Split ergativity
Linguistic typology |
---|
Morphological |
|
Morphosyntactic |
|
Word order |
Lexicon |
In
Nominative–accusative vs. ergative–absolutive
For example, consider these two English sentences:
- Jane was chasing Max.
- Jane was sweating.
The grammatical role of "Jane" is identical. In both cases, "Jane" is the subject.
In
For example, in the following
- Arnaup nirijanga aapu. 'The woman is eating the apple.'
- Arnaq pisuktuq. 'The woman is walking.'
In split ergative languages, some constructions pattern with nominative–accusative, and others with ergative–absolutive.
Split conditions
The split is usually conditioned by one of the following:
- The presence of a discourse participant (a first or second person) in the proposition. The Australian language nominative–accusative pattern (with the least-marked case, when it is the agent or intransitive, or with the most marked case, when it is the patient). That can be explained in terms of the high animacyof a first-person or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.
- The use of certain aspects and/or tenses in the verb. The Indo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. In Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), a transitive verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the imperfective aspects trigger accusative marking.[3]
- The type of marking involved. Some languages (including various Austronesian languages of New Guinea such as Sinaugoro) have an ergative–absolutive pattern with respect to case marking of nouns, but a nominative–accusative pattern with respect to agreement by means of person-marking affixes on the verb.
- The agentivity of the intransitive subject. In languages like active languages.
- Pragmatic considerations or for emphasis, contrast, or clarity. In certain Tibeto-Burmese languages, elicited data has consistent ergative, aspectually split-ergative or active-stative case marking pattern, and in natural discourse the “ergative” marking is found only in some clauses, often a minority, usually with some pragmatic sense of emphasis or contrast (DeLancey, 2011).[4]
Examples
Hindi–Urdu
An example of split ergativity conditioned by the
In the following perfective sentence, the agent laṛke-ne (boy) is marked for ergative case, while the undergoer kitāb (book) is in unmarked nominative case. The verb kharīdī (bought) has the feminine ending -ī, showing gender agreement with the undergoer kitāb (book).
lar̥ke-ne
boy:MASC.SG.ERG
लड़के-ने
kitāb
book:FEM.SG.NOM
किताब
xarīdī
buy:PRF.FEM.SG
ख़रीदी
hai.
be:3P.SG.PRS
है
'The boy has bought a book'
In the corresponding imperfective (habitual aspect) sentence, the agent laṛkā (boy) is in unmarked nominative case. The habitual participle form kharīdatā (buy) has the masculine ending -ā and thus agrees with the agent laṛkā (boy).
lar̥kā
boy:MASC.SG.NOM
लड़का
kitāb
book:FEM.SG.NOM
किताब
xarīdatā
buy:HAB.MASC.SG
ख़रीदता
hai.
be:3P.SG.PRS
है
'The boy buys a book'
Perfective constructions with certain VV (verb-verb) complexes do not employ ergative case marking (seeː
ninā nina:FEM.SG.NOM नीना ām mango.MASC.SG.NOM आम khā eat.NF खा gayī. go:PRF.FEM.SG गयी 'Nina has eaten the mango.' | |||
ninā-ne nina:FEM.SG.ERG नीना-ने takiyā pillow.MASC.SG.NOM तकिया uṭhā pick.NF उठा phẽkā. throw:PRF.MASC.SG फेंका 'Nina (picked up and) threw the pillow.' |
Chol (Mayan)
The
In transitive clauses, verbs are framed by a person marking prefix (called "set A" in Mayan linguistics) that expresses the subject, and a suffix that expresses the object (= "set B").
Mi
IMPF
a-mek'-oñ
2SG.A-hug-1SG.B
'You hug me.'
In intransitive clauses, the subject can either be represented by a set A-person marker, or a set B-person marker, depending on aspect.
In perfective aspect, Chol has ergative–absolutive alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a suffixed person marker, thus in the same way as the object of transitive verbs.
Tyi
PRF
wayi-yoñ
sleep-1SG.B
'I slept.'
In imperfective aspect, Chol has nominative–accusative alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a prefixed person marker, thus in the same way as the subject of transitive verbs.
Mi
IMPF
a-wayel
2SG.A-sleep
'You sleep.'
Sahaptin
In Columbia River Sahaptin, the split is determined by the person of both subject and object. The ergative suffix -nɨm occurs only for third-person subjects for which the direct object is in the first or the second person.
ku=š
and=1SG
i-q̓ínu-šan-a
3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST
ína
me
wínš-nɨm
man-ERG
"And the man saw me."
ku=nam
and=2SG
i-q̓ínu-šan-a
3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST
imaná
you.ACC
wínš-nɨm
man-ERG
"And the man saw you."
ku
and
i-q̓ínu-šan-a
3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST
paanáy
him/her/it
wínš
man
"And the man saw him."
Another ergative suffix, -in, marks the subject in the inverse. Both subject and object are then always in the third-person.
Direct (same as above example):
ku
and
i-q̓ínu-šan-a
3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST
paanáy
him/her/it
wínš
man-ERG
"And the man saw him."
Inverse:
ku
and
pá-q̓inu-šan-a
INV-see-IPFV-PST
paanáy
him/her/it
wínš-in
man
"And the man saw him."
Notes
- ^ Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Compton, Richard (2017). "Ergativity in Inuktitut". In Jessica Coon; Diane Massam; Lisa Demena Travis (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. pp. 832–850.
- S2CID 197863131.
- ^ DeLancey, Scott (October 2011). "'Optional' 'ergativity' in Tibeto-Burman languages". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 34 (2): 9–20.
- ^ Mukherjee, Atreyee (2017). "Revisiting Ergativity in Hindi". Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics. 1 (1): 18–28. Retrieved 2021-02-05.
- S2CID 144864177.
Bibliography
- Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44898-0.