2.1. Tének: An Overview

Tének is the northernmost Maya language spoken in the Mexican states of San Luis Potosí and Veracruz. Due to migration, Tének is now also spoken in urban zones outside the traditional Tének region, such as in the city of Monterrey. There are a number of mutually intelligible varieties of Tének. The Ethnologue distinguishes San Luis Potosí Huastec (Potosino Huastec), Southeastern Huastec (Huasteco de San Francisco Chontla), Huasteco de Tantoyuca and Huasteco de Veracruz.Reference Lewis, Simons and Fennig ⁵ The total number of speakers above 3 years old is estimated at around 174,000. ⁶ Typologically, Tének is an SVO language with ergative/absolutive case alignment and relatively little affixation. It has an average vowel and consonant inventory. Tének is not a typical Maya language, which can be attributed to the fact that it has been located outside the Maya zone for a significant amount of time and therefore has been influenced by Mixe-Zoque, Totonac and Otomanguean languages, and also Nahuatl after the conquest of the Huasteca region by the Aztecs. At the same time, the majority of Tének speakers are bilingual in Spanish. Tének is one of the 68 languages recognized as a national language of Mexico. In a number of Tének communities both in San Luis Potosí and Veracruz, bilingual education in Spanish and Tének has been introduced in preschool and primary school education. Tének has a limited presence in the linguistic landscape of the Huasteca region with some information panels and shop names written in the language. Tének is still used as a preferred language of communication in some families although it is losing its ground due to an ongoing shift to Spanish, which is considered a more prestigious and useful language. The younger generation of the Tének people have become more socially mobile, with many people migrating outside the Tének zone to Monterrey, Mexico City and the United States. As a result, the domains of use of Tének have been restricted over the last two decades.

2.2. Possession in Tének

The semantics of possession in Tének reflects the categories distinguished in other Mesoamerican languages: among inalienable nouns we find body parts, kinship terms, environmental nouns such as ‘air’ and ‘water’ as well as terms denoting part–whole relations. A typical possessive construction consists of a ‘set A’ (ergative) pronoun, a possessed noun, together with the possessive suffix, as shown in (1):

1. (1) Possessive construction in Tének Reference Edmonson ⁷

   set A (ergative) pronoun + (modifier) + possessed noun + (possessive suffix -il (-al)) (Ref. 8, p. 349)

The distinction between inalienably and alienably possessed nouns is illustrated in (2): while in (a) the alienably possessed noun pik’o ‘dog’ occurs with the possessive suffix -il, in (b) the inherently possessed noun u dham ‘my nose’ occurs without the suffix.

1. (2) Possessive construction in Tének (Ref. 8 , p. 349)

The expression of possession in Tének is subject to semantic, morphological and phonological criteria. Edmonson (Ref. 8, pp. 350–369) distinguished seven types of stem modification, on the basis of which she classified nouns in Tének into seven classes. These include:

1. (a) addition of the possessive suffix -il/-al, together with lengthening of the final vowel in bisyllabic stems, e.g. hom ‘incense’ versus Ɂu homil ‘my incense’, bakan ‘tortilla’ versus Ɂu baka:nil ‘my tortilla’; possessive constructions in this class involve temporary ownership;

2. (b) nouns in which the base form functions as the possessed form; such nouns are unpossessed with, for example, an absolutive suffix, as in Ɂu Ɂiȼik’ ‘my fingernail’ versus Ɂiȼik’lek ‘fingernail’; possessive constructions in this class indicate an inherent, inalienable or part–whole relationship involving, e.g. body parts, traditional items of clothing, kinship terms (excluding children), names and inherent qualities such as strength;

3. (c) lengthening of the final vowel of the base form, e.g. lek’ab ‘tongue’ versus Ɂu lek’a:b ‘my tongue’; such constructions involve similar relationships as in (b), with the exception of items of clothing and kin terms;

4. (d) addition of the suffix -li:l/-la:l, as in haɁ ‘water’ versus Ɂin haɁli:l Ɂan lana:š ‘lit. its water, the orange’ (i.e. its juice); these constructions involve a part–whole relationship;

5. (e) addition of the suffix /-V:l/, with the suffix vowel mirroring the final vowel of the base form, as in Ɂiȼ ‘chilli’ Ɂin Ɂiȼi:l ‘its (plant’s) chilli’; these constructions also involve a part–whole relationship;

6. (f) two nouns in Edmonson’s sample with identical possessed and unpossessed forms, e.g. ka:w ‘word’ versus Ɂu ka:w ‘my word’;

7. (g) nouns which are always possessed and never take absolutive and possessed suffixes, e.g. Ɂu k’ima:Ɂ ‘my home’.

