Ergative-absolutive language
From Freepedia
An ergative-absolutive language (or simply ergative) is one that treats the subject of transitive verbs distinctly from the subject of intransitive verbs and the object of transitive verbs.
Contents |
Ergative vs. accusative languages
Ergative languages are in contrast to nominative-accusative languages (such as English), which treat the object of transitive verbs distinctly from the subject of both transitive and intransitive verbs.
These different arguments can be symbolized as follows:
- O = object of transitive verb (also symbolized as P)
- Sintrans = subject of intransitive verb (also symbolized as S)
- Strans = subject of transitive verb (also symbolized as A)
The relationship between ergative and accusative systems can be schematically represented as the following:
| Ergative-absolutive | Nominative-accusative | |
|---|---|---|
| O | same | different |
| Sintrans | same | same |
| Strans | different | same |
See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison with nominative-accusative languages.
Realization of ergativity
Ergativity can be found in both in morphology and syntactic behavior.
Morphological ergativity
If the language has morphological case, then the verb arguments are marked thus:
- The subject of a transitive verb (Strans) is marked with ergative case.
- The subject of an intransitive verb (Sintrans) and the object of a transitive verb (O) are both marked with absolutive case.
The following Basque examples demonstrate ergative-absolutive case marking system:
Ergative Language sentence: Gizona etorri da. Gizonak mutila ikusi du. words: gizona-∅ etorri da gizona-k mutila-∅ ikusi du gloss: the.man-ABS has arrived the.man-ERG boy-ABS saw function: Sintrans VERBintrans Strans O VERBtrans translation: 'The man has arrived.' 'The man saw the boy.'
In Basque, gizona is "the man" and mutil is "boy". Gizona has a different case marking depending on whether it is the subject of a transitive or intransitive verb. The first form is in the absolutive case, marked here by a null morpheme (-∅) and the second form is in the ergative case, marked by a -k suffix. The subject of the intransitive sentence and the object of the transitive sentence both have the same absolutive case, while ergative case appears only on the transitive subject.
To contrast with a nominative-accusative language, Japanese marks nouns with a different case marking system:
Accusative Language sentence: Otoko ga tsuita. Otoko ga kodomo wo mita. words: otoko ga tsuita otoko ga kodomo wo mita gloss: man NOM arrived man NOM child ACC saw function: Sintrans VERBintrans Strans O VERBtrans translation: 'The man arrived.' 'The man saw the child.'
In this language, the subject otoko of intransitive and transitive sentences is marked with the same nominative case ga. However, the object of transitive sentence kodomo is marked with the accusative case wo.
If there's no case marking, ergativity can be marked through other means, such as in verbal morphology. For instance, Abkhaz has no morphological ergative case, but its verbal agreement structure is ergative. In languages with ergative-absolutive systems, the absolutive form is usually the most unmarked form of a word.
A number of languages have both ergative and accusative morphology. A typical example is a language that has ergative-absolutive marking on verbs and nominative-accusative case marking on nouns.
Georgian also has an ergative alignment, but the subject is only marked with the ergative case for transitive verbs in the past tense (also known as the "aorist screeve"). It is also important to note that the ergative case only exists for the third persons. Compare:
- Katsi vashls chams. "The man is eating an apple."
- Katsma vashli chama. "The man ate an apple."
Kats- is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence (present continuous tense) the subject is in the nominative case (katsi). In the second sentence, which shows ergative alignment, the root is marked with the ergative suffix -ma.
However, there are some intransitive verbs in Georgian that behave like transitive verbs, and therefore employ the ergative case in the past tense. Consider:
- Katsma daatsemina. "The man sneezed."
Although the verb sneeze is clearly intransitive, it is conjugated like any other transitive verbs. 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" did use to have a direct object (the object being "nose" in the case of "sneeze") and over time lost these objects, yet kept their transitive behavior.
Syntactic ergativity
Ergativity may be manifested through syntax instead of or in addition to through morphology.
- Word order (for example, the absolutive argument comes before the verb and the ergative argument comes after it).
Split ergativity
- Main article: 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 pattern are conditioned by some part of the grammatical context (typically the persons of the verb arguments, or the tense/aspect of the verb).
In Urdu and Hindi, ergative case is marked on subjects in tenses showing perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs, while for other cases subjects apear in nominative case.
- लड़का किताब ख़रीदता है
- laRkaa ketaab xareedtaa hey
- boy-NOMINATIVE book-NOMINATIVE buy-IMPERFECT be-PRESENT ¹
- "The boy buys a book."
- लड़के ने किताब ख़रीदी
- laRkeyney ketaab xareedee
- boy-ERGATIVE book-NOMINATIVE buy-PERFECT ¹
- "The boy bought a book."
- (¹) The grammatical breakup has been simplified to show the features relevant to the example.
In Dyirbal, pronouns are morphologically nominative-accusative when the subject is first or second person, but ergative when the subject is a third person.
Distribution of ergative languages
Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of world: the Caucasus, parts of North America and Mesoamerica, and Australia.
Some specific languages are the following:
- Basque
- Sumerian
- Dyirbal and several other Australian Aboriginal languages, which are famous in the linguistic literature for their ergative patterns
- Berber languages (Afro-Asiatic)
- Sāmoan and many other Austronesian languages
- Virtually all Caucasian languages
- Mayan
- Eskimo-Aleut languages.
Many other languages have more limited ergativity, such as Pashto and Hindi, (Indo-Iranian), where ergative behavior occurs only in the perfective.
Traces of ergativity in English
English does show a trace of something that could be regarded as ergativity. With an intransitive verb, adding the suffix -ee to the verb produces a label for the person performing the action:
- "John has retired." → "John is a retiree."
- "John has escaped." → "John is an escapee."
- "John is standing." → "John is a standee."
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:
- "Mike employs Susie." → "Susie is an employee."
- "Mike has inducted Susie." → "Susie is an inductee."
- "Mike has appointed Susie" → "Susie is an appointee."
The differing effect of the "-ee" suffix, depending on the transitivity of the verb, can be considered ergativity. (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 would still be considered the prevalent sense in UK 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.)
Philippine languages as ergative
Tagalog (Schachter 1976, 1977; Kroeger 1993).See also
Bibliography
- Anderson, Stephen. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In C. Li. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 1-24). New York: Academic Press.
- Anderson, Stephen R. (1985). Inflectional morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (Vol. 3, pp. 150-201). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
- Comrie, Bernard. (1978). Ergativity. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language (pp. 329-394). Austin: University of Texas Press.
- Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55 (1), 59-138. (Revised as Dixon 1994).
- Dixon, R. M. W. (Ed.) (1987). Studies in ergativity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
- Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
- Foley, William; & Van Valin, Robert. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
- Kroeger, Paul. (1993). Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI.
- Mallinson, Graham; & Blake, Barry J. (1981). Agent and patient marking. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax (Chap. 2, pp. 39-120). North-Holland linguistic series. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
- Plank, Frans. (Ed.). (1979). Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.
- Schachter, Paul. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In C. Li. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 491-518). New York: Academic Press.
- Schachter, Paul. (1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations (Vol. 8, pp. 279-306). New York: Academic Press.
