which means that if the base already had an actor slot, this actor loses
most of its control.
3.1.3.1. Causativization
Base: intransitive verb stem.
Morphological change: base gets causative suffix; derived stem joins Vtr class.
Allomorphy: the allomorphs -(e)s and -bes of the causative suffix are partly conditioned by the
basic or derived nature of the base and partly in free variation.7
Syntactic change: subject slot with its role is converted into a direct object slot with undergoer
role; subject slot with actor role is added.
Semantic change: provision is made for an additional participant which controls the situation.
10
Christian Lehmann
8The basis of such a derived stem may itself be obsolete. For chik, cf. Barrera Vásquez et al. 1980 s.v. chiktahal.
base
Vitr
meaning causative
Vtr
meaning
hóok' (-Vl) go out hó's get sth. out
kim (-Vl) die kins kill
wen (-Vl) sleep wèens put to sleep
ah (-Vl) wake up ahs wake up
kah (-Vl) start kahs start
máan (-0) pass by máans transport
F12. Examples of causativization of simple base
3.1.3.1.1. Causativization of simple base
Base: monosyllabic intransitive verb root, mostly of -Vl conjugation class.
Morphological change: root gets -(e)s suffix.
F12 enumerates some examples (cf. Owen 1969, ch.II.5), E9 illustrates the mechanism.
E9. a. h ah in suku'n
PAST wake(ABS.3) POSS.1.SG elder.brother
<my elder brother woke up’
b. t-in w-ah-s-ah in suku'n
PAST-SBJ.1.SG 0-wake-CAUS-CMPL POSS.1.SG elder.brother
<I awakened my elder brother’
3.1.3.1.2. Causativization of derived base
Base: derived intransitive verb stem.8
Morphological change: root gets -bes or -(e)s allomorph of the causative suffix.
Allomorphy: the -s allomorph is impossible if the base ends in /s/.
F13 enumerates some examples, E10 illustrates the mechanism.
11
Control in Yucatec Maya
root
Vtr
meaning base
derived Vitr
meaning causative
Vtr
meaning
chik find chíik (-Vl) appear chíikbes exhibit
kan learn ka'n (-Vl) be learnt ka'ns teach (thing)
kan learn kambal (-0) learn kambes teach (person)
sat lose sa't (-Vl) get lost,
disappear
sa't(e)s destroy; forgive
F13. Examples of causativization of derived base
E10. a. táan kan-ik
PROG:SBJ.2 learn-INCMPL <you are learning it’
b. táan kam-bal
PROG:SBJ.2 learn-INTROV <you are learning’
b. tíin kam-bes-k-ech
PROG.SBJ.1 learn-CAUS-INCMPL-ABS.2.SG <I am teaching you’
It is possible that the suffix -bes consists of two morphs, -b and -es. The former would
detransitivize the base, the latter would add the causer slot. Then kambal and kambes would
contain the same -b. The derived stem kam-b as such would get an intransitive suffix (cf. §3.1.2),
while the suffix -es would convert it into a transitive stem. While this is a real possibility for
some earlier stage of YM, today these elements appear to be but submorphemic units.
3.1.3.1.3. Restrictions
The base is typically an intransitive verb stem. Transitive bases are excluded. Although this
appears to be a syntactic restriction, it is easily subsumed under a semantic one: the base must
not be an action verb. This has two consequences. First, causatives from transitive bases can only
be formed by a detour via an intransitive stem. The way of achieving this is shown in §3.1.3.1.2.
Take the Vtr kan <learn’ as an example: it is first passivized, yielding ka'n <be learnt’, and from
this the causative ka'ns <teach (something to somebody)’ may be derived. Second, even
intransitive verbs are ineligible if they designate actions rather than processes. The base must
designate a process which does not require control. This is why such verbs as bàab <swim’, míis
<sweep’, t'àan <speak’, e'l <lay eggs’ and many others are excluded from causativization. Apparent
exceptions to this generalization include the basic motion verbs bin <go’, tàal <come’ and máan
<pass’, which do form the causatives bis <carry’, tàas <bring’ and máans <transport’. However,
these bases do not require, but merely do not exclude control.
Some causatives have a base which is not an intransitive verb. Among these are k'ìinbes
<celebrate the anniversary of’ from k'ìin <day’, and sahbes <frighten’ from a base sah <fear’ of
which only derivations are attested.