A noun can be used in different types of possessive constructions, thus allowing speakers to focus on a different type of semantic relation. This is illustrated in (3), where the noun wiȼ ‘flower’ occurs in (b) in the relation of ownership and in (c) in a part–whole relationship.

1. (3) Re-categorization in possessive constructions (Ref. Reference Edmonson 7 , p. 365)

The semantics of possession in Tének has been reinterpreted by MaldonadoReference Maldonado ⁹ based on data from the Veracruz variety. In view of the lack of full consistency and predictability of possession marking if analysed exclusively in terms of the alienable versus inalienable distinction, Maldonado attributed the choice of possession marking to the degree of proximity between the possessor and possessum. The basic contrast occurs between intrinsic relationships (with zero marking) and extrinsic relationships (marked with a possessive suffix). As illustrated in Figure 1, the scale of proximity proposed by Maldonado ranges from unpossessed entities such as sickness that are too intrinsic to ego to be possessed, through personal attributes and body parts which are definable but dependent on the possessor, and which receive zero marking, through external manifestations of, for example, sickness, which occur with overt marking in consequence of greater dependency, and finally other individuated entities which also occur with overt marking unless overridden by a culturally-defined relationship.

Figure 1 Scale of proximity (Ref. 10, p. 21).

Maldonado’s interpretation thus points to the role of both individuation and culturally-defined conceptual proximity between the possessor and possessum in the choice of possession marking. The role of semantic, pragmatic and cultural factors will also be examined in this paper based on the analysis of selected semantic fields and types of semantic relations. The discussion in Section 4 will thus allow for such factors as age, gender, fluency in Tének, social mobility, exposure to Spanish and the mainstream culture as well as attitude to the heritage language. In addition, special attention will be paid to differences between possession marking in the speech of younger Tének speakers and the traditional patterns investigated by Edmonson ⁸ and Maldonado. ¹⁰

3.1. Study

The data for this study were collected during fieldwork in Mexico in the summer of 2015 and through online correspondence with Tének native speakers. A questionnaire including 56 possessive phrases in Spanish was distributed (in person or online) among Tének speakers, who were asked to translate the phrases into Tének. ¹⁰ The phrases were based on examples given in Edmonson ⁸ and Maldonado ¹⁰ in order to compare traditional and modern patterns in possession marking. ¹¹ The following semantic domains were represented in the questionnaire: kinship terms, body parts, part–whole relationships, extensions from ego, bodily manifestations, manifestations of sickness and emotions, independent entities, inherent cultural relationship items, Spanish loanwords and environmental nouns. Most possessive phrases were of the type ‘my …’ and the remaining few were of the type ‘his/her …’. In most cases some clarification or/and context were provided to avoid ambiguity. For example, the following context was provided for the phrase ‘my necklace’: ‘if you are a woman and this necklace is part of your daily costume, you wear it every day’. Apart from the elicitation of possessive phrases also grammatical judgement tests of invented phrases in Tének were applied in data collection.

3.2. Speakers

The total number of Tének speakers who participated in the study was nine (two females and seven males). The speakers were between 20 and 40 years old. Their mother tongue is Tének and they are all bilingual as a result of Spanish instruction at school. They are all speakers of the Potosino variety, thus originating or living in the municipalities of Tancanhuitz, San Antonio, Tampamolón, Aquismón, Xilitla and Ciudad Valles in the state of San Luis Potosí. All of the consultants but one female claimed they had lived outside the Tének area in order to work or study. They had the following occupations: students (2), local government employees (2), language activist (1), housewives (2), museum employee (1) and retailer (1). Most of the speakers spoke Tének almost on a daily basis. All but one female residing in a remote village had daily access to mobile phones and the Internet. The information about the speakers is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Tének speakers participating in the study.

