Blunk-Fernandez

In this paper I discuss the grammatical and semantic extension of the antipassive construction in Ixil Maya to a second use that is called the “agent-focus” (England, 1988). I present morphosyntactic and discourse data that suggest the agent-focus construction serves to manage information flow across clause boundaries. Specifically, I suggest that the emergence of the agent-focus construction in Ixil can be explained in terms of the preferred argument structure constraints laid out in Du Bois (1987b).

In ergative languages like Ixil, the antipassive is a valence reducing operation, changing a transitive predicate into an intransitive one. Further, the antipassive voice focuses the agent of the action, expressing the agent, normally marked with an ergative pronoun, with the more frequent absolutive pronoun. The patient argument is optional and when included, is marked as an oblique. The following examples in Ixil are taken from Ayres (1991). In the antipassive construction in example (2), the verb has the antipassive suffix -on and the agent is expressed with the absolutive form of the 2^nd person pronoun. Notice that Ixil, like other Mayan languages is a V-initial language.

The antipassive is used when the patient is unknown or presupposed, or when one wants to put special emphasis on the agent. In all cases, there is special emphasis on the argument cross referenced with the absolutive pronoun. In terms of PAS, we can say that the discursive function of the anti-passive voice is to use the Agent as the sole argument of an intransitive clause, a place usually reserved for new topics which are usually patients. The agent is thus used in a clause structure more typically associated with new information. In other words, the agent is used in the absolutive role of an intransitive verb where it will be interpreted as new or contrastive information. This construction will thus be used when the patient is understood and presupposed, and the agent is the new information.

In Ixil there is a further extension of the use of the anti-passive suffix, a use that emphasizes the agent even more strongly and allows a clause with two absolutive-marked arguments. This is the agent-focus construction. The agent-focus construction uses the same suffix, –on, as the anti-passive, but the agent is fronted, no longer in direct relation to the verb. It is marked as an absolutive in its own clause. The patient is also marked as absolutive, as it would be in an active transitive clause. The following examples are taken from my field notes:

As examples (2) and (3) show, the verb is only directly cross-referencing the patient argument. This construction is used when the agent is contrasted, as in it wasn’t Bill, it was John who hit me.

Relative clauses also allow the agent-focus construction when the head of the relative is an agent:

Common to all these constructions is the emphasis on the agent, either contrastive or questioned. In the agent-focus construction, like the antipassive, the clause is intransitive. Unlike the antipassive though, the agent is fronted in addition to being marked as absolutive, and the patient is also marked as absolutive. Thus the agent-focus construction changes the valence of the verb but it also changes which argument in direct relation to the –on marked verb, placing the patient in the absolutive argument role. The difference between the antipassive and agent focus constructions is shown in Figure 1.

Examining the distribution of the agent-focus construction in discourse and considering information flow allows us to delineate its two primary functions: allowing the speaker to introduce two new lexical mentions in the same sentence and emphasizing the volitionality of the agent. Notice in example (6) that both the agent in the final sentence, ‘the soldiers,’ and the patient, ‘my father,’ are new information first introduced into the discourse here. I argue that using the agent-focus construction in this discourse context allows the speaker to mark these items of information as new and also to highlight the deliberateness of the killing.

‘Yes, a baby. He was just one or two years old when the war began. It was the soldiers who killed my father.’

In example (7), an abstract and inanimate concept, ‘poverty,’ is given agent status, its control and power highlighted, through its expression as agent within the agent-focus construction.

Ayres, G. (1991). La gramática Ixil. Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica.

Du Bois, J. (1987a). Absolutive zero: Paradigm adaptivity in Sacapultec Maya. Lingua, 71, 203-222.

Du Bois, J. (2003). Argument structure: Grammar in use. In W. Du Bois, L. Kumpf, & W. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

England, N. (1988). Introducción a la Lingüística: Idiomas Mayas. Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín. Second Edition, 1996: Cholsamaj and PLFM.

[i] This relative pronoun is optional in front of the aspect marker in all of the following examples. It rarely occurs in my data, however.

[ii] A corte is the traditional skirt worn by Ixil women.

