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 from language to language.[1]

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- or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.
The use of certain tenses and/or aspects in the verb. The Indo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. A verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the imperfective aspect triggers accusative marking. (Both related languages and others tend to associate the past tense and/or perfect aspect with ergativity.)
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).[2]

Examples

Hindi–Urdu

An example of split ergativity, conditioned by tense and aspect, is found in Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu), which has an ergative case on subjects in the perfective aspect for transitive verbs in the active voice. However, in all other aspects (habitual, progressive), subjects appear in the direct case.

In the following perfective sentence, the agent laṛke-ne is marked for ergative case, while the undergoer kitāb is in unmarked direct case. The verb kharīdī has the feminine ending -ī, showing gender agreement with the undergoer kitāb.

लड़के-ने	किताब	ख़रीदी
laṛke-ne	kitāb	kharīdī
boy.Msg-ERG	book.Fsg.DIR	buy-PERFECTIVE.Fsg[3]

"The boy bought a book."

In the corresponding imperfective sentence, the agent laṛkā is in unmarked direct case. The verb kharīdtā has the masculine ending -ā and thus agrees with the agent laṛkā.

लड़का	किताब	ख़रीदता	है
laṛkā	kitāb	kharīdtā	hai
boy-Msg.DIR	book.Fsg.DIR	buy-IMPERFECTIVE-Msg	be.PRES.3sg[3]

"The boy buys a book."

Chol (Mayan)

The Mayan language Chol has split-ergative person marking.[4]

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 subjct 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.
https://www.academia.edu/3887136/_Optional_ergativity_in_Tibeto-Burman_languages
The morph-by-morph analysis has been simplified to show the features relevant to the topic of split ergativity.
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.

gollark: That is TOTALLY bees of them.

gollark: I used that one potatoS command computer to do it.

gollark: no, you can, use a relay.

gollark: Don't think so.

gollark: A model for a white cube thing which glows.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[Dixon-1] Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.

[2] ttps://www.academia.edu/3887136/_Optional_ergativity_in_Tibeto-Burman_languages

[smpl-3] The morph-by-morph analysis has been simplified to show the features relevant to the topic of split ergativity.

[4] Coon, Jessica (2010). "Rethinking Split Ergativity In Chol". International Journal of American Linguistics. 76 (2): 207–253. JSTOR 10.1086/652266.