 | This articlemay be too technical for most readers to understand. Pleasehelp improve it tomake it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details.(March 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Linguistic typology |
|---|
| Morphological |
| Morphosyntactic |
| Word order |
| Lexicon |
Inlinguistic typology,ergative–absolutive alignment is a type ofmorphosyntactic alignment in which thesubject of anintransitive verb behaves like theobject of atransitive verb, and differently from the subject of a transitive verb.[1] Examples includeBasque,Georgian,Mayan,Tibetan,Sumerian, and certainIndo-European languages (such asPashto and theKurdish languages and manyIndo-Aryan languages likeHindustani). It has also been attributed to theSemiticmodern Aramaic (also called Neo-Aramaic) languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave asaccusative (for instance, Basque, Pashto andUrdu) and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter.[a]
The ergative-absolutive alignment is in contrast tonominative–accusative alignment, which is observed inEnglish and most other Indo-European languages, where the singleargument of an intransitive verb ("She" in the sentence "She walks") behaves grammatically like the agent (subject) of a transitive verb ("She" in the sentence "She finds it") but different from the object of a transitive verb ("her" in the sentence "He likes her"). When ergative–absolutive alignment is coded bygrammatical case, the case used for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb is theabsolutive, and the case used for the agent of a transitive verb is theergative. In nominative-accusative languages, the case for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb is thenominative, while the case for the direct object of a transitive verb is theaccusative.
Many languages have ergative–absolutive alignment only in some parts of their grammar (e.g., in the case marking of nouns), but nominative-accusative alignment in other parts (e.g., in the case marking of pronouns, or inperson agreement). This is known assplit ergativity.
An ergative language maintains asyntactic ormorphological equivalence (such as the sameword order orgrammatical case) for the object of a transitive verb and the single core argument of an intransitive verb, while treating the agent of a transitive verb differently. Such languages are said to operate with S/Osyntactic pivot.
This contrasts withnominative–accusative languages such asEnglish, where the singleargument of an intransitive verb and theagent of a transitive verb (both called thesubject) are treated alike and kept distinct from the object of a transitive verb. Such languages are said to operate with S/A (syntactic) pivot.
(reference for figure:[2])
These different arguments are usually symbolized as follows:
The relationship between ergative and accusative systems can be schematically represented as the following:
| Ergative–absolutive | Nominative–accusative | |
|---|---|---|
| A | ERG | NOM |
| O | ABS | ACC |
| S | ABS | NOM |
Seemorphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison withnominative–accusative languages.
The wordsubject, as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, has a different application when referring to ergative–absolutive languages, or when discussingmorphosyntactic alignment in general.
Ergative languages tend to be either verb-final or verb-initial; there are few, if any, ergativeSVO languages.[3]
Ergativity can be found in bothmorphological andsyntactic behavior.[4]
If the language has morphologicalcase, then theverb arguments are marked thus:
If there is no case marking, ergativity can be marked through other means, such as in verbal morphology. For instance,Abkhaz and mostMayan languages have no morphological ergative case, but they have a verbal agreement structure that is ergative. In languages with ergative–absolutive agreement systems, the absolutive form is usually the mostunmarked form of a word (exceptions includeNias andTlapanec).[5]
The following examples fromBasque demonstrate an ergative–absolutive case marking system:
| Ergative language | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence: | Martin etorri da. | Martinek Diego ikusi du. | ||||
| Word: | Martin-Ø | etorri da | Martin-ek | Diego-Ø | ikusi du | |
| Gloss: | Martin-ABS | has arrived | Martin-ERG | Diego-ABS | has seen | |
| Function: | S | VERBintrans | A | O | VERBtrans | |
| Translation: | "Martin has arrived." | "Martin has seen Diego." | ||||