Return to schedule	William Blunk-Fernández, The University of Texas wblunk@mail.utexas.edu	Return to main page
	The Agent-Focus in Ixil, Maya Discourse
	In this paper I discuss the grammatical and semantic extension of the antipassive construction in Ixil Maya to a second use that is called the “agent-focus” (England, 1988). I present morphosyntactic and discourse data that suggest the agent-focus construction serves to manage information flow across clause boundaries. Specifically, I suggest that the emergence of the agent-focus construction in Ixil can be explained in terms of the preferred argument structure constraints laid out in Du Bois (1987b). In ergative languages like Ixil, the antipassive is a valence reducing operation, changing a transitive predicate into an intransitive one. Further, the antipassive voice focuses the agent of the action, expressing the agent, normally marked with an ergative pronoun, with the more frequent absolutive pronoun. The patient argument is optional and when included, is marked as an oblique. The following examples in Ixil are taken from Ayres (1991). In the antipassive construction in example (2), the verb has the antipassive suffix -on and the agent is expressed with the absolutive form of the 2^nd person pronoun. Notice that Ixil, like other Mayan languages is a V-initial language. Transitive Anti-passive (1) Kat a q’os in (2) Kat q’os-on axh (s-vi’) Completive 2sErg HIT 1sAbs Completive HIT-antipass 2sAbs (to me) ‘You hit me’ ‘You hit (me)’ The antipassive is used when the patient is unknown or presupposed, or when one wants to put special emphasis on the agent. In all cases, there is special emphasis on the argument cross referenced with the absolutive pronoun. In terms of PAS, we can say that the discursive function of the anti-passive voice is to use the Agent as the sole argument of an intransitive clause, a place usually reserved for new topics which are usually patients. The agent is thus used in a clause structure more typically associated with new information. In other words, the agent is used in the absolutive role of an intransitive verb where it will be interpreted as new or contrastive information. This construction will thus be used when the patient is understood and presupposed, and the agent is the new information. In Ixil there is a further extension of the use of the anti-passive suffix, a use that emphasizes the agent even more strongly and allows a clause with two absolutive-marked arguments. This is the agent-focus construction. The agent-focus construction uses the same suffix, *–on,* as the anti-passive, but the agent is fronted, no longer in direct relation to the verb. It is marked as an absolutive in its own clause. The patient is also marked as absolutive, as it would be in an active transitive clause. The following examples are taken from my field notes: (2) Axh-e (va)[i]* kat q’os-on in* 2sAbs-topic (relative.pro) compl. HIT-on 1sAbs ‘It was you who hit me’ (3) Jit in-e’ kat q’os-on-Ø neg. 1sAbs.-topic compl HIT-on.-3sAbs ‘It’s not me who hit it’ As examples (2) and (3) show, the verb is only directly cross-referencing the patient argument. This construction is used when the agent is contrasted, as in it wasn’t Bill, it was John who hit me. Another common context for the agent-focus is questions, as in example (4): (4) Ab’il kat loq-on u chik-e’? WHO compl. BUY-on . the CORTE-topic ‘Who bought the corte[ii]?’ Relative clauses also allow the agent-focus construction when the head of the relative is an agent: *(5) U naj-e’ kat yatz-on u tx’i-e’ como ni-sa pan* the MAN-topic compl. KILL-af. the DOG-topic how aspect.3sE-DESIRE bread ‘The man who killed the dog wants bread’ Common to all these constructions is the emphasis on the agent, either contrastive or questioned. In the agent-focus construction, like the antipassive, the clause is intransitive. Unlike the antipassive though, the agent is fronted in addition to being marked as absolutive, and the patient is also marked as absolutive. Thus the agent-focus construction changes the valence of the verb but it also changes which argument in direct relation to the *–on* marked verb, placing the patient in the absolutive argument role. The difference between the antipassive and agent focus constructions is shown in Figure 1. Syntax Affix Agent case Patient case Active Transitive VAP Ø ergative absolutive Antipassive VA(P) *-on* absolutive oblique Agent-focus AVP *-on* absolutive absolutive Figure 1 - Voice in Ixil Maya Examining the distribution of the agent-focus construction in discourse and considering information flow allows us to delineate its two primary functions: allowing the speaker to introduce two new lexical mentions in the same sentence and emphasizing the volitionality of the agent. Notice in example (6) that both the agent in the final sentence, ‘the soldiers,’ and the patient, ‘my father,’ are new information first introduced into the discourse here. I argue that using the agent-focus construction in this discourse context allows the speaker to mark these items of information as new and also to highlight the deliberateness of the killing. (6) Uu ne’. Yes baby Ma’l kuxh i-ka’aval kuxh i-yap. one just 3sE.-two just 3sE.-year T-ul va’ xe’t-Ø u ch’o’oj. 3sErg-ARRIVE relative.pro BEGIN-3sAbs the war U sol Ø-yatz-on-Ø un-b’aal. the soldier aspect-KILL-on.-3Abs 1sE.-father ‘Yes, a baby. He was just one or two years old when the war began. It was the soldiers who killed my father.’ In example (7), an abstract and inanimate concept, ‘poverty,’ is given agent status, its control and power highlighted, through its expression as agent within the agent-focus construction. *(7)* *Meebal-e’ ni b’an-on o’* Poverty-topic aspect DO-af. 1pA. ‘It is poverty that makes us’ References Ayres, G. (1991). La gramática Ixil. Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica. Du Bois, J. (1987a). Absolutive zero: Paradigm adaptivity in Sacapultec Maya. Lingua, 71, 203-222. Du Bois, J. (1987b). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805-855 Du Bois, J. (2003). Argument structure: Grammar in use. In W. Du Bois, L. Kumpf, & W. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. England, N. (1988). Introducción a la Lingüística: Idiomas Mayas. Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín. Second Edition, 1996: Cholsamaj and PLFM. [i] This relative pronoun is optional in front of the aspect marker in all of the following examples. It rarely occurs in my data, however. [ii] A corte is the traditional skirt worn by Ixil women.