Symmetrical Objects in Misantla Totonac Author(s): Carolyn J. MacKay and Frank R. Trechsel Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2008), pp. 227-255 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/587705 . Accessed: 20/05/2014 22:36 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transcript
Symmetrical Objects in Misantla TotonacAuthor(s): Carolyn J. MacKay and Frank R. TrechselSource: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2008), pp. 227-255Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/587705 .
Accessed: 20/05/2014 22:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Journal of American Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[IJAL, vol. 74, no. 2, April 2008, pp. 227–55]ç 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0020–7071/2008/7402–0003$10.00
SYMMETRICAL OBJECTS IN MISANTLA TOTONAC1
Carolyn J. MacKay and Frank R. Trechsel
Ball State University
In this paper, we present evidence that Misantla Totonac, a Totonac-Tepehua languagespoken in the vicinity of Misantla, Veracruz, in Mexico, is a symmetrical object languagein the sense of Bresnan and Moshi (1990). Specifically, we demonstrate that in MisantlaTotonac both of the objects of a ditransitive verb exhibit the behavior of the single objectof a transitive verb. Our argument is based on the phenomenon of double object mark-ing in which each of the objects of a ditransitive verb controls object agreement. Wealso consider the processes of reflexivization and reciprocalization and demonstratethat one object of a ditransitive verb can be reflexivized or reciprocalized while theother controls object agreement. It is the ability of the two objects to exhibit these objectproperties simultaneously that establishes Misantla Totonac as a symmetrical objectlanguage.
1. Introduction. Research on causative, applicative, and other multipleobject constructions in natural languages has revealed a fundamental typo-logical split between languages in which the basic patient or theme object ofa causative or applicative verb retains its object properties in the presenceof another object and languages in which it does not. Bresnan and Moshi(1990), in their seminal discussion of this split in the Bantu language family,refer to languages of the first type as symmetrical object languages andto languages of the second type as asymmetrical object languages.They note that there are “multiple syntactic differences” between languagesof these two types that “appear to covary systematically” (1990:147). Thesedifferences emerge in the context of processes such as passivization, unspec-ified object deletion, reflexivization, reciprocalization, etc., that universallyaffect the morphosyntactic behavior of objects. Indeed, virtually any process
1 All forms cited in this paper were obtained in Mexico by the authors. We wish to thank ournative speaker consultants—most notably, Antonio Rosas Torres, Alfonso Lagunes Cruz, MonicaRuíz Valencia, and Nemesio Lagunes Francisco. We would also like to thank the followingorganizations for their support: Ball State University, the Endangered Language Fund, theWenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research (grant nos. 4720 and 5498), the Ful-bright Foundation, the Universidad de las Américas, Puebla, the Foundation for the Advance-ment of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI), and the National Science Foundation (grantno. BCS-0132293).
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that affects the behavior of the single object of a transitive verb can be shownto affect the multiple objects of a ditransitive causative or applicative verbdifferently in symmetrical and asymmetrical object languages. The basicdifference is that all of the objects of a causative or applicative verb areaccessible to these processes in a symmetrical object language, but only oneof them (usually the causee or applied object) is accessible to them in anasymmetrical object language.
To date, most of the research on the symmetrical/asymmetrical objectlanguage distinction has concentrated on the behavior of objects in the Bantulanguages, where the typological split is robust and descriptions of languagesof both symmetrical and asymmetrical object types are abundant. Outsidethe Bantu family, there are numerous examples of asymmetrical object lan-guages (including English), but only a handful of examples of symmetricalobject languages. Varying degrees of symmetrical object behavior have beenreported for Bajau, an Austronesian language (Donohue 1996), for Yagua,an isolate from Peru (Payne and Payne 1989), and for Martuthunira, fromWestern Australia (Dench 1987). The paucity of languages that exhibitsymmetrical object behavior has complicated the task of providing clear andunequivocal diagnostics for distinguishing between symmetrical and asym-metrical object languages and has led some investigators to question whetherthe proposals that have been made in the literature to deal with the facts inthe Bantu language family have wider applicability. In this paper, we proposeto contribute to this debate by showing that there is at least one languagein Mesoamerica that exhibits symmetrical object behavior. Specifically, wepresent evidence that Misantla Totonac, a Totonacan language spoken inthe vicinity of Misantla, Veracruz, in Mexico, is a symmetrical object lan-guage in Bresnan and Moshi’s sense. By examining the properties of objectsof this language and, in particular, by examining the distribution of theseproperties in constructions with two or more objects, we hope to clarify ex-actly what it means to be a symmetrical (or asymmetrical) object languagein Bresnan and Moshi’s sense and thus contribute to the goal of delineating,precisely, the contours of the symmetrical/asymmetrical object languagedistinction.
Our argument for object symmetry in Misantla Totonac is based primarilyon the phenomenon of double object marking and on the interaction of objectmarking with lexical processes of reflexivization and reciprocalization. Aswe demonstrate below, both of the objects of a double object verb in thislanguage may independently but simultaneously control object marking, andeither may control object marking while the other is bound to the subjectby lexical processes of reflexivization or reciprocalization. It is this ability ofthe two objects to exhibit these object properties simultaneously that posi-
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tions Misantla Totonac squarely on the symmetrical side of Bresnan andMoshi’s typological divide. As they point out, “what is critical in the asym-metrical object type is that only one argument at a time can have these objectproperties. . . . In a true symmetrical object language, in contrast, differentarguments can simultaneously have primary object properties” (1990:153).In Misantla Totonac, we argue, the multiple objects of a ditransitive, appli-cative, or causative verb can simultaneously exhibit object properties. Theyare thus symmetrical in Bresnan and Moshi’s sense.
2. Misantla Totonac. Misantla Totonac is the southernmost variety ofTotonac, a member of the Totonac–Tepehua language family located in cen-tral Mexico in a region that includes parts of three states—southern Hidalgo,northern Puebla, and northwestern Veracruz (MacKay and Trechsel 2006). Apreliminary representation of the Totonac–Tepehua “family tree” is given infigure 1. Historically, Misantla Totonac was spoken in the area betweenXalapa and Misantla, Veracruz. Today the language is moribund, with fewnative speakers remaining, all over the age of 50. The largest concentrationof speakers is currently found in Yecuatla, Veracruz, but their number isdwindling rapidly. According to the Mexican Census, 486 individuals spokeTotonac in Yecuatla in 1980, but by 2000 only 192 speakers remained (INEGI[Censo General] 1980; 2000). The data reported in this paper were obtainedby the authors from 1986–2006 in Yecuatla and in San Marcos Atexquilapan(MacKay 1994; 1999 and MacKay and Trechsel 2003; 2005a; 2005b).
3. Double object constructions. In this section, we introduce the threetypes of verbs in Misantla Totonac that give rise to constructions containingtwo or more objects.