As regards individual speakers, Speaker 1 (S1) was the only consultant not to have moved outside her village; she used Tének as her preferred medium of daily communication. Speakers S2, S3 and S4 claimed that they used Tének every day but Spanish was their dominant language. Speaker 5 was studying at a university in a different state but he often used Tének as a language activist in revitalization projects. In contrast, the remaining speakers (S6, S7, S8, S9) said they did not speak Tének every day (4–5 times a week); these speakers displayed the highest degree of social mobility as well as the highest exposure to Spanish and the mainstream mestizo culture.

3.3. Data Analysis and Limitations

As noted in earlier discussions, investigating possession involves several methodological problems (Ref. Reference Campbell, Kaufman and Smith-Stark4, pp. 84–85; Ref. Reference de Vidas13, pp. 26–28).Reference Chappell and McGregor ¹² In particular, these include the detailed knowledge of the cultural context that is required in the analysis of such a culturally-sensitive category. In the context of this study, such issues include also the role of another language, i.e. Spanish in data collection and dialectal differences. As mentioned above, the data were collected by means of elicitation and judgements of grammatical correctness. A potential drawback of elicitation concerns, however, the possible effect of Spanish as the language in which the questionnaire was provided: in contrast with data collected from natural speech, data collected in writing may have been influenced to a greater degree by Spanish as the speakers’ primary language of literacy. In addition, while this study aims at a comparison with the usage reported in Edmonson ⁸ and Maldonado, ¹⁰ differences between modern and traditional usage may be obscured by dialectal differences as well as the different status of the Potosino and the Veracruzano varieties. Thus, while Maldonado (Ref. 10, p. Reference Campbell, Kaufman and Smith-Stark4) stressed that possession marking in the two varieties ‘indicate[s] the same tendencies’, there is a considerable geographic distance (about 100 km) between the two Tének groups. Despite the fact that the two Tének-speaking regions are now connected by roads and there is a regular bus service facilitating contact, the interaction between the two varieties is limited because of the mountainous terrain and the resulting long travel time, and recently also the activity of the drug cartels operating in the region. In addition, the two varieties may be subject to contrasting sociolinguistic factors.Reference de Vidas ¹³ Whereas the Tének from the state of San Luis Potosí still preserve their culture and rituals in such traditional items of female clothing as petob or dhayem, the culture of the Tének from the state of Veracruz has been influenced to a greater degree by the Nahua and mestizo cultures. Therefore, in view of such issues as the use of Spanish in the questionnaire, the variation found in contemporary varieties as well as the small number of speakers consulted, this study should be complemented with a follow-up analysis in order to provide a more representative account of possession marking in Tének.

4.1. Introduction

In this section we will present the results of the study, focusing in turn on the expression of possession in modern Potosino Tének within the following semantic fields and relations: sickness and emotions, kinship terms, body parts and part–whole relations, degree of autonomy, extensions from ego, environmental nouns and the inner–outer contrast. Finally, we will comment on the variation in the presence of possessive marking on Spanish loanwords in Tének.

4.2. Sickness and Emotions

As indicated by Edmonson ⁸ and Maldonado, ¹⁰ the expression of possession in nouns denoting types of sickness and emotions is subject to variation, which is reflected in our data. For example, as shown in (4), the noun for ‘sadness’ is used in (a) without overt marking, while ‘happiness’ in (b) is used with overt marking:

1. (4) Emotions

Maldonado (Ref. 10, pp. 18–20) attributes the contrast to the different manifestation of the two emotions: while sadness is considered to be intrinsic to ego, the presence of overt marking in ‘my happiness’ is said to reflect the external physical manifestation associated with happiness.

