Split Intransitivity in Otom

Virgilio Partida Pealva

1. INTRODUCTION
Otom (Otomanguean) is a head-marking language with subject- and object-verb agreement and
VSO word order. It shows a Nominative-Accusative Case-marking system with Split
Intransitivity or Split-S, where agent subjects (A) (subjects of transitive and unergative verbs) are
marked differently from patient subjects (subjects of unaccusative/stative verbs), which receive
the same case as objects of transitive sentences (P).
(1)
A SA
SP

(2)
a. g=tsa-g-i Transitive
2PST=bite-1OBJ-F1
'You bit me' (Palancar 2009: 232)
b. g Intransitive (Unergative)
2PRS=run
'You ran' (Palancar 2009: 16)
(3)
a. ra=di=ndohki-gi=ga Intransitive (Unaccusative)
3INCP=CL=become.fat-1OBJ=1EMPH2
'I am becoming fat' (Hernndez Green 2015: 472)
b. hi=m - s i-gi Intransitive (Stative)
NEG=3IPRF ST-tall-1OBJ
'I was not tall' (Palancar 2009: 317)

Several factors that trigger Split-S have been identified for different languages:
Guaran (Tup-Guaran) (Mi u 1991) L ical asp c (Aktionsart)
Lakota & Osage (Siouan) (Mithun 1991, Pustet 2002) Agentivity
Central Pomo (Pomoan) (Mithun 1991) Affectedness of the argument
Chol (Mayan) (Coon 2013) Semantic nature of the main verb

As it is shown below, Split-S in Otom is related with the fact that some intransitive verbs select
an internal argument while others don't. This distinction comes from the unaccusative hypothesis

1
D(ependent) and F(ree) morphemes in Otom are attached after the last suffix of a verbal stem. F morphemes
indicate the end of the word while D morphemes appear between the verbal stem and other morphemes that are
attached at the right, like enclitics.
2
There are two allomorphs for first person OBJ mark, -g and -k, which distribution is determined by the phonology
of the verbal root.

1
(first proposed by Perlmutter (1978) and then restated by Burzio (1986) within the GB theory),
and coincides with previous descriptivist observations made for the language (Palancar 2009,
Hernndez Green 2015). In order to account for this phenomenon I build on a generalization
made by Coon (2010) for Chol which requires all light v heads (intransitive and transitive) to
mark their internal argument with a single case.
In section 2, I show a comparison between the Split-S system found in Otom and the one
present in other languages. In section 3, I present a proposal to give an account for the Case-
marking pattern in this language, building on Coon's (2010). Finally, in 4 I present a comparison
between Otom and Mazahua, a language from the same family that also shows Split-S.

2. FACTORS THAT TRIGGER SPLIT-S

2.1 Lexical aspect
Mithun (1991) notices that, in Guaran, subjects of events that imply dynamicity (4a-c)
activities, accomplishments and achievements in Vendler's (1957) typology are Case-marked
differently from subjects of events that imply time stability (states) (4d-e), which receive the
same Case as the objects of transitive constructions (4f). In Otom, however, the same
generalization cannot be made since subjects of activities (5) are marked differently from
subjects of changes of state (6), which pattern with states (7).
(4) GUARAN
a. a-x 'I go' SA: Subject of transitives and dynamics
b. a-pu 'I got up'
c. a-gwer ana 'I am bringing them now'
d. -ras 'I am sick' SP: Object of transitives and statives
e. -ropeh 'I am sleepy'
f. e-rerah 'It will carry me off' (Mithun 1991: 511)

(5) OTOMACTIVITIES
a. d a h=ka
1=INCP=dance=1EMPH
'I am dancing'

b. ra=neh=a
3.INCP=dance=F
'He is dancing' (Hernndez Green 2015: 468-469)

(6) OTOMCHANGES OF STATE

a. ra=di=ndohki-gi=ga
3INCP=CL=engordar-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I am becoming fat'

b. ra=di=ndohki-=a
3INCP=CL=engordar-3OBJ=D
'He is becoming fat' (Hernndez Green 2015: 472)

2
(7) OTOMSTATES
a. a i -gi=ga
3INCP=CL=see-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I am visible'
b. ra=tsw-gi=ga
3INCP=be.healthy-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I am healthy' (Hernndez Green 2015: 470)