Proto-Totonac-Tepehua
Proto-Totonac Proto-Tepehua
Misantla Papantla Sierra Northern Tlachichilco Pisaflores Huehuetla
Yecuatla,San Marcos
Atexquilapan
El Escolín,El Tajín,
El Carbón
Zapotitlan,Coatepec,Huehuetla
Apapantilla,Patla-
Chicontla
Tlachichilco Pisaflores Huehuetla
Fig. 1.—The Totonac-Tepehua language family.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3.1. Basic ditransitives. There are only two basic or underived ditransi-tive verbs in Misantla Totonac. They are /i
$ski
$/ ‘give X to Y, hit Y’ and
/maq¬tii/ ‘take X away from Y, receive X from Y’, illustrated below:2
(1) /i$ski
$/ ‘give X to Y, hit Y’
[?ú$t kí?í
$skí
$ hO!nlíbru]
/ut kin-i$ski
$ hun-libru/
s/he 1obj-give.X.to.Y det-book
‘s/he gives me the book’
(2) /maq¬tii/ ‘take X away from Y, receive X from Y’
[?ú$t kímáq¬tii¬]
/ut kin-maq¬tii-la(¬)/s/he 1obj-take.X.from.Y-pfv
‘s/he took X away from me’, ‘s/he received X from me’
3.2. Applicatives. Like other Totonac-Tepehua languages, MisantlaTotonac exhibits several valence-increasing affixes which alter the nature ofgrammatical relations in sentences by licensing an NP which is not an argu-ment of the original base verb. The thematic role of the NP introduced byone of these affixes depends on the nature of the affix, the semantics of thebase verb, and the context of use. Misantla Totonac has an all-purpose pre-position, /laka/ or /naka/, which may sometimes be used to introduce anNP interpreted as instrumental, locative, or some other ‘oblique’ role, butthis preposition is not always an option. In many cases, a valence-increasingaffix on a verb is the only formal means available for introducing an NP withan oblique thematic role into a discourse. The applicative affixes in MisantlaTotonac include the dative suffix /-ni/ ‘dat’, the instrumental prefix /lii-/‘inst’, and the locative prefix /puu-/ ‘loc’.3
2 We employ the following abbreviations: 1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person,bpp = body-part prefix, caus = causative, com = comitative, dat = dative, det = determiner,inst = instrumental, i.s. = indefinite subject, impfv = imperfective aspect, inc = inchoative, loc
3 Misantla Totonac does not exhibit the affix /taa-/ ‘com’ which occurs in other Totonac andTepehua languages to license an object in a comitative role. Instead, Misantla Totonac has analternative construction involving the affix combination /laa-. . .-na/ to introduce comitativeNP (see MacKay 1999:287–302). Such NP do not function as objects but as (co-)subjects. Theirbehavior is thus not germane to the discussion of object symmetry pursued here.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3.2.1. Dative /-ni/ ‘dat’. The suffix /-ni/ ‘dat’ introduces an argumentwhich may be interpreted as goal, recipient, source, beneficiary, or, on posi-tional statives, substitutive.4 Two of these interpretations are illustrated in (3)and (4):
(3) /¢a$a$la/ ‘run’
/¢a$a$la-ni/ ‘run from X’
(3a) [swáan ¢á$a$la¬]
/swaan ¢a$a$la-la(¬)/
Juan run-pfv
‘Juan ran’
(3b) [swáan ¢á$a$laní hO!mPedro]
/swaan ¢a$a$la-ni hun-Pedro/
Juan run-dat det-Pedro
‘Juan runs from Pedro’
(4) /i$i$wa
$/ ‘buy X’
/i$i$wa
$-ni/ ‘buy X for Y’
(4a) [?ú$t ?í
$i$wa
$¬ hO!ntaláqnu
$u$t]
/ut i$i$wa
$-la(¬) hun-ta=laq=nu
$u$-Vt/5
s/he buy.X-pfv det-shirt-nom
‘s/he bought the shirt’
(4b) [?ú$t ?í
$i$wa
$nín hO!ntaláqnu
$u$t]
/ut i$i$wa
$-ni-na hun-ta=laq=nu
$u$-Vt/
s/he buy.X-dat-2obj det-shirt-nom
‘s/he bought the shirt for you’
3.2.2. Instrumental /lii-/ ‘inst’. The instrumental prefix /lii-/ ‘inst’ addsan argument interpreted as instrument, cause, or, on some verbs, goal. Thisargument is not part of the basic argument structure of the verb root butis specifically licensed either by /lii-/ ‘inst’ or by the preposition /laka,naka/ ‘prep’. These elements are not mutually exclusive. One or the othermust occur if an NP is to be interpreted as instrument, but both may occursimultaneously.
4 Positional statives are a special category of intransitive verbs characterized by a unique pat-tern of inflection which differs from that of regular intransitives (see MacKay 1999 for details).
5 We use the equal sign (=) to indicate that a stem that was historically made up of two ormore morphemes is lexicalized as a single morpheme today.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3.2.3. Locative /puu-/ ‘loc’. The prefix /puu-/ ‘loc’ appears on allclasses of verbs but is most commonly found on positional statives and onintransitives. It licenses an object which is generally interpreted as locative.On some verbs, it may also be interpreted as means. The object introduced by/puu-/ ‘loc’ is not part of the argument structure of the base verb but must bespecifically licensed either by /puu-/ ‘loc’ or by the preposition /laka, naka/‘prep’. Again, these elements are not mutually exclusive.
(7) /u$ka
$/ ‘be above’
/puu-u$ka
$/ ‘be above X, be on top of X’
[kít ?í$kpúu?ú
$ka
$¬ hO!n kawáa]
/kit ik-puu-u$ka
$-la(¬) hun kawaa/
I 1sub-loc-above-pfv det-horse
‘I am (mounted) on the horse’
6 In Misantla Totonac and in Totonac-Tepehua languages generally, body-part prefixes (bpp)such as /laka-/ ‘face related’, /maka-/ ‘hand related’, and /ka
$a$k-/ ‘head related’ are frequently
added to further specify the meaning of a verb, but they do not affect its valence.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(8) /pas/ ‘bathe’/pas-ii/7 ‘bathe X’/puu-pas-ii/ ‘bathe X in Y’
[kít ?í$kláapúupasíi hO!n kí
$i$kcúntá
$n] (with /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’ agreeing
/kit ik-laa-puu-pas-ii hun ki$i$kcun-ta
$n/ with children)
I 1sub-3obj.pl-loc-bathe-trans det child-pl
‘I bathe the children in it (the tub)’
(9) /sqa$t/ ‘serve X’
/sqa$t-ni/ ‘serve X to Y’
/puu-sqa$t-ni/ ‘serve X to Y in Z’
[?ú$t kímpúusqá
$tni¬ hO!n
7skáan hO!n pusíyu]
/ut kin-puu-sqa$t-ni-la(¬) hun-skaan hun pusiyu/
s/he 1obj-loc-serve.X-dat-pfv det-water det bowl
‘s/he served the water to me from/in a bowl’
3.3. Causatives. The prefix /maa-/ ‘caus’ is the most productive causa-tive affix in Misantla Totonac and can occur on virtually any verb. It adds anargument which is interpreted as agent or cause. Treatment of the originalsubject (i.e., subject of the base verb) depends on the transitivity of the base.The original subject of an intransitive verb becomes the sole object of a tran-sitive verb. The original subject of a transitive verb becomes a second objectof a ditransitive verb.
