Ergative–absolutive alignment


In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the subject of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the subject of a transitive verb. Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, Sumerian, and certain Indo-European languages. It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter.
The ergative-absolutive alignment is in contrast to nominative–accusative alignment, which is observed in English and most other Indo-European languages, where the single argument of an intransitive verb behaves grammatically like the agent of a transitive verb but different from the object of a transitive verb. When ergative–absolutive alignment is coded by grammatical case, the case used for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb is the absolutive, and the case used for the agent of a transitive verb is the ergative. In nominative-accusative languages, the case for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb is the nominative, while the case for the direct object of a transitive verb is the accusative.
Many languages have ergative–absolutive alignment only in some parts of their grammar, but nominative-accusative alignment in other parts. This is known as split ergativity.

Ergative vs. accusative languages

An ergative language maintains a syntactic or morphological equivalence for the object of a transitive verb and the single core argument of an intransitive verb, while treating the agent of a transitive verb differently. Such languages are said to operate with S/O syntactic pivot.
This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages such as English, where the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb are treated alike and kept distinct from the object of a transitive verb. Such languages are said to operate with S/A pivot.
These different arguments are usually symbolized as follows:A = agent of transitive verb O = object of transitive verb, also symbolized as P for "patient" S = core argument of intransitive verb
The relationship between ergative and accusative systems can be schematically represented as the following:
Ergative–absolutiveNominative–accusative
AERGNOM
OABSACC
SABSNOM

See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison with nominative–accusative languages.
The word subject, as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, has a different application when referring to ergative–absolutive languages, or when discussing morphosyntactic alignment in general.
Ergative languages tend to be either verb-final or verb-initial; there are few, if any, ergative SVO languages.

Realization of ergativity

Ergativity can be found in both morphological and syntactic behavior.

Morphological ergativity

If the language has morphological case, then the verb arguments are marked thus:
If there is no case marking, ergativity can be marked through other means, such as in verbal morphology. For instance, Abkhaz and most Mayan languages have no morphological ergative case, but they have a verbal agreement structure that is ergative. In languages with ergative–absolutive agreement systems, the absolutive form is usually the most unmarked form of a word.

Basque

The following examples from Basque demonstrate an ergative–absolutive case marking system:
Here -Ø represents a zero morpheme, as the absolutive case is unmarked in Basque with proper nouns. The forms for the ergative are -k after a vowel, and -ek after a consonant. It is a further rule in Basque grammar that in most cases a noun phrase must be closed by a determiner. The default determiner is -a in the singular and -ak in the plural, the plural being marked only on the determiner and never the noun. For common nouns, this default determiner is fused with the ergative case marker. Thus one obtains the following forms for gizon : gizon-a, gizon-ak, gizon-ak, gizon-ek. When fused with the article, the absolutive plural is homophonous with the ergative singular. See Basque grammar for details.

Japanese

In contrast, Japanese is a nominative–accusative language:
In this language, the argument of the intransitive and agent of the transitive sentence are marked with the same nominative case particle ga, while the object of the transitive sentence is marked with the accusative case o.

Conlang English

If one sets: A = agent of a transitive verb; S = argument of an intransitive verb; O = object of a transitive verb, then we can contrast normal nominative–accusative English with a hypothetical ergative English:

Georgian

A number of languages have both ergative and accusative morphology. A typical example is a language that has nominative-accusative marking on verbs and ergative–absolutive case marking on nouns.
Georgian has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in the perfective aspect. Compare:
is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence the agent is in the nominative case. In the second sentence, which shows ergative alignment, the root is marked with the ergative suffix.
However, there are some intransitive verbs in Georgian that behave like transitive verbs, and therefore employ the ergative case in the past tense. Consider:
Although the verb "sneeze" is clearly intransitive, it is conjugated like a transitive verb. In Georgian there are a few verbs like these, and there has not been a clear-cut explanation as to why these verbs have evolved this way. One explanation is that verbs such as "sneeze" used to have a direct object and over time lost these objects, yet kept their transitive behavior.

Differing noun-pronoun alignment

In rare cases, such as the Australian Aboriginal language Nhanda, different nominal elements may follow a different case-alignment template. In Nhanda, common nouns have ergative-absolutive alignment—like in most Australian languages—but most pronouns instead follow a nominative-accusative template. In Nhanda, the absolutive case has a null suffix while ergative case is marked with some allomorph of the suffixes -nggu or -lu. See the common noun paradigm at play below:
Intransitive Subject
Transitive Subject-Object
Compare the above examples with the case marking of pronouns in Nhanda below, wherein all subjects are marked the same for case while transitive objects take the accusative suffix -nha.
Intransitive Pronoun Subject
'''Transitive Pronoun Subject-Object '''