2.2 Agentivity
In languages from the Siouan family (Lakota and Osage), Split-S seems to be related to
agentivity (Mithun 1991). Subjects that perform, instigate and/or control the action (8a-c) are
Case-marked differently from those that undergo the predication (8d-e), which are marked as
objects of transitive sentences (8f). Otom seems to pattern like Siouan languages. However,
althought most undergoer subjects in Otom are marked as objects (9a), there are still a subset of
unaccusatives subjects (9b) that are marked as agents (9c).
(8) LAKHOTA
a. waps 'I jumped'
b. wakspa 'I'm prudent'
c. waktkte 'I will kill him'
d. makhe 'I am sick'
e. mahxpaye 'I fell'
f. amu 'He brought me' (Mithun 1991: 514-515)

(9) OTOM
a. bi=z-gi
3COMPL=burn-1OBJ
'I got burned'
b. r=n g
1PST=fall
'I fell'
c. r
1PST=run
'I ran' (Hernndez Green, forthcoming)

2.3 Affectedness
Central Pomo distinguishes between two groups of verbs that mark their patients differently.
While some verbs denote states that significantly affect their participants or cause them a

3
temporary condition (10a-b), others denote inherent properties of them (10c-d). This division,
however, is not seen in Otom. As seen in (6), (7) and (11) below, the single argument of verbs
denoting changes of state and states are marked in the same way.
(10) CENTRAL POMO
a. -k s iw 'I'm scared'
b. -w 'I'm stuck'
c. a-y-q i 'I am careful'
d. a-e q -m q'd
h
'I'm mean' (Mithun 1991: 519)

(11) OTOM
a. r=hts'i-gi=ga
3FUT=tall-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I am tall'

d. bi=z-gi
3COMPL=burn-1OBJ
'I got burned' (Hernndez Green, forthcoming)

3. PROPOSAL
In Chol (Mayan), transitive subjects, unergative subjects and subjects of antipassives are marked
with the same Case (12), while transitive objects and subjects of unaccusatives and passives
receive a different marking (13).
(12) Unergatives and antipassives
a. Tyi a-cha'l-e k'ay
PFV 2ERG-do-DTV song
'You sang'

b. Tyi a-cha'l-e wuts'-o-el

PFV 2ERG-do-DTV wash-APASS-NMLZ
'You washed' (Coon 2013: 22)

(13) Unaccusatives and passives

a. Tyi jul-i-yety
PFV arrive.here-ITV-2ABS
'You arrived here'

b. Tyi mejk'-i-yety
PFV hug.PASS-ITV-2ABS
'You were hugged' (Coon 2013: 22)

4
To account for this, Coon (2010, 2013) proposes two generalizations that cause the Split-S in
intransitive sentences in Chol. The first one requires all verbs to have an internal argument. Thus,
unergatives and antipassives (12) are, in fact, transitive sentences where the main verb cha'l 'do'
takes as a complement a nominalized verb. The second one, stated in (14), requires all internal
arguments to receive 'object' case.
(14) Chol Little v Generalization (Coon 2010)
a. All internal arguments must be assigned (absolutive) case by a v head.
b. All v heads must assign absolutive case to an internal argument.

Assumptions:
Since Otom is a Nominative-Accusative language, I will assume a modified version of
(14) which requires v-heads to assign accusative Case to their internal arguments as the
correct generalization for this language.
I will also follow the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978), which states that
unaccusative subjects are merged as complements of V and unergative subjects are
generated higher in SpecvP3.
According to these assumptions, objects of transitive verbs (P) and subjects of unaccusative and
stative predicates (SP) are merged within VP and receive accusative Case from v. Conversely,
subjects of transitive (A) and unergative predicates (SA) are base-generated in SpecvP and
receive nominative Case from a different head: T. In (15), I provide the structures for transitive,
unergative and unaccusative sentences in Otom:
In transitive and unaccusative constructions, V assigns a -role to the internal argument
and then incorporates to the v-head. v establishes an Agree relation with the internal
argument and assigns accusative Case to it.
In transitive and unergative sentences, the v-head introduces an external argument in its
sp cifi a assig s a ag -role to it. The external argument receives nominative
Case from T. As unergative sentences have no inner argument, no accusative Case is
assigned.
In all sentences, V+v rise to T to give the final VSO order of the language.