The causative prefix /maa-/ ‘caus’ is always accompanied by anothervalence-increasing affix on both intransitive and transitive verb stems. Onintransitive verbs, /maa-/ ‘caus’ is accompanied by the transitivizing suffix/-ii/ ‘trans’. The vowel of this suffix sometimes assimilates to the finalvowel of the stem. On transitive verbs, /maa-/ ‘caus’ is accompanied by thedative suffix /-ni/ ‘dat’. The vowel of this suffix is obligatorily lengthenedon causative verbs to yield /-nii/.8 On other, noncausative verbs, the suffixes
7 The transitivizing suffix /-ii/ ‘trans’ occurs on nominals, positional statives, and a smallnumber of intransitive verbs to form transitive verbs of accomplishment. It also obligatorilyco-occurs with /maa-/ ‘caus’ to form morphological causatives from intransitives. See MacKay(1999) for additional details.
8 McQuown (1990:179–80) offers a slightly different analysis of causatives with /maa- . . .-nii/ in Coatepec Totonac. He proposes that these causatives are derived through circumfixationof /maa-. . .-ii/ on ditransitive verbs with /-ni/. Coalescence of /-ni/ with /-ii/ yields the longvowel in /-nii/. While this analysis may be accurate for Coatepec, we do not believe that it rep-resents the current state of affairs in Misantla Totonac. Notice that inflection of /maa-. . .-ii/ ona form with /-ni/ predicts a verb with three objects, not two. One object is licensed by the basetransitive verb, another by /-ni/, and still another by /maa-. . .-ii/. We therefore prefer thealternative analysis offered here in which causatives of transitive verbs are derived through
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
/-ii/ ‘trans’ and /-ni/ ‘dat’ normally add an object argument on their own.On causative verbs, however, they work in tandem with the prefix /maa-/‘caus’ to increase the valence of the base verb by one.
On intransitive verbs, the combination /maa-. . .-ii/ introduces a subject ar-gument interpreted as agent or cause. The original subject of the base verb (i.e.,the causee) becomes the sole object of a derived causative transitive verb.
(10) /pupu/ ‘boil’/maa-pupu-ii/ ‘make X boil, boil X’
(11) /¬tata/ ‘sleep’/maa-¬tata-ii/ ‘make X sleep, put X to sleep’/puu-maa-¬tata-ii/ ‘make X sleep in Y, put X to sleep in Y’
[kít ?í$kpúumáa¬tatíi hO!Ykí
$i$kcún laka qO!
$X¢i
$]
/kit ik-puu-maa-¬tata-ii hun-ki$i$kcun laka qu
$q¢i
$/
I 1sub-loc-caus-sleep-trans det-child prep bed
‘I put the child to sleep in the bed’
On transitive verbs, the combination /maa-. . .-ni/ introduces a subjectargument interpreted as agent or cause. The original subject of the base verbbecomes a second object of a derived causative ditransitive verb. Both thisobject and the original object of the base verb exhibit the morphosyntacticbehavior of the single object of a transitive verb. In many instances, causa-tive verbs with /maa-. . .-ni/ are ambiguous with respect to which object isinterpreted as causee and which is interpreted as basic patient or theme.
(12) /i$i$wa
$/ ‘buy X’
/maa-i$i$wa
$-ni/ ‘make Y buy X’
[swáan kímáa?í$i$wa
$níi hO!n&cá]
/swaan kin-maa-i$i$wa
$-ni hun-ca/
Juan 1obj-caus-buy.X-dat det-tortilla
‘Juan makes me buy tortillas’
circumfixation of /maa-. . .-ni/, with concomitant lengthening of the final vowel of /-ni/. Sincethe analysis of causative morphology does not affect the main points of this paper, we leavedetailed discussion for another occasion.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
‘Juan makes Pedro feed me’, ‘Juan makes me feed Pedro’
4. Double object marking. Having surveyed the various types of verbsthat are implicated in double object constructions in Misantla Totonac, wenow turn to the issue of whether this is, or is not, a symmetrical object lan-guage in the sense of Bresnan and Moshi (1990). As noted earlier, this issuerevolves around the grammatical status of the multiple nonsubject argumentsof a basic or derived ditransitive verb. In an asymmetrical object language,only one of these arguments may exhibit the morphosyntactic behavior ofthe single object of a transitive verb. This privileged argument is typicallyinterpreted as the applied object in applicative constructions and as the causeeobject in causatives. In a symmetrical object language, in contrast, both ofthe objects of a ditransitive verb may exhibit the behavior of the single objectof a transitive verb. As Bresnan and Moshi (1990) point out, it is not suffi-cient to demonstrate that one or the other of the objects of a multiple objectverb can display object properties; rather it is necessary to establish that theycan all display these properties simultaneously. This is a critical point sincesymmetrical behavior can sometimes be found even in an asymmetrical ob-ject language. Thus, Harford (1991) reports that in Kitharaka (Bantu), eitherthe basic (patient or theme) argument or the applied (beneficiary) argumentof a ditransitive verb can control an overt object marker, and either can be-come the subject in passive voice. However, these two objects cannot exhibitthese properties simultaneously. If one argument is, say, passivized, then theother cannot be realized as an object marker. It is this inertness of all but oneof the objects of a ditransitive verb that makes Kitharaka an asymmetricalobject language in Bresnan and Moshi’s sense. In a symmetrical object lan-guage, in contrast, all nonsubject arguments may exhibit object propertiessimultaneously.
One of the object properties that has been central to the discussion of objectsymmetry and asymmetry in Bantu languages is the ability to appear as sub-ject of a causative or applicative verb in passive voice. It is not possible toinvestigate this property in Misantla Totonac because, as demonstrated inMacKay (1999), this language lacks a passive construction of the familiarsort. Nevertheless, it is possible to investigate the distribution of other objectproperties in double object constructions. In this section, we documentpatterns of object agreement and demonstrate that either or both of the twoobjects of a ditransitive verb may be cross-referenced by means of an overt
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
object agreement affix. This evidence, we contend, provides convincingsupport for the claim that Misantla Totonac is a symmetrical object languagein Bresnan and Moshi’s sense.