4.3. Kinship Terms

Similarly to the traditional system, kinship terms in our data lack overt marking. The exceptions in both the traditional and modern varieties include the nouns u kwitól ‘my child’ and in kimaathil ‘his wife’. The two types of marking are illustrated in (5):

1. (5) Kinship terms

4.4. Body Parts and Part–Whole Relations

As in the case of kinship terms, nouns in part–whole relations involving both animates and inanimates as well as body parts occur without overt marking in both traditional and modern Tének. The three types of possessive constructions are illustrated in (6):

1. (6) Body parts and part-whole relations

While the native word ich’aamal ‘deer’ is used in (b), one speaker (S7) used the Spanish loanword venado, as in tulék venado (meat deer) ‘the deer’s meat’. The absence of the possessive suffix is in this case motivated not only semantically (the flesh of the deer is treated as an inherent part of the animal) but also by the fact that traditionally no overt marking is used in possessive phrases with Spanish loanwords (Ref. 8, p. 372). However, the examples given in the following sections indicate that possessive marking on Spanish loanwords is subject to variation; we return to this issue in Section 4.9.

4.5. Degree of Autonomy

As regards bodily manifestations such as saliva, spit, sweat and mucus, Maldonado (Ref. 8,: pp. 9–10) attributed the different patterns in possessive constructions to a different degree of individuation. For example, while sweat on the body of a person is considered intrinsic to ego and thus no overt possession marking is used, sweat dripping from one’s body is considered to be extrinsic to ego and so conceptually autonomous, thus requiring the possessive marker, as illustrated in (7) below.

1. (7) Sweat on the body and dripping from the body (Ref. 10 , p. 10 )

In our study we found no evidence for the presence of overt possession marking in such ‘autonomous objects’. All speakers but one (S4) consistently treated the noun tsak’ib ‘sweat’ as inalienable, regardless of whether it referred to sweat on the body or dripping from it, thus using the form illustrated in example (7a) above.

4.6. Extensions from Ego

Culture-specific personal attributes such as clothing, ornaments and household items are traditionally considered inalienable in Tének culture. Such items can be considered as extensions from ego and as such treated as conceptually dependent (inalienable) in relation to the possessor. For example, the traditional female decorative poncho called dhayem (also sometimes referred to using the Nahuatl loanword quechquemitl) is considered dependent on its owner and thus overt marking is absent in possessive phrases, as in u dhayem ‘my quechquemitl’. A similar pattern can be observed in the case of other culturally-important items such as u ki’ma’ ‘my home’ and u ow ‘my necklace’. If possessive marking is used, there is a subtle distinction in meaning, as in u way-tal ‘my bed’ (the one I use every night) as opposed to u tsey-il ‘my sick bed’. Maldonado (Ref. 10, p. Reference Olko17) suggests in this context that whether an item is considered alienable or inalienable depends on the ‘cultural prototypic representation of the Huastec everyday life, endeavours and traditional activities’.

Our data from modern Tének shows a consistent lack of overt marking in u ki’ma’ ‘my home’ but variation in possession marking for other objects which could be considered extensions from ego and thus conceptually dependent on the possessor. These include the nouns for ‘necklace’ and ‘quechquemitl’, as shown in (8):

1. (8) Necklace and quechquemitl

In the case of the phrase ‘my necklace’ only one speaker (S6) marked possession with the suffix -il, while five speakers translated the phrase as u ow. (Two speakers could not provide the translation of the phrase into Tének at all.) Further inconsistencies were found in the translation of the phrase ‘my quechquemitl’ (or ‘my poncho’). Most of the speakers translated the phrase as u dhayemil, i.e. with the marker -il, so it could be argued that they do not consider this item of clothing as an intrinsic part of a Tének woman’s clothing. Interestingly, only three consultants (two females and the language activist) translated the phrase as u dhayem, with no overt marking. It can be suspected that only females translated the phrase according to the traditional pattern because it is only women who wear a quechquemitl. This case of variation in possessive marking can thus be attributed to ongoing cultural change in the perception of culturally significant items.

4.7. Non-possessed Nouns: Environmental Nouns

Environmental nouns such as ‘air’ and ‘water’ cannot appear in possessive constructions in many languages, including Mayan languages. However, such nouns can be possessed in certain contexts, as in the noun po ‘moon’ used with reference to the menstrual cycle in Q’eqchi’, a Mayan language spoken in Guatemala and Belize (Ref. Reference Trudgill15, p. Reference Trudgill15).Reference Kockelman ¹⁴ While in traditional Tének such nouns occurred without possessive marking, in modern Tének environmental nouns are frequently marked for possession, as illustrated in (9) below.