3.1.3.2. Factitivization
Base: adjective stem (for the exceptional monosyllabic transitive root, see below).
12
Christian Lehmann
9Often (e.g., in Owen 1969, ch.II.5), no distinction is made between causative and factitive. Derivational operations
are principally goal-determined rather than base determined (i.e., all the stems formed by a given derivational process
share their category, not necessarily the category of their base). Therefore, if factitivization and causativization were the
same derivational operation, differing only in the category of their bases, one should expect the same formal process in
both cases. YM does make a difference here, joining, in this, the majority of languages.
base meaning factitive
Vtr -kunt
meaning
uts (Adj) good utskint improve
su'lak (Adj) ashamed su'lakkunt make ashamed
síis (Adj) cold síiskunt cool
bèey (Adj) such bèeykunt make such
ch'eb (Vtr) tilt ch'ebkunt tilt
hets' (Vtr) calm hets'kunt pacify
F14. Examples of factitivization
Morphological change: base gets -kun-t suffix; derived stem joins Vtr class.
Allomorphy: Suffix vowel is /u/ after front root vowel (including /a/), /i/ after back root vowel.
The second (transitivizing) part of the complex suffix may be either -t or -s.
Syntactic change: unique slot with its role is converted into a direct object slot with undergoer
role; subject slot with actor role is added.
Semantic change: situation is controlled by additional participant.9
F14 enumerates some examples (cf. Owen 1969, ch.II.5), E11.a/c illustrates the mechanism.
E11. a. uts <it is good’
b. k-u y-uts-tal
IMPF-SBJ.3 0-good-PROC <it gets well’
c. k-in w-uts-kint-ik
IMPF-SBJ.1.SG 0-good-FACT-INCMPL <I enhance/repair it’
Factitivization is a close paradigmatic counterpart of processive derivation in -tal, as shown by
E11.b (cf. also E2). Most bases that can undergo the latter can also undergo factitivization. There
is only a semantic restriction demanding that the process can conceivably be brought about by
outside impact. This is why formations such as pàahkunt <render moldy’ are improbable.
The factitivization of transitive bases remains to be investigated. It is possible that it presupposes
their deagentivization. That is, hets'kunt may really be héets'kunt. Otherwise, hets'kunt and hets'
(Vtr) should be synonymous, and one would not see the raison d'être of the former.
13
Control in Yucatec Maya
10 Cf. Owen 1969:33-36 for a different account.
base
Vitr
meaning extraversive
Vtr
meaning
xíimbal walk xíimbat visit
hàan (-Vl) eat hàant eat
tsikbal chat tsikbat tell
páak remove weed páakt remove (weed)
pak'ach make tortilla pak'acht make (tortilla)
ts'íib write ts'íibt write
F15. Examples of extraversion
3.1.4. Extraversion
To extravert a base is to provide it with an undergoer slot. This undergoer is then most directly
affected by the situation, which means that if the base already had an undergoer slot, this will lose
its undergoer status and either be demoted to a peripheral position or be lost altogether.
Base: intransitive verb stem, mostly of -0 suffix class.
Morphological change: stem gets -t suffix; derived stem joins Vtr class.
Syntactic change: direct object slot with undergoer role is added.
Semantic change: action extends to undergoer and affects it.
F15 enumerates some examples, E12 illustrates the mechanism.
E12. a. h ts'íib-nah-en
PAST write-CMPL-ABS.1.SG <I wrote’
b. t-in ts'íib-t-ah
PAST-SBJ.1.SG write-EXTRAV-CMPL <I wrote it’
Intransitive verb bases must be agentive (cf. Stefflre 1972:94f). Correspondingly, all intransitive
bases belong to the Vitr -0 class, with the one exception of háan, which is morphologically
irregular. The agentivity requirement excludes such verbs as ah <wake up’ or wen <sleep’ from
extraversion.
Apart from this, the -t suffix forms transitive verbs affecting their undergoer on a larger scale.
