The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac

78) kintiimaamaatsamaníini s%maa’áqoti&
/kin-tii-maa-maa-tsama-nii-nii-aa s"-maa’aqoti&/
1OBJ-CAUS-CAUS-eat-DAT-DAT-PFTV 3POSS-receptacle
‘he passed by to have me fill his receptacle for him’
79) maamaqasaaní míistun
/maa-maqa-saan-nii-aa miistun/
CAUS-CAUS-sound-DAT-IMPF cat
‘he makes the cat purr’
In all cases, it is the productive maa- prefix that is applied, whether the original causative was
derived with maa- or maq(a)-. Similarly to the case of causativized transitives, the highest level
causer receives subject marking, and the other core participants are marked as objects. No
formal means exists for determining which object role belongs to the higher level causee and
which to the lower level causee; example 77 is ambiguous between ‘they are making me kill
you’ and ‘they are making you kill me’. The ambiguity is resolved through context or
pragmatics. Recursive causativization of transitive verbs seems not to be ungrammatical, but is
pragmatically rare.
5.4.1.4 Causative summary. FM Totonac has at least one periphrastic construction of limited
usage, and two morphological causatives. The maq(a)- construction is limited to verbs of
partially involuntary physical or emotional sensation and a small number of other lexicalized
causatives. The productive maa- construction is possible with all other verbs in the language,
transitive or intransitive, except for three of the positionals; it requires the co-occurrence of the
transitivizing suffix with most verbs. The morpho-syntactic facts of person agreement marking
are the same for both morphological derivations: the causer in A role is marked by subject
affixes; the causee takes the O role and object marking, as does, simultaneously, any original O
argument.
Dixon (2000:362) discusses nine semantic parameters that apply to causative constructions
cross-linguistically, and that often distinguish one causative mechanism from another within a
single language. These parameters are State/action, Transitivity, Control, Volition, Affectedness,
Directness, Intention, Naturalness, and Involvement. The differential usage of the Totonac
causatives are well predicted by Dixon’s schema. The maq(a)- construction differs from
constructions in maa- on the parameters of state/action (maqa- applies only to certain subset of
intransitives); transitivity (maqa- cannot affix to transitive verbs); control (the majority of verbs
taking maqa- are verbs of partially involuntary physical or emotional sensation), and directness
and intention (as predicted, the shorter causative maa-, indicates more direct or intentional
causation). On other parameters, either morphological construction can cover the full range of
possibilities: the causee can be willing or unwilling, partially or completely affected; the
! ")*!