1. (9) Environmental nouns

This was also the case in the translations provided by the most fluent speakers (S1, S2 and S3); only one speaker (S8) translated the phrases ‘my air’ and ‘my world’ with no overt possession marking.

4.8. Inner–Outer Contrast

The distinction between alienably and inalienably possessed objects is also found in consumed objects such as food, chewing gum and cigarettes. According to Maldonado (Ref. 10, p. Reference de Vidas13), possession marking in the case of such objects is predictable: ‘the closer the relation between possessor and possessum, the stronger the possibility of having a zero marker, while the occurrence of -il will coincide with the degree of possessum/possessor individuation’. Thus, in (10) below the possessed noun ‘cigarette’ occurs in (a) with no overt marking in the sense of ‘my cigarette (that I’m smoking)’ since it is considered dependent on the possessor, whereas in (b) the noun occurs with the possessive suffix in the sense of ‘my cigarette (in my pocket)’ to indicate the independent, extrinsic nature of the object.

1. (10) Cigarettes in traditional Tének (Ref. 10 , p. Reference de Vidas 13 )

   

   According to Maldonado (Ref. 10, p. Reference Kockelman14), an analogous contrast occurs in k’axik’ ‘chewing gum’, where gum which is being chewed is considered intrinsic to the possessor and thus unmarked for possession, while chewing gum that is not being consumed, e.g. that is kept in one’s pocket, occurs with the possessive marker.

   Although such an inner–outer contrast is described by Maldonado (Ref. 10, p. Reference de Vidas13) as consistent, it is no longer found in modern Tének. As illustrated in (11) below in (a), the speakers, including the most fluent ones, used overt possessive marking regardless of whether the cigarette in question was being smoked or not. It is worth noting that the speaker who uses Tének the least frequently (S9) used a Spanish loanword in his translation (in (b)). It can thus be said that in both cases the speakers treat a cigarette as an independent object.

2. (11) Cigarettes in modern Tének

Likewise, all speakers but one used possessive marking in the phrase ‘my chewing gum’, regardless of whether the object in question was being consumed or not. All these speakers used in this context the Spanish loanword chicle ‘chewing gum’, as in u chiclej-il (A1 chewing.gum-poss) ‘my chewing gum (that I’m chewing or that I have in my pocket)’. It was only Speaker S3 who translated both phrases as u pem (A1 chewing.gum), using in this context the noun for a type of rubber tree.

4.9. Spanish Loanwords

Finally, the last type of lexical context analysed in our study involves Spanish loanwords. According to Edmonson (Ref. 8, p. 372), traditionally no explicit marking was applied in Tének in possessive phrases with Spanish loanwords, as in u ani:yo (A1 ring) ‘my ring’ (cf. Sp. anillo ‘ring’) and u pri:mo (A1 cousin) ‘my cousin’ (cf. Sp. primo ‘cousin’). As indicated by the examples given above (cf. cigarrillo ‘cigarette’, chicle ‘chewing gum’ mentioned in the previous section), our data show a considerable amount of variation in the marking of Spanish loans, with a tendency toward using the possessive suffix. In addition, Spanish loanwords marked with the possessive suffix, as in u anilloj-il (A1 ring-poss) ‘my ring’, were judged in grammaticality tests as correct by most consultants, including the most fluent speakers (S1 and S2). In contrast, since language activists and people involved in heritage language pedagogy tend to have a more puristic approach to grammar and vocabulary, it comes as no surprise that Speaker S5 (the language activist) translated the following phrases without possessive marking: u anillo (A1 ring) ‘my ring’, u primo (A1 cousin) ‘my cousin’. Finally, it should be noted that only one speaker (S3) translated the phrase ‘my cousin’ using the traditional Tének equivalent, as in u itsak’ (A1 cousin) ‘my cousin’, thus using the unmarked possessive form found in both traditional and modern Tének (cf. 4.3 above).