Bases need not be intransitive verbs; they may also be nouns. Compound transitive verbs
invariably take this suffix, whatever their composition. Spanish loans which are used as transitive
verbs also have it. It is, thus, a sign of transitivity.10
3.1.5. Summary of valency-changing operations
Apart from the differences in productivity, the four valency-changing operations are maximally
symmetric, as is already implied by F8. This applies both to their grammatical and semantic input
14
Christian Lehmann
base meaning spontaneous
Vitr -Vl
meaning
he' (Vtr) open he'k'ah open oneself
kach (Vtr) break kachk'ah break
sat (Vtr) lose satk'ah get lost
sùut (Vitr -0) return sùutk'ah return unexpectedly
kul (Vitr -tal) sit kulk'ah get into a sitting
position
F16. Examples of spontaneous derivation
restrictions and to their grammatical and semantic effects. In particular, the opposition between
non-agentive -Vl verbs and agentive -0 verbs is fed by the detransitivization operations and is
mirrored by the transitivization operations, since agentivization, which adds an actor slot, prefers
non-agentive input – mostly -Vl class verbs –, whereas extraversion, which adds an undergoer
slot, prefers agentive input – mostly -0 class verbs.
Since these operations are so regular and largely in a mirror-image relation, there is hardly any
cumulation of them possible. Relevant examples involve some kind of meaning specialization.
From lech (Vtr) <hang’, the introversive lèech <fish (hang up the typical undergoer)’ may be
derived, and this may in turn be extroverted to lèech-t <fish (some object which may or may not
be a fish)’.
3.2. Formation of spontaneous verbs
Base: monosyllabic verb or adjective root.
Morphological change: base gets -k'ah suffix; derived stem joins Vitr -Vl class.
Allomorphy: there may be some allomorphy between -k'ah, -pah, -chah and -tal.
Syntactic change: in a transitive verb base, actor role and direct object slot disappear; undergoer
role is mapped on subject slot.
Semantic change: situation is represented as process that happens spontaneously, without the
intervention of a controller, potentially even unexpectedly or against his will.
F16 enumerates some examples, E13 illustrates the mechanism.
E13. a. t-in kach-ah
PAST-SBJ.1.SG break-CMPL <I broke it’
b. h kach-k'ah-ih
PAST break-SPONT-ABS.3.SG <it broke asunder’
A base is eligible for spontaneous derivation if the situation designated involves a non-controlling
participant and can conceivably happen spontaneously. Consequently, such verbs as bah
<hammer’ or xot <cut’ will not undergo this process.
15
Control in Yucatec Maya
The difference between spontaneous and deagentive derivation resides in various factors. As to
type of base, deagentivization only applies to transitive verbs, while spontaneous derivation
applies to verbs in general. On the other hand, the semantic conditions on the base are less strict
in the case of deagentivization since the component <quite by itself/on its own’ is not present. In
some cases, however, the processes may be in free variation. Their exact relationship remains to
be investigated.
4. Conclusion
In general, YM is extremely sensitive to role features of participants and reflects them in many
parts of its grammar. Control, in particular, shapes (apart from the nominal grammar of
possession) the following aspects of verbal grammar:
- Among bivalent verbs, only such as designate situation cores with relatively high
dynamicity and a relatively clear control incline between two participants are transitive.
- Intransitive verbs fall into three conjugation classes, one agentive, two non-agentive.
- There is a tightly knit system of derivational processes that change control properties of
participants, emphasizing control or non-control.
- Derivational processes such as causativization and extraversion are sensitive to the
agentivity of the base.
These properties are in line with the character of a language which, in principle, grammaticalizes
semantic relations by reflecting them closely in grammatical and often even morphological
structure (cf. Lehmann 1996, ch. 6).
Abbreviations in interlinear morphemic glosses
0 submorphemic unit
1 first person
2 second person
3 third person
ABS absolutive
CAUS causative
CMPL completive
D1 first person deictic
D2 second person deictic
DEAG deagentive
DEF definite
EXT extended
EXTRAV extraversive
FACT factitive
IMP imperative
IMPF imperfective
INCMPL incompletive
INTROV introversive
POSS possessive
PROC processive
PROG progressive
RSLTV resultative
SBJ subject
SG singular
SPONT spontaneous
16
Christian Lehmann
References
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo et al. 1980, Diccionario maya Cordemex. Maya-español/esp-
añol-maya. Mérida, Yucatán: Ed. Cordemex.
Dik, Simon C. 1978, Functional grammar. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland (North-Holland
Linguistic Series, 37).
François, Jacques & Broschart, Jürgen 1994, "La mise en ordre des relations actancielles".
François, Jacques & Rauh, Gisa (eds.), Les relations actancielles: sémantique, syntaxe,
morphologie. Paris: Larousse (Langages, 113); 7-44.
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980, "Transitivity in grammar and discourse."
Language 56:251-299.