3
I am also following the VP-Internal Hypothesis (Koopman and Sportiche 19991, Levin and Rappaport 1995,
Sportiche 1998, Zagona 1982), according to which all subjects are base-generated within vP.

5
(15)
a. TRANSITIVE
g=tsa-gi=ga nuk'e
2PST=bite-1OBJ=1EMPH you
'You bit me'
TP
V +v+T [u] vP
nom
g=tsa-gi DPSUJ [i] v'
2PST-bite-1OBJ
nuk'e
tv acc VP
you
[u]
DPOBJ [i] V'
=ga
tv tobj
me

b. UNERGATIVE c. UNACCUSATIVE
g nuk'e ra= -gi=ga
2PST=run you 3incp=see-1OBJ=1EMPH
'You ran' 'I am visible'
TP TP

V +v+T[u] nom vP V+v+T vP

ra= -gi
g DPSUJ [i] v' 3INCP=see-1OBJ tv [u] VP
2PST=run acc
nuk'e
tv VP DPOBJ V'
you tv =ga
me tv tobj

4. Split-S in Mazahua
Split-S in Mazahua is more restricted than in Otom. Less than a dozen of unaccusative verbs
cross-reference their subjects with an object-agreement morpheme.
(16) SPLIT-S
a. -pphi Unergative
1PST-work
'I worked'
b. -tog -z= Unaccusative
3PST-faint-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I fainted'

6
Among these verbs, a couple can cross-reference their sole argument with either an object suffix
(17a) or a TAM prefix (17b). In the latter case, the subject is interpreted as carrying out the
action with volition.
(17) FLUID-S
a. -gi-i= k'a ndaehe
3PST-sink-1OBJ=1EMPH in river
'I sank into the river'

b. -gii= k'a ndaehe

1PST-sink=1EMPH in river
'I sank into the river on purpose'
Adjectival predicates also cross-reference their subjects with an object-agreement morpheme in
the verb (18). However, unlike unaccusative verbs like the ones in (16-17), TAM can only be
encoded with one of three prefixes: n- for present, m- for past and r- for future.
(18) Adjectival predicates
a. n-z-zi=
PRS.ST-strong-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I am strong'
b. n-z- si=ke
PRS.ST -strong-2OBJ=2EMPH
'You are strong'
c. n-zi-
PRS.ST-strong-3OBJ
'S/he is strong'
d. m-z-zi=
PST.ST-strong-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I was strong'
e. *-z-zi=
3PST-strong-1OBJ=1EMPH
'I was strong'
These prefixes resemble the progressive morphemes for third-person singular used in verbal
predicates (19).
(19)
a. n-
3PRS.PROG-run
'He is running'

7
 b. m-
3PST.PROG-run
'He was running'
c. r-
3FUT.PROG-run
'He will be running'

Abbreviations
1 First person EMPH Emphatic OBJ Object marker
2 Second person ERG Ergative PASS Passive
3 Third person F Free form PFV Perfective
ABS Absolutive IMPRF Imperfect PRF Perfect
APASS Antipassive INCP Incompletive PROG Progressive
CL Clitic NEG Negation PRS Present
COMPL Completive NMLZ Nominalizer PST Past
ST Stative

References
Coon, J. (2010). Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Coon, J. (2013), Aspects of Split Ergativity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Hernndez Green, N. (2015), Morfosintaxis verbal del otom de Acazulco, PhD dissertation,
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologa Social.
Hernndez Green, N. (forthcoming), Alineamiento semntico y lexicalizacin en el sistema de
marcacin de sujeto en otom-mazahua, Signos Lingsticos, 23.
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991), The position of subjects, Lingua, 85, 211-258.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport (1995), Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface,
Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Mithun, M. (1991), Active/agentive Case Marking and Its Motivations, Language, 67(3), 510-
546.
Palancar, E. (2009), Gramtica y Textos del hh. Otom de San Ildefonso Tultepec
Quertaro. Vol. 1. Mexico: Plaza y Valds Editores.
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of
the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 15790.
Pustet, R. (2002), Split Intransitivity Revisited: Comparing Lakota and Osage, International
Journal of American Linguistics, 68(4), 381-427.
Sportiche, D. (1988), A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent
Structure, Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 425-49.
Vendler, Z. (1957), Verbs and Times, Philosophical Review, 66, 143-160..
Zagona, K. (1982), Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections, PhD
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.