Syntactic ergativity

Ergativity may be manifested through syntax, such as saying "Arrived I" for "I arrived", in addition to morphology. Syntactic ergativity is quite rare, and while all languages that exhibit it also feature morphological ergativity, few morphologically ergative languages have ergative syntax. As with morphology, syntactic ergativity can be placed on a continuum, whereby certain syntactic operations may pattern accusatively and others ergatively. The degree of syntactic ergativity is then dependent on the number of syntactic operations that treat the subject like the object. Syntactic ergativity is also referred to as inter-clausal ergativity, as it typically appears in the relation of two clauses.
Syntactic ergativity may appear in:

Example

Example of syntactic ergativity in the "conjunction reduction" construction in Dyirbal in contrast with English conjunction reduction.
English :
  1. Father returned.
  2. Father saw mother.
  3. Mother saw father.
  4. Father returned and father saw mother.
  5. Father returned and ____ saw mother.
  6. Father returned and mother saw father.
  7. * Father returned and mother saw ____.
Dyirbal :
  1. Ŋuma banaganyu.
  2. Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan.
  3. Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan.
  4. Ŋuma banaganyu, yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan. returned, mother father-ŋgu
  5. * Ŋuma banaganyu, yabu ____ buṛan. returned, mother ____
  6. Ŋuma banaganyu, ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. returned, father
  7. Ŋuma banaganyu, ____ yabuŋgu buṛan. returned, ____
Crucially, the fifth sentence has an S/A pivot and thus is ill-formed in Dyirbal ; on the other hand, the seventh sentence has an S/O pivot and thus is ill-formed in English.

Split ergativity

The term ergative–absolutive is considered unsatisfactory by some, since there are very few languages without any patterns that exhibit nominative–accusative alignment. Instead they posit that one should only speak of ergative–absolutive systems, which languages employ to different degrees.
Many languages classified as ergative in fact show split ergativity, whereby syntactic and/or morphological ergative patterns are conditioned by the grammatical context, typically person or the tense/aspect of the verb. Basque is unusual in having an almost fully ergative system in case-marking and verbal agreement, though it shows thoroughly nominative–accusative syntactic alignment.
In Hindustani, the ergative case is marked on agents in the perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs, while in other situations agents appear in the nominative case.
In the Northern Kurdish language Kurmanji, the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs of transitive verbs in past tenses, for the events actually occurred in the past. Present, future and "future in the past" tenses show no ergative mark neither for agents nor the verbs. For example:
but:
In sentences to, there is no ergativity. In sentences and, the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs.
In Dyirbal, pronouns are morphologically nominative–accusative when the agent is first or second person, but ergative when the agent is a third person.

Optional ergativity

Many languages with ergative marking display what is known as optional ergativity, where the ergative marking is not always expressed in all situations. McGregor gives a range of contexts when we often see optional ergativity, and argues that the choice is often not truly optional but is affected by semantics and pragmatics. Unlike split ergativity, which occurs regularly but in limited locations, optional ergativity can occur in a range of environments, but may not be used in a way that appears regular or consistent.
Optional ergativity may be motivated by:
  • The animacy of the subject, with more animate subjects more likely to be marked ergative
  • The semantics of the verb, with more active or transitive verbs more likely to be marked ergative
  • The grammatical structure or
Languages from Australia, New Guinea and Tibet have been shown to have optional ergativity.

Distribution of ergative languages

Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of the world: Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, the Americas, the Tibetan Plateau, and Australia and parts of New Guinea.
Specific languages and language families include:

Americas

Africa

Asia

Australian

Certain Australian Aboriginal languages possess an intransitive case and an accusative case along with an ergative case, and lack an absolutive case; such languages are called tripartite languages or ergative–accusative languages.

Papua

Europe

Caucasus and Near East

and Kurmanji
Several scholars have hypothesized that Proto-Indo-European was an ergative language, although this hypothesis is controversial.

Languages with limited ergativity

Sign languages

Sign languages should also generally be considered ergative in the patterning of actant incorporation in verbs. In sign languages that have been studied, classifier handshapes are incorporated into verbs, indicating the subject of intransitive verbs when incorporated, and the object of transitive verbs. this ergative-absolutive patterning also works at the level of the lexicon: thus in Nepali Sign Language the sign for TEA has the motion for the verb DRINK with a manual alphabet handshape च /ca/

Approximations of ergativity in English

English has derivational morphology that parallels ergativity in that it operates on intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. With certain intransitive verbs, adding the suffix "-ee" to the verb produces a label for the person performing the action:
However, with a transitive verb, adding "-ee" does not produce a label for the person doing the action. Instead, it gives us a label for the person to whom the action is done:
Etymologically, the sense in which "-ee" denotes the object of a transitive verb is the original one, arising from French past participles in "-é". This is still the prevalent sense in British English: the intransitive uses are all 19th-century American coinages and all except "escapee" are still marked as "chiefly U.S." by the Oxford English Dictionary.
English also has a number of so-called ergative verbs, where the object of the verb when transitive is equivalent to the subject of the verb when intransitive.
When English nominalizes a clause, the underlying subject of an intransitive verb and the underlying object of a transitive verb are both marked with the possessive case or with the preposition "of". The underlying subject of a transitive is marked differently :