Lehmann, Christian 1991, "Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION." Seiler, Hansjakob & Premper,
Waldfried (eds.), Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. Tübingen:
G. Narr (LUS, 6); 183-239.
Lehmann, Christian 1993, "Predicate classes in Yucatec Maya". Función (Guadalajara)
13/14:195-272.
Lehmann, Christian 1996, Possession in Yucatec Maya. Structures — functions — typology.
Unterschleissheim: LINCOM Europa (LINCOM Studies in Native American Linguistics, 4).
Owen, Michael G. 1969, The semantic structure of Yucatec verb roots. New Haven: Yale
University PhD diss. (University Microfilms, 69-13,366).
Stefflre, Marlys McClaran 1972, Lexical and syntactic structures in Yucatec Maya. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University PhD diss.
Tchekhoff, Claude 1987, "<Antipassif’, aspect imperfectif et autonomie du sujet." Bulletin de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris 82/1:43-67.
Book
This book combines a fieldwork-based language-specific analysis with a typological investigation. It offers a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the form and semantics of experiencer constructions in Yucatec, the Mayan language of the Yucatecan peninsula in Mexico. Since the linguistic expression of experience is not restricted to a specific grammatical area the study touches a great variety of grammatical fields in the language such as argument structure, grammatical relations, possessive constructions, subordinate constructions, etc. The empirical analysis of the Yucatec data is preceded by a thorough examination of the functional domain and the cross-linguistic coding of experience which until now could not be found in the literature. This study will be of interest to scholars working in the fields of typology and Native American linguistics, and especially to those interested in argument structure and the syntax-semantics interface.
Article
This paper takes into account a particular set of Italian Complex Prepositions signaling the agent of an action (e.g. da parte di ‘by’, a nome di ‘by’). Italian exhibits several types of complex prepositions revealing a different involvement of the Agent: in particular, these complex lexemes can introduce and distinguish the participants who (i) plan and intentionally conceive an action, (ii) perform it and/or (iii) have a coercive power over its performing. The contribution aims to: (i) distinguish these Italian complex prepositions according to their functions, meanings, and the degree of involvement of the participant they introduce; (ii) analyze the collocational features and the syntactic environments where these lexemes occur; (iii) individuate possible correlations between their frequency of occurrence and the grammatical value; (iv) analyze their diachronic evolution across different historical phases; (v) put into relation the synchronic restrictions with the original syntactic environment within which the complex prepositions have been reanalyzed.
Chapter
Full-text available
Predicate classes are semantic classes of lexemes that can function as the predicate of a clause. The are formed by the criteria relating to situation cores like dynamicity and telicity, relating to participant roles like degree of involvement, controll, affectedness and by participant properties like animacy. These structuring parameters are defined with examples from many languages. In the final part, numerous predicates are classified by these criteria, to serve as tertia comparationis in onomasiological descriptions of predicate classes of any language.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract The purpose of a classification of predicates is to provide the basisfor any explanations of different grammatical behavior of predicates that may be grounded in differences of lexical semantics. The scope of such a classificationhas to comprise not only verbs, but all words that can function as predicates, because the criteria must not be structural. The criteria of such a classificationare therefore such as characterize situations, participants and their roles in situations. The features form a hierarchy and are defined operationally
Article
Transitivity involves a number of components, only one of which is the presence of an object of the verb. These components are all concerned with the effectiveness with which an action takes place, e.g., the punctuality and telicity of the verb, the conscious activity of the agent, and the referentiality and degree of affectedness of the object. These components co-vary with one another in language after language, which suggests that Transitivity is a central property of language use. The grammatical and semantic prominence of Transitivity is shown to derive from its characteristic discourse function: high Transitivity is correlated with foregrounding, and low Transitivity with backgrounding.
Diccionario maya Cordemex. Maya-español/español-maya
  • Barrera Vásquez
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo et al. 1980, Diccionario maya Cordemex. Maya-español/español-maya. Mérida, Yucatán: Ed. Cordemex.
The semantic structure of Yucatec verb roots
  • Michael G Owen
Owen, Michael G. 1969, The semantic structure of Yucatec verb roots. New Haven: Yale University PhD diss. (University Microfilms, 69-13,366).
Lexical and syntactic structures in Yucatec Maya
  • Marlys Stefflre
  • Mcclaran
Stefflre, Marlys McClaran 1972, Lexical and syntactic structures in Yucatec Maya. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PhD diss.