Split ergativity
In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used varies among different languages. [1]
| Linguistic typology |
|---|
| Morphological |
| Morphosyntactic |
| Word order |
| Lexicon |
Nominative–accusative vs. ergative–absolutive
Nominative–accusative languages (including European languages, with the notable exception of Basque) treat both the actor in a clause with a transitive verb and the experiencer in a clause with an intransitive verb in the same way grammatically. If the language uses case markers, they take the same case. If it uses word order, it is parallel.
For example, consider these two English sentences:
- Jane was chasing John.
- Jane was sweating.
The grammatical role of "Jane" is identical. In both cases, "Jane" is the subject.
In ergative–absolutive languages (including the Basque, Georgian, Greenlandic, and Mayan languages), there is a different pattern. The patient (or target) of a transitive verb and the experiencer of an intransitive verb are treated the same grammatically. If the two sentences above were expressed in an ergative language, "John" in the former and "Jane" in the latter would be parallel grammatically. Also, a different form (the ergative) would be used for "Jane" in the first sentence. (There is no easy way to represent that construction in English.)
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 Dyirbal behaves ergatively in all morphosyntactic contexts unless one of those is involved. When a first- or second-person pronoun appears, however, it is marked according to a 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 animacy of 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 verb in the perfective aspect (optionally) causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the imperfective aspect triggers accusative marking.[2]
- 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 the marking of case marking but a nominative–accusative pattern with respect to agreement.
- The agentivity of the intransitive subject. In languages like Dakota, arguments of active verbs, such as to run, are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, but arguments of inactive verbs, such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. Languages with such a marking are known as split-S languages and are formally a subtype of 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).[3]
Examples
Hindi–Urdu
An example of split ergativity conditioned by the grammatical aspect is found in Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), which uses ergative case for the subject in the perfective aspect with transitive verbs in the active voice, while the direct object takes absolutive case (which is the unmarked nominative case). However, in all other aspects (habitual & progressive), subjects appear either in the nominative or dative case (seeː dative subjects).
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 light verbs in hindi-urdu). In perfective constructions, the agent argument is ideally assigned with an ergative case; however in cases like the first example shown below that does not happen. This is because the explicator verb gayī (gone) which although undergoes semantic bleaching but still retains its intransitivity which does not allow for an ergative case assignment to the agent argument (i.e., ninā). This is why as shown in the second example below, VV complexes involving a transitive explicator verb (e.g., phẽkā "threw") can employ ergative case to agent arguments.[4]
ninā nina:FEM.SG.NOM नीना ām mango.MASC.SG.NOM आम khā eat.NF खा gayī. go:PRF.FEM.SG गयी 'Nina ate 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 Mayan language Chol has split-ergative person marking.[5]
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 i-q̓ínu-šan-a ína wínš-nɨm and=1SINGULAR 3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST me man-ERGATIVE - "And the man saw me."
ku=nam i-q̓ínu-šan-a imaná wínš-nɨm and=2SINGULAR 3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST you.ACCUSATIVE man-ERGATIVE - "And the man saw you."
ku i-q̓ínu-šan-a paanáy wínš and 3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST him/her/it 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 i-q̓ínu-šan-a paanáy wínš and 3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST him/her/it man-ERGATIVE - "And the man saw him."
Inverse:
ku pá-q̓inu-šan-a paanáy wínš-in and INVERSE-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST him/her/it man - "And the man saw him."
Notes
- Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
- Piepers, J. (2016). "Optional ergative case marking in Hindi". www.semanticscholar.org. Retrieved 2020-12-25.
- https://www.academia.edu/3887136/_Optional_ergativity_in_Tibeto-Burman_languages
- Mukherjee, Atreyee (2017). "Revisiting Ergativity in Hindi". Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics. 1 (1): 18–28. Retrieved 2021-02-05.
- Coon, Jessica (2010). "Rethinking Split Ergativity In Chol". International Journal of American Linguistics. 76 (2): 207–253. JSTOR 10.1086/652266.
Bibliography
- Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44898-0.