Before discussing the pattern of object agreement on ditransitive verbs, itis necessary to consider, briefly, the pattern of agreement on basic transitiveverbs. In table 1, we present the affixes and affix combinations in MisantlaTotonac that mark the various combinations of subject and object argumentsof transitive verbs. (This table is from MacKay 1999:163.) Our focus is onthe next-to-last row of table 1—i.e., the affixes which appear on transitiveverbs when the subject is third-person singular. As can be seen, third-personsingular NPs are unmarked as both subjects and objects. Combinations involv-ing a third-person singular subject therefore constitute the most transparentcases where the form of the object agreement affix is unaffected by subjectmarking. For ease of reference, we reproduce the object affixes which occuron transitive verbs with a third-person singular subject in (14):
The affixes in (14) are illustrated in the third-person singular subject, im-perfective, and perfective paradigms of the basic transitive verb /la
$qa
$n/
‘see X’ below:9
(15) Imperfective
[?ú$t kíla
$qev
$n] /kin-la
$qa
$n/ ‘s/he sees me’
[?ú$t la
$qe
$náan] /la
$qa
$n-yaa-na/ ‘s/he sees you’
[?ú$t la
$qev
$n] /la
$qa
$n/ ‘s/he sees him/her/it’
[?ú$t kíla
$qe
$náan] /kin-la
$qa
$n-yaa-na/ ‘s/he sees us’
[?ú$t táala
$qe
$náan] /taa-la
$qa
$n-yaa-na/ ‘s/he sees y’all’
[?ú$t láala
$qev
$n] /laa-la
$qa
$n/ ‘s/he sees them’
(16) Perfective
[?ú$t kilá
$qe
$¬] /kin-la
$qa
$n-la(¬)/ ‘s/he saw me’
[?ú$t la
$qev
$n] /la
$qa
$n-na/ ‘s/he saw you’
[?ú$t lá
$qe
$¬] /la
$qa
$n-la(¬)/ ‘s/he saw him/her/it’
[?ú$t kíla
$qev
$n] /kin-la
$qa
$n-na/ ‘s/he saw us’
[?ú$t táala
$qev
$n] /taa-la
$qa
$n-na/ ‘s/he saw y’all’
[?ú$t láalá
$qe
$¬] /laa-la
$qa
$n-la(¬)/ ‘s/he saw them’
9 The imperfective suffix, /-yaa/ ‘impfv’, does not occur word-finally in Misantla Totonacand therefore appears only before the second-person object suffix /-na/ ‘2obj’. The perfectivesuffix, /-la(¬)/ ‘pfv’, does not occur with the second-person object suffix /-na/ ‘2obj’.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On ditransitive verbs, the affixes listed above may encode the person andnumber features of either or both of the two objects. We illustrate inflectionof an object agreement affix on an inherently ditransitive verb in (17), an ap-plicative verb in (18), and a causative verb in (19). In these examples, oneobject is third-person singular and therefore not overtly marked on the verb;the other object is non-third-person singular and marked by means of anovert object agreement affix. Note that all of these examples are ambiguousout of context:
(17) /maka-i$ski
$/ ‘hand X to Y’ (‘give X to Y with the hand’)
(17a) [swáan láamaka?í$ski
$¬ hO!nlíbru]10 /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’ + /W/ ‘3obj’
/swaan laa-maka-i$ski
$-la(¬) hun-libru/
Juan 3obj.pl-bpp-give.X.to.Y-pfv det-book
‘Juan handed them the book(s)’, ‘Juan handed him/her the books’
(17b) [kiná$n ?í
$kláamaka?í
$skí
$ hO!nlíbru] /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’ + /W/ ‘3obj’
/kina$n ik-laa-maka-is
$ki
$-wa hun-libru/
we 1sub-3obj.pl-bpp-give.X.to.Y-1sub.pl det-book
‘we handed them the book(s)’, ‘we handed him/her the books’
(18) /saqa¬ii/ ‘talk/speak to X’/lii-saqa¬ii/ ‘talk/speak to X about/for Y’
(18a) [kílíisaqá¬ii¬] /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /W/ ‘3obj’
/kin-lii-saqa¬ii-la(¬)/1obj-inst-talk.to.X-pfv
‘s/he spoke to me about/for her/him’, ‘s/he spoke to her/him about/for me’
‘s/he made you see her/him’, ‘s/he made her/him see you’
(19b) [táamáala$qe
$níin] /taa-. . .-na/ ‘2obj.pl’ + /W/ ‘3obj’
/taa-maa-la$qa
$n-ni-na/
2obj.pl-caus-see.X-dat-2obj
‘s/he made her/him see y’all’, ‘s/he made y’all see her/him’
The examples in (17)–(19) all represent cases where a ditransitive verb isinflected with a single object agreement affix cross-referencing the featuresof a non-third-person singular object in the presence of an unmarked third-person singular object. The fact that the affix ambiguously cross-referenceseither of the two objects demonstrates that either object can control agree-ment. Examples of this sort are not criterial for object symmetry in MisantlaTotonac, however, since only one of the two objects controls agreementovertly. Alternating patterns of this sort can sometimes be found even inasymmetrical object languages.11
In order to demonstrate control of agreement by both of the objects of aditransitive verb in Misantla Totonac, it is necessary to look at examples inwhich neither object is third-person singular. It is in these cases, and onlythese, that both of the objects can be shown to control agreement simulta-neously. The examples in (20)–(22) below illustrate cases in which one objectis third-person plural and the other is first- or second-person. As can be seen,each of the objects is marked, independently, by means of an affix taken fromthe set in (14):
(20) /maka-i$ski
$/ ‘hand X to Y’
(20a) [swáan kíláamaka?í$ski
$¬ (hO!nlíbru)] /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’
/swaan kin-laa-maka-i$ski
$-la(¬) (hun-libru)/
Juan 1obj-3obj.pl-bpp-give.X.to.Y-pfv (det-book)
‘Juan handed them to me (the books)’
11 For discussion and exemplification of alternating patterns of object marking in asymmet-rical object languages in the Bantu family, see Harford (1991), Alsina (1996a), and Woolford(1993) on Kitharaka and Mchombo and Firmino (1999) on Gitonga.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
‘s/he spoke to us about/for them’, ‘s/he spoke to them about/for us’
12 The example in (20c) is starred in MacKay (1999:191) where it is claimed that /taa-/‘2obj.pl’ cannot co-occur with /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’. In fact, the affix combination /taa-laa-/ is per-mitted in Misantla Totonac. The example in (20c) is well formed.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Double object marking is also possible in sentences involving two third-person plural objects. The examples in (23) and (24) exhibit two indepen-dent occurrences of the plural prefix /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’:
In each of (20)–(24) above, the verb exhibits two overt object agreementaffixes, each one registering the features of one of the two objects. The factthat the affixes are both taken from the set in (14) shows that neither objectis privileged with respect to agreement. Both are simultaneously cross-referenced in the same way as the single object of a transitive verb. Thus,these examples provide unequivocal evidence of object symmetry in Mis-antla Totonac. In this language, both of the objects of a ditransitive verbmay be independently but simultaneously cross-referenced by means of aseparate and distinct verbal agreement affix.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Most examples of double object marking in Misantla Totonac are likethose in (20)–(24) above involving a third-person plural object, marked by/laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’. However, as noted in MacKay (1999), this seems to be duemore to pragmatic accident than morphosyntactic constraint. As illustratedin (25) and (26), double object marking of two first- and second-personobjects is also possible:
