This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Direct–inverse alignment" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The definition of adirect–inverse language is a matter under research in linguistic typology, but it is widely understood to involve different grammar fortransitive predications according to the relative positions of their "subject" and their "object" on aperson hierarchy, which, in turn, is some combination ofsaliency andanimacy specific to a given language. The direct construction is theunmarked one. The direct construction is used when thesubject of the transitive clause outranks theobject in the person hierarchy, and the inverse is used when the object outranks the subject.

The existence of direct–inverse morphosyntax is usually accompanied byproximate–obviative morphosyntax. The direct–inverse dimension subsumes the proximate–obviative dimension. Across languages, obviation almost always involves the third person (although second-person obviation is reported for someNilo-Saharan languages^[1]), and the direct–inverse alternation is usually presented as being a way of marking the proximate–obviative distinction between two (or more) third-person arguments of a sentence. However, there are at least two languages with inverse systems, theMesoamerican languagesZoque andHuastec, in which inverse morphosyntax is never used when both subject and object are third person but only when one of the arguments is third person, and the other is a speech act participant (SAP), the first or second person.^[2]

Neither a morphological feature nor a syntactic feature is common to all inverse systems.^[3]

Direct-inverse systems on verbs coexist with the variousmorphosyntactic alignments in nouns. In some inverse languages, including all Mesoamerican inverse languages,^[2] the direct-inverse alternation changes the morphosyntactic alignment, and the language is said to havehierarchical alignment.^[4]

Klaiman has suggested four common properties of inverse languages:^[5][3][6]

1. Core participants of transitive predicates are ranked on a hierarchy of salience, topicality or animacy.
2. Only transitive predicates can participate in the direct–inverse alternation.
3. A morphosyntactic device should be used to signal whether the most salient participant is notional subject or notional object.
4. Direct–inverse alternation does not entail detransitivization.

Some languages that comply with Klaiman's definition of an inverse language areMaasai,Carib,Wastek,Chukchi, theAlgonquian languages and someAthabaskan languages likeKoyukon andNavajo,Mapudungun andMovima (language isolates),rGyalrong (Sino-Tibetan),Kopar^[7] (Sepik), and someMixe–Zoquean languages. On the other hand, the Mixean languageOluteco has been reported to have an inverse system which does not conform to the second rule, as certain intransitive verbs and passives ofditransitives also can take inverse morphology.^[8]

InOjibwe, anAlgonquian language of North America, the person hierarchy is second person > first person > third person proximate > third personobviative. Since the morphology of Ojibwe has nocase distinctions (an Ojibwe nominal phrase does not change when its relations to the other sentence constituents change), the only way to distinguish subject from object in a transitive verb with two participants is through direct–inverse suffixes. A direct suffix indicates that the action is performed by someone higher on the person hierarchy on someone lower on the person hierarchy:

An inverse suffix indicates that the action is performed by someone lower on the person hierarchy on someone higher on the person hierarchy (such as by the speaker on the addressee or an obviative third person on a proximate):

As can be seen, the only difference between these two verbs is the direct–inverse opposition, rather than case markers (or word order, when distinct nominals are used). An inverse verb isnot equivalent to apassive verb. There is a separate passivity marker, denoted in literature as "indefinite person (X)", ranked in topicality hierarchy below first and second persons, but higher than animate and inanimate third persons:

Sahaptin, an Amerindian language of the northwestern United States, has an inverse marked by the verbal prefixpá-. It indicates transitive action from the second to the first person when both arguments are SAPs. That can be called the semantic inverse.^[9]

Sahaptinpá- does not occur with transitive action between SAPs and the third person, but it does occur between third-person participants. The contrast can be elicited with multiple clause examples such as given below. In the inverse the semantic patient is coreferential with the subject in the preceding clause. That can be called a pragmatic inverse.

The pragmatic inverse topicalizes the patient, but its nominal, if present, retains its accusative case-marking.

The different Japanese verbs for "to give", used for both favours and physical objects, can be considered an instance of direct–inverse alignment.^[10]Ageru (上げる) is used when the subject, the giver, is lower down on the person hierarchy than the beneficiary, the indirect object. Meanwhile,kureru (くれる) orkudasaru (下さる) must be used if the subject is higher up. For example, the first person in Japanese is lower than the second on the person hierarchy, so you would say:

Switching the subject and object in either example, or switching the verbs between the two sentences would be unacceptable.

• Gregersen, Edgar A. (1977).Language in Africa: an introductory survey. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Inc.
• Klaiman, M.H. (1989). "Inverse voice and head-marking in Tanoan languages".Chicago Linguistics Society (25):258–71.
• Klaiman, M. H. (1992)."Inverse languages"(PDF).Lingua.88 (3–4):227–261.doi:10.1016/0024-3841(92)90043-i. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 14 January 2022. Retrieved12 March 2012.
• Klaiman, M. H. (1993). "The relationship of inverse voice and head-marking in Arizona Tewa and other Tanoan languages".Studies in Language.17 (2):343–70.doi:10.1075/sl.17.2.04kla.
• Rude, Noel (2009)."Transitivity in Sahaptin".Northwest Journal of Linguistics.3 (3):1–37.
• Valentine, J. Randolph (2001)Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.ISBN 978-0-8020-8389-0
• Zavala, Roberto (2002). "Verb classes, semantic roles and inverse in Olutec". In Levy Podolsky, Paulette (ed.).Del Cora al Maya Yucateco. Estudios sobre lenguas americanas. Vol. 2. UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas. pp. 179–268.
• Zavala, Roberto (2007). "Inversion and obviation in Mesoamerica". In Austin, Peter K.; Simpson, Andrew (eds.).Endangered languages. Linguistische berichte sonderheft. Vol. 14. pp. 267–305.

• Bickel, B. (1995)."In the vestibule of meaning: transitivity inversion as a morphological phenomenon"(PDF).Studies in Language.19:73–127.doi:10.1075/sl.19.1.04bic.
• Comrie, Bernard (1980). "Inverse verb forms in Siberia: evidence from Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal".Folia Linguistica Historica.1 (1):61–74.
• Gildea, Spike (1994)."Semantic and pragmatic inverse: "Inverse alignment" and "inverse voice" in Carib of Surinam". In Givón, T. (ed.).Voice and Inversion. Typological Studies in Language. Vol. 28. John Benjamins.ISBN 978-1-55619-420-7.
• Jacques, Guillaume (2010)."The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong".Language and Linguistics.11 (1):127–157.
• Jacques, Guillaume; Antonov, Anton (2014)."Direct / Inverse systems".Language and Linguistics Compass.8 (7):301–318.doi:10.1111/lnc3.12079.
• Zúñiga, Fernando (2006).Deixis and Alignment. Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Typological Studies in Language. Vol. 70. John Benjamins.doi:10.1075/tsl.70.ISBN 978-90-272-2982-3.

• Argument Structure and its Morphosyntactic Representation
• Inversion and Obviation in Mesoamerica^{[dead link]}
• Ojibwe Verb ParadigmsArchived 2 December 2008 at theWayback Machine
• Split Ergative and Inverse Systems (Lecture)
• Topic, Focus and Point of View in Blackfoot
• WALSAlignment of Verbal Person Marking (see Hierarchical alignment)
• Yi and Bi: Proximate and Obviative in Navajo

• Linguistic typology
• Transitivity and valency

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Articles needing additional references from March 2012
• All articles needing additional references
• Use dmy dates from October 2025
• Articles with ambiguous glossing abbreviations
• All articles with dead external links
• Articles with dead external links from December 2021
• Webarchive template wayback links