(25) [kílíisaqa¬íin] /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /-na/ ‘2obj’
/kin-lii-saqa¬ii-na/1obj-inst-talk.to.X-2obj
‘s/he spoke to you about/for me’, ‘s/he spoke to me about/for you’‘s/he spoke to us about/for her/him’, ‘s/he spoke to her/him about/for
us’
(26) [?ú$t kímáala
$qe
$níin] /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /-na/ ‘2obj’
/ut kin-maa-la$qa
$n-ni-na/
s/he 1obj-caus-see.X-dat-2obj
‘s/he made me see you’, ‘s/he made you see me’‘s/he made us see her/him’, ‘s/he made her/him see us’
As indicated, examples involving simultaneous inflection of the affixes /kin-/‘1obj’ and /-na/ ‘2obj’ on a ditransitive verb are four-way ambiguous inMisantla Totonac. On two of the readings, these two affixes function, as aunit, to mark a single first-person plural (inclusive) object. This is the samefunction that these affixes have on a basic transitive verb (cf. the paradigmsof /la
$qa
$n/ ‘see X’ in 15 and 16). On the other two readings, however, these
affixes function, independently, to mark the person and number features oftwo separate objects. The affixes do not serve to disambiguate the roles ofthese two objects, but they do serve to specify that one of them is second-person singular while the other is first-person singular. This demonstrates,once again, that either of the two objects of a ditransitive verb can controlovert object agreement in Misantla Totonac. But more than that, it demon-strates that these two objects can control this agreement simultaneously. Onthe relevant readings, then, the examples above provide further evidence ofthe fundamental symmetry of objects in this language.13
13 Some of the ambiguity associated with the affix combination /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /-na/ ‘2obj’in (25) and (26) disappears in the presence of the prefix /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’. The examples in (21c)and (22c), for example, are only two-way ambiguous. In these examples, /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’ rep-resents one of the arguments, so the affixes /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /-na/ ‘2obj’ together must representthe other. (21c) and (22c) are still ambiguous, since the thematic roles of the two arguments areunderdetermined by the affixes. Nevertheless, the combination /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /-na/ ‘2obj’ itselfis unambiguously interpreted as a marker of a single first-person plural object.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Double object marking involving first- and second-person objects alsooccurs in sentences involving the affixes /kin-/ ‘1obj’ and /taa-. . .-na/‘2obj.pl’:
‘s/he spoke to me about/for you (pl.)’, ‘s/he spoke to you (pl.)about/for me’
‘s/he spoke to us about/for you (pl.)’, ‘s/he spoke to you (pl.)about/for us’
(28) [?ú$t kíntáamáala
$qe
$níin] /kin-/ ‘1obj’ + /taa-. . .-na/ ‘2obj.pl’
/ut kin-taa-maa-la$qa
$n-ni-na/
s/he 1obj-2obj.pl-caus-see.X-dat-2obj
‘s/he made me see you (pl.)’, ‘s/he made you (pl.) see me’‘s/he made us see you (pl.)’, ‘s/he made you (pl.) see us’
In both (27) and (28), the affix /taa-. . .-na/ ‘2obj.pl’ signals that one of theobjects is second-person plural and the affix /kin-/ ‘1obj’ signals that theother object is first-person. The combination /kin-taa-. . .-na/ does not allowthe number of the first-person object to be specified (since two occurrencesof /-na/ are disallowed), so this object may be interpreted, ambiguously,as either singular or plural. Nevertheless, the fact that each of the affixes,/kin-/ and /taa-. . .-na/, cross-references a distinct object of the verb demon-strates, once again, that the two objects may control overt object agreementsimultaneously.
Various combinations of applicative and causative affixes on transitiveand ditransitive verbs yield verbs with three or more objects. In some in-stances, each of these objects can control overt agreement. Examples (29)and (30) illustrate cases of triple object marking. Triple object marking islimited to cases with a third-person plural object, marked by /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’:
‘s/he gave them to me for you’, ‘s/he gave them to you for me’‘s/he gave them to her/him for us’, ‘s/he gave them to us for her/him’‘s/he gave it to them for us’, ‘s/he gave it to us for them’
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
‘s/he made me give you the tortillas’‘s/he made you give me the tortillas’‘s/he made her/him give us the tortillas’‘s/he made us give her/him the tortillas’‘s/he made them give us the tortilla(s)’‘s/he made us give them the tortilla(s)’
(30) /kutu/ ‘feed X’/maa-kutu-ni/ ‘make Y feed X’/lii-maa-kutu-ni/ ‘make Y feed X with Z’
Juan 1obj-3obj.pl-inst-caus-feed.X-dat-2obj (det-spoon)
‘Juan made me feed you with them (the spoons)’‘Juan made you feed me with them (the spoons)’‘Juan made her/him feed us with them (the spoons)’‘Juan made us feed her/him with them (the spoons)’‘Juan made them feed us with it/them (the spoons(s))’‘Juan made us feed them with it/them (the spoon(s))’
The significance of (20)–(30) lies in the fact that they exhibit control ofagreement by two (or more) objects of a verb simultaneously. In some cur-rent theoretical accounts of the symmetrical/asymmetrical object languagedistinction, this fact is sufficient by itself to diagnose a language as sym-metrical. Thus, in the theory advocated by Alsina (1996b; 2001), doubleobject marking entails object symmetry. This is because secondary objects(= “restricted” objects, in his terms) are excluded from the class of possibleagreement controllers and, consequently, any object which controls agree-ment must necessarily be primary (= “unrestricted”). Alsina eschews theprinciple of Function–Argument Biuniqueness which requires argumentsand grammatical functions to be in one-to-one correspondence and thusallows two (or more) “unrestricted” objects per clause. If a language exhibitsdouble object marking, as Misantla Totonac clearly does, then it must beregarded as a symmetrical object language. In Alsina’s theory, all and onlysymmetrical object languages permit two or more “unrestricted” objects ina single clause.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In the theory of Bresnan and Moshi (1990), however, double object mark-ing does not entail symmetry because these authors subscribe to the principleof Function–Argument Biuniqueness and therefore disallow clauses withmore than one primary or “unrestricted” object. If a language exhibits dou-ble object marking, then it must be the case that both primary and secondaryobjects can control agreement. By including secondary objects in the classof possible agreement controllers, Bresnan and Moshi effectively invalidatethe appeal to double object marking as a definitive diagnostic of object sym-metry. In their theory, double object marking is potentially a characteristicof both symmetrical and asymmetrical object languages.
Although double object marking is apparently not sufficient to establish alanguage as symmetrical in Bresnan and Moshi’s theory, we believe that theambiguity that sometimes accompanies double object marking is. Recall thatthe affixes which are used to cross-reference the objects of a double objectverb in Misantla Totonac are both taken from the set of affixes (= 14) that isused to cross-reference the single object of a transitive verb. They thereforedo not serve to disambiguate the roles of the two objects nor do they serveto distinguish their respective grammatical functions. Since a fundamentalproperty of objects in an asymmetrical object language is that they are dis-tinguished morphosyntactically, we conclude that Misantla Totonac is not anasymmetrical object language. Instead, it is a symmetrical object languagein which either of the objects of a double object verb can be associated witheither of the two nonsubject roles which it licenses. Sentences like those in(21)–(30) above are ambiguous in Misantla Totonac precisely because theaffixes which are used to cross-reference the multiple objects in these sen-tences do not serve to identify either their roles or their functions uniquely.
5. Reflexive and reciprocal verbs. Another property that has often beenused to distinguish objects in symmetrical and asymmetrical object languagesis accessibility to lexical processes of reflexivization and/or reciprocaliza-tion. In many asymmetrical object languages, these processes are constrainedto effect the anaphoric binding by the subject of only one of the multipleobjects of a derived causative or applicative verb. In symmetrical objectlanguages, in contrast, they may effect the binding of any object. In orderto investigate the effects of reflexivization and reciprocalization on themultiple objects of a ditransitive, applicative, or causative verb in MisantlaTotonac, we must first look at their effects on the single object of a tran-sitive verb. Accordingly, in this section, we describe both the form andinterpretation of reflexive and reciprocal verbs in this language. This de-scription provides the necessary background for a detailed discussion of theeffects of reflexivization and reciprocalization on multiple object verbs in 6and 7 below.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5.1. Reflexives. Both reflexive and reciprocal verbs in Misantla Totonacare marked by the verbal suffix /-kan/ ‘refl’. On transitive verbs, this suffixfunctions to indicate a relation of referential dependence between the objectof the verb and the subject. It eliminates the need for independent formalspecification of the object and therefore reduces the valence of the verb byone. As a result, transitive verbs with /-kan/ ‘refl’ are formally intransitive.They exhibit normal subject inflection, but they do not exhibit any form ofobject inflection. The reflexive forms of the transitive verb /la
$qa
$n/ ‘see X’,
in imperfective and perfective aspects, are given in (31) and (32):
(31) Imperfective
[kít ?í$kla
$qev
$Ykán] /ik-la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘I see myself ’
[wí$s la
$qev
$Yká
$n] /la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘you see yourself ’
[?ú$t la
$qev
$Ykán] /la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘s/he sees herself/himself ’
[kiná$n la
$qev
$Ykanáa] /la
$qa
$n-kan-yaa-wa/ ‘we see ourselves’
[wi$sín la
$qev
$Ykaná
$a$tat] /la
$qa
$n-kan-yaa-tat/ ‘y’all see yourselves’
[?u$tún tala
$qev
$Ykán] /ta-la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘they see themselves’
(32) Perfective
[kít ?í$kla
$qev
$Yka¬] /ik-la
$qa
$n-kan-la(¬)/ ‘I saw myself ’
[wí$s la
$qev
$Yka] /la
$qa
$n-kan-ti/ ‘you saw yourself ’
[?ú$t la
$qev
$Yka¬] /la
$qa
$n-kan-la(¬)/ ‘s/he saw herself/himself ’
[kiná$n la
$qev
$Yká] /la
$qa
$n-kan-wa/ ‘we saw ourselves’
[wi$sín la
$qev
$Ykántat] /la
$qa
$n-kan-tat/ ‘y’all saw yourselves’
[?u$tún tala
$qev
$Yka¬] /ta-la
$qa
$n-kan-la(¬)/ ‘they saw themselves’
5.2. Reciprocals. On reciprocal verbs, the suffix /-kan/ ‘refl’ is accom-panied by two other affixes, /ta-/ ‘sub.pl’ and /laa-/ ‘recip’. Both of theseaffixes have functions in other, nonreciprocal constructions in the language.On nonreciprocal verbs with a second-person subject and a first-person object,the prefix /laa-/ ‘recip’ co-occurs with /kin-/ ‘1obj’ to mark the plurality ofeither the subject, the object, or both.14 On reciprocal verbs, however, /laa-/‘recip’ functions as a marker of reciprocity. Note the minimal pair in (33)and (34):
(33) [?u$tún tala
$qev
$Ykán] /ta-la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘they see themselves’
(34) [?u$tún taláala
$qev
$Ykán] /ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘they see each other’
MacKay and Trechsel (2003) argue that /laa-/ ‘recip’ in Misantla Totonacis historically derived from a prefix /*laa-/ ‘recip’ in Proto-Totonac-Tepehuathat functioned, by itself, to mark a reciprocal relation between a subjectand an object. Reflexes of this prefix occur with precisely this function in
14 As illustrated earlier, there is a homophonous prefix /laa-/ ‘3obj.pl’ that marks the plu-rality of third-person objects. For further discussion of the use and distribution of /laa-/‘3obj.pl’ and /laa-/ ‘recip’ in Misantla Totonac, see MacKay and Trechsel (2003).
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
all Totonac-Tepehua languages except Misantla Totonac. Misantla Totonacappears to be the only language in the family that requires /laa-/ to be “sup-plemented,” as it were, by /ta-/ ‘sub.pl’ and /-kan/ ‘refl’ to mark the recip-rocal relation unambiguously.
The prefix /ta-/ ‘sub.pl’ marks third-person plural subjects (see the chartof affixes in table 1).15 On reciprocal verbs, /ta-/ ‘sub.pl’ occurs with otherovert subject agreement affixes to mark first- and second-person plural sub-jects. For this reason, MacKay (1999) and MacKay and Trechsel (2003) ana-lyze /ta-/ ‘sub.pl’ as a generalized plural subject marker, unspecified forperson. In the absence of any other subject inflection, /ta-/ is interpreted, bydefault, as a marker of a third-person plural subject.
On transitive verbs, the sequence /ta-laa-. . .-kan/ marks the reciprocalbinding of the object by the subject and reduces the valence of the verb byone. In Misantla Totonac, transitive verbs with /ta-laa-. . .-kan/ exhibit nor-mal (plural) subject inflection, but they do not exhibit any form of objectinflection. The reciprocal forms of the transitive verb /la
$qa
$n/ ‘see X’ are
given in (35) and (36):
(35) Imperfective
[kiná$n ?í
$ktaláala
$qev
$Ykanáa] /ik-ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan-yaa-wa/ ‘we see each other’
[wi$sín taláala
$qev
$Ykaná
$a$tat] /ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan-yaa-tat/ ‘y’all see each other’
[?u$tún taláala
$qev
$Ykán] /ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan/ ‘they see each other’
(36) Perfective
[kiná$n ?í
$ktaláala
$qev
$Yká] /ik-ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan-wa/ ‘we saw each other’
[wi$sín taláala
$qev
$Ykántat] /ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan-tat/ ‘y’all saw each other’
[?u$tún taláala
$qev
$Yka¬] /ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-kan-la(¬)/ ‘they saw each other’
6. Interpretation of reflexive and reciprocal applicative verbs.Having discussed the form and interpretation of reflexive and reciprocaltransitive verbs, we now consider the form and interpretation of reflexive andreciprocal ditransitive verbs. As noted earlier, Bresnan and Moshi’s theoryof object asymmetries makes a number of clear empirical predictions in thisdomain. One prediction concerns the availability of the multiple objects ofan applicative verb to serve as targets of lexical processes of reflexivizationand reciprocalization. In an asymmetrical object language, these processesare often constrained to effect the anaphoric binding of only one of the objectsof a ditransitive applicative verb. The most pervasive pattern is one in whichonly the applied object may be bound, not the basic (patient or theme) object.Thus, in Chichewa, an asymmetrical object language of the Bantu family, areciprocalized applicative verb based on a transitive verb like ‘feed X’ can
15 The prefix /ta-/ ‘subj.pl’ also occurs in other Totonac and Tepehua languages to markthird-person plural subjects.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
only express the meaning ‘feed X for each other’ and cannot express themeaning ‘feed each other for X’.16 In a symmetrical object language, in con-trast, both of these readings are available. Either the applied object or thebasic object can be anaphorically linked to the subject by lexical processesof reflexivization or reciprocalization. The facts in Misantla Totonac indicatethat this is a symmetrical object language in Bresnan and Moshi’s sense. Onditransitive verbs, including ditransitive applicative verbs, reflexivizationand reciprocalization may effect the binding of either of the two objects(subject to semantic plausibility). Examples like those in (37)–(39) are sys-tematically ambiguous out of context:17
(37) /laka=swa$a$t/ ‘shave X’
/laka=swa$a$t-ni/ ‘shave X for Y’
(37a) [kít ?í$klakaswá
$a$tnikán hO!mPedro] refl + 3obj
/kit ik-laka=swa$a$t-ni-kan hun-Pedro/
I 1sub-bpp=grind.X-dat-refl det-Pedro
‘I shave myself for Pedro’, ‘I shave Pedro for myself ’
(37b) [?u$tún taláalakaswá
$a$tnikán hO!mPedro] recip + 3obj
/utun ta-laa-laka=swa$a$t-ni-kan hun-Pedro/
they sub.pl-recip-bpp=grind.X-dat-refl det-Pedro
‘they shave each other for Pedro’, ‘they shave Pedro for each other’
(38) /saqa¬ii/ ‘talk to X’/lii-saqa¬ii/ ‘talk to X about/for Y’
/kit ik-lii-saqa¬ii-kan-la(¬) hun Maria/I 1sub-inst-talk.to.X-refl-pfv det Maria
‘I talked to myself for Maria’, ‘I talked to Maria for myself (for myown pleasure)’
16 For discussion of this asymmetrical pattern in Chichewa (Bantu), see Baker (1988a;1988b), Bresnan and Moshi (1990), Alsina (2001; 2002), Alsina and Mchombo (1990; 1993),and Mchombo and Firmino (1999). For discussion of the pattern in Tzotzil (Mayan), see Aissen(1987).
17 In order to illustrate as many minimal contrasts as possible, many of the examples in thispaper were obtained through elicitation. Speakers showed no hesitation in accepting or pro-ducing the forms in the examples, but they were sometimes uncertain of their meanings. Weendeavored to verify the full range of meanings by contextualizing the examples in numerous,distinct ways. While we are confident that all of the multiple readings reported here are avail-able for the examples, we acknowledge that they are not all equally salient out of context.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
/utun ta-laa-lii-saqa¬ii-kan-la(¬) hun Maria/they sub.pl-recip-inst-talk.to.X-refl-pfv det Maria
‘they talked to each other about Maria’, ‘they talked to Maria abouteach other’
(39) /la$qa
$n/ ‘see X’
/la$qa
$n-ni/ ‘see X for Y’
(39a) [kít ?í$kla
$qe
$níka¬ hO!mPedro] refl + 3obj
/kit ik-la$qa
$n-ni-kan-la(¬) hun-Pedro/
I 1sub-see.X-dat-refl-pfv det-Pedro
‘I looked at myself for Pedro’, ‘I looked at Pedro for myself (for mypleasure)’
(39b) [kiná$n ?í
$ktaláala
$qe
$niká] recip + 3obj
/kina$n ik-ta-laa-la
$qa
$n-ni-kan-wa/
we 1sub-sub.pl-recip-see.X-dat-refl-1sub.pl
‘we looked at each other for him/her’, ‘we looked at him/her for each other’
Of the two readings available for the verbs in (37)–(39), it is the first one,in which the basic object (i.e., the patient/theme of the base verb) is boundto the subject, that is diagnostic of object symmetry in Misantla Totonac.This is the reading which is very often disallowed for reflexive and recipro-cal applicative verbs in asymmetrical object languages.
7. Object marking on reflexive and reciprocal verbs. A second pre-diction of Bresnan and Moshi’s theory concerns the possibility of objectmarking on a reflexive or reciprocal ditransitive verb. In an asymmetricalobject language, the object which is not bound by the subject may not con-trol object marking or exhibit any other morphosyntactic behavior associ-ated with the single object of a basic transitive verb. In a symmetrical objectlanguage, however, the nonbound object of a reflexive or reciprocal ditran-sitive verb can exhibit object marking. Object marking on these verbs is thuscriterial for distinguishing an asymmetrical object language from a symmet-rical object language.
Misantla Totonac must be regarded as a symmetrical object languagebecause it allows object marking both on reflexive or reciprocal applicativeverbs and on reflexive or reciprocal causatives. On reflexive or reciprocalapplicative verbs, an object marker may cross-reference either the appliedobject or the basic (patient/theme) object. The examples in (40)–(42) beloware like those in (37)–(39) except that they exhibit overt object agreement
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
‘they spoke to each other about/for you (pl.)’, ‘they spoke to you (pl.) about/for each other’
(42) /la$qa
$n/ ‘see X’
/la$qa
$n-ni/ ‘see X for Y’
(42a) [swáan kíla$qe
$níka¬] refl + 1obj
/swaan kin-la$qa
$n-ni-kan-la(¬)/
Juan 1obj-see.X-dat-refl-pfv
‘Juan looked at himself for me’, ‘Juan looked at me for himself (for his pleasure)’
(42b) [?u$tún kíntaláala
$qe
$níka¬] recip + 1obj
/utun kin-ta-laa-la$qa
$n-ni-kan-la(¬)/
they 1obj-sub.pl-recip-see.X-dat-refl-pfv
‘they looked at each other for me’, ‘they looked at me for each other’
Similar facts obtain for reflexive and reciprocal causative verbs. Examples(43) and (44) below demonstrate that an object marker on a reflexive orreciprocal causative verb in Misantla Totonac may refer to either of the twoobjects. If the object marker refers to the basic object (i.e., the patient/themeargument of the base transitive verb), then the binding relation obtains be-tween the causer and the causee. This yields readings like ‘they make eachother feed him/her’. If the object marker refers to the causee, however, thenthe binding relation obtains between the causee and the basic object. Thisyields readings like ‘s/he made them feed each other’. As in other languageswith lexical processes of reflexivization and reciprocalization, the bindingrelation may not obtain between the basic object and the causer. That is,readings like ‘theyi made him/her feed each otheri (of themi)’ are disallowed.
(43) /kutu/ ‘feed X’/maa-kutu-ni/ ‘make Y feed X’
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
‘they made each other see y’all’, ‘they made y’all see each other (of y’all)’
(44f ) [taláaláamáala$qe
$níika¬] recip + 3obj.pl
/ta-laa-laa-maa-la$qa
$n-ni-kan-la(¬)/
sub.pl-3obj.pl-recip-caus-see.X-dat-refl-pfv
‘theyi made each otheri see themj’, ‘theyi made themj see each other (of themj)’
Of the two readings associated with the reflexive or reciprocal causativeverbs above, only one is relevant to the issue of object symmetry. As notedby Alsina (2001), even an asymmetrical object language may exhibit objectmarking on a reflexive or reciprocal causative verb if the bound (reflexiveor reciprocal) object is interpreted as the patient or theme argument of thebase verb. However, an asymmetrical object language may not exhibit objectmarking on a reflexive or reciprocal causative verb if the bound (reflexiveor reciprocal) object is interpreted as causee. Thus, it is the latter reading,illustrated by ‘they made each other feed him/her’, that is diagnostic. Thefact that Misantla Totonac allows this reading for reflexive and reciprocalcausatives with object markers shows conclusively that it is a symmetricalobject language.
8. Conclusion. In this paper, we have demonstrated that Misantla Totonacis a symmetrical object language in the strict sense of Bresnan and Moshi(1990). We have noted that either or both of the two objects of a ditransitiveverb can control overt object agreement. We have also shown that either canbe accessed by lexical processes of reflexivization and reciprocalizationwhile the other controls agreement. The fact that the multiple objects of acausative and applicative verb can simultaneously exhibit one of the prop-erties associated with the single object of a transitive verb indicates, ratherconvincingly, that they are symmetrical. Thus, Misantla Totonac representsa clear example of a symmetrical object language outside of the Bantu lan-guage family.
It needs to be emphasized that the symmetrical behavior of objects whichwe have documented for Misantla Totonac is not found in all Totonac-Tepehualanguages. As in the case of the Bantu family, there seems to be variationwithin Totonac-Tepehua concerning the treatment of the two (or more) objectsin multiple object constructions. At one extreme are languages like MisantlaTotonac, where multiple objects are completely symmetrical with respect to
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
both agreement and availability to processes of reflexivization and recip-rocalization. At the opposite extreme are languages like Papantla Totonac,where, according to Levy (2000), ambiguity and double object marking arecompletely absent with ditransitive applicative verbs. Between these extremesare various intermediate types where the possibilities of ambiguity and dou-ble object marking are constrained by the person and number features of thetwo (or more) objects (see MacKay and Trechsel 2005a for a preliminary sur-vey). Investigating the range of cross-linguistic variation within the Totonac-Tepehua family and isolating the various factors that engender it remaintopics for future research.
REFERENCES
Aissen, Judith L. 1987. Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Alsina, Alex. 1996a. Passive types and the theory of object asymmetries. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 14:673–723.. 1996b. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stan-
ford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.. 2001. On the non-semantic nature of argument structure. Language Sciences 23:355–89.. 2002. The Chimwi:ni reflexive puzzle: Filling a gap in the typology of complex predi-
cates. Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, ed. ElaineFrancis and Laura Michaelis, pp. 3–52. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Alsina, Alex, and Sam. A. Mchombo. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: Prob-lems for a theta theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:493–506.
. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chichewa applicative construction. TheoreticalAspects of Bantu Grammar, ed. Sam A. Mchombo, pp. 17–45. Stanford, Calif.: CSLIPublications.
Baker, Mark. 1988a. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
. 1998b. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 6:353–89.
Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax.Linguistic Inquiry 21:147–85. [Reprinted in Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, ed.Sam A. Mchombo, pp. 47–91. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.]
Dench, Alan. 1987. Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia.Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.
Donohue, Mark. 1996. Bajau: A symmetrical Austronesian language. Language 72:782–93.Harford, Carolyn. 1991. Object asymmetries in Kitharaka. Proceedings of the Seventeenth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on African LanguageStructures, pp. 98–105. Berkeley: University of California.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Información (INEGI). 1980. X CensoGeneral de Población y Vivienda, 1980. México, D.F.: Secretaría de Programación y Presu-puesto.
. 2000. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda, 2000. México, D.F.: Secretaría deProgramación y Presupuesto.
Levy, Paulette. 2000. El aplicativo Dativo/Benefactivo en totonaco de Papantla. Memoriasdel VI Encuentro de Lingüística del Noroeste. Sonora: UNISON.
MacKay, Carolyn J. 1994. A sketch of Misantla Totonac phonology. IJAL 60:369–419.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
. 1999. A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.MacKay, Carolyn J., and Frank R. Trechsel. 2003. Reciprocal /laa-/ in Totonacan. IJAL
69:275–306.. 2005a. Symmetrical objects in Totonacan: A comparative perspective. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages ofthe Americas (SSILA), Oakland, California.
. 2005b. Totonaco de Misantla, Veracruz. Archivo de Lenguas Indígenas de México.México, D.F.: El Colegio de México.
. 2006. Totonacan languages. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed.,vol. 13, ed. Keith Brown, pp. 3–8. Oxford: Elsevier.
Mchombo, Sam A., ed. 1993. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: CSLIPublications.
Mchombo, Sam A., and Gregório Firmino. 1999. Double object constructions in Chichewaand Gitonga: A comparative analysis. Linguistic Analysis 29:214–33.
McQuown, Norman A. 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca. Colección Lingüística In-dígena 4. México, D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México.
Payne, Doris L., and Thomas E. Payne. 1989. Yagua. Handbook of Amazonian Languages,vol. 2, ed. Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, pp. 249–474. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.
Woolford, Ellen. 1993. Symmetric and asymmetric passives. Natural Language and Linguis-tic Theory 11:679–728.
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Tue, 20 May 2014 22:36:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