Here-Ø represents azero morpheme, as the absolutive case is unmarked in Basque with proper nouns (i.e., Martin, Diego, Berlin...). The forms for the ergative are-k after a vowel, and-ek after a consonant. It is a further rule in Basque grammar that in most cases a noun phrase must be closed by adeterminer. The default determiner (commonly called thearticle, which is suffixed tocommon nouns and usually translatable by "the" in English) is-a in the singular and-ak in the plural, the plural being marked only on the determiner and never the noun. For common nouns, this default determiner is fused with the ergative case marker. Thus one obtains the following forms forgizon ("man"):gizon-a (man-the.sing.abs),gizon-ak (man-the.pl.abs),gizon-ak (man-the.sing.erg),gizon-ek (man-the.pl.erg). When fused with the article, the absolutive plural ishomophonous with the ergative singular. SeeBasque grammar for details.[6]
The following example shows an ergative–absolutive case marking system while using the same verb "break" in both intransitive and transitive forms:
| Ergative language | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence: | ӏанэр мэкъутэ. | Лӏым ӏанэр екъутэ. | ||||
| Word: | ӏанэ-р | мэкъутэ | Лӏым | ӏанэр | екъутэ | |
| Gloss: | The table-ABS | breaks | The man-ERG | the table-ABS | breaks | |
| Function: | S | VERBintrans | A | O | VERBtrans | |
| Translation: | "The table breaks." | "The man breaks the table." | ||||
In contrast,Japanese is a nominative–accusative language:
| Accusative language | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence: | 男の人が着いた。Otokonohito ga tsuita. | 男の人が子供を見た。Otokonohito ga kodomo o mita. | ||||
| Words: | otokonohitoga | tsuita | otokonohitoga | kodomoo | mita | |
| Gloss: | manNOM | arrived | manNOM | childACC | saw | |
| Function: | S | VERBintrans | A | O | VERBtrans | |
| Translation: | "The man arrived." | "The man saw the child." | ||||
In this language, the argument of the intransitive and agent of the transitive sentence are marked with the samenominative case particlega, while the object of the transitive sentence is marked with theaccusative caseo.
If one sets: A = agent of a transitive verb; S = argument of an intransitive verb; O = object of a transitive verb, then we can contrast normal nominative–accusative English with a hypothetical ergative English:
| accusative English (S form = A form) | hypothetical ergative English (S form = O form) | ||||||||
| word order | SVO | SOV | VOS | ||||||
| transitive | nominative A | accusative O | ergative A | absolutive O | absolutive O | ergative A | |||
| He | kisses | her. | He | her | kisses. | Kisses | her | he. | |
| She | kisses | him. | She | him | kisses. | Kisses | him | she. | |
| intransitive | nominative S | absolutive S | absolutive S | ||||||
| He | smiles. | Him | smiles. | Smiles | him. | ||||
| She | smiles. | Her | smiles. | Smiles | her. | ||||
A number of languages have both ergative and accusative morphology. A typical example is a language that has nominative-accusative marking on verbs and ergative–absolutive case marking on nouns.
Georgian has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in theperfective aspect (also known as the "aoristscreeve"). Compare:
K'ac- is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence (present continuous tense) the agent is in the nominative case (k'aci ). 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:
Although the verb "sneeze" is clearly intransitive, it is conjugated like a transitive verb. 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" used 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.
In rare cases, such as theAustralian Aboriginal languageNhanda, different nominal elements may follow a different case-alignment template. In Nhanda, common nouns have ergative-absolutive alignment—like in most Australian languages—but most pronouns instead follow anominative-accusative template. In Nhanda, theabsolutive case has a null suffix whileergative case is marked with someallomorph of the suffixes-nggu or-lu. See the common noun paradigm at play below:[7]
Intransitive Subject (ABS)
Transitive Subject-Object (ERG-ABS)
nyarlu-nggu
woman-ERG
yawarda
kangaroo.ABS
nha-'i
see-PAST
nyarlu-nggu yawarda nha-'i
woman-ERG kangaroo.ABS see-PAST
The woman saw the kangaroo
Compare the above examples with the case marking of pronouns in Nhanda below, wherein all subjects (regardless of verb transitivity) are marked (in this case with a null suffix) the same for case while transitive objects take theaccusative suffix-nha.
Intransitive Pronoun Subject (NOM)
Transitive Pronoun Subject-Object (NOM-ACC)
Ergativity may be manifested through syntax, such as saying "Arrived I" for "I arrived", in addition to morphology. Syntactic ergativity is quite rare, and while all languages that exhibit it also feature morphological ergativity, few morphologically ergative languages have ergative syntax. As with morphology, syntactic ergativity can be placed on a continuum, whereby certain syntactic operations may pattern accusatively and others ergatively. The degree of syntactic ergativity is then dependent on the number of syntactic operations that treat the subject like the object. Syntactic ergativity is also referred to as inter-clausal ergativity, as it typically appears in the relation of two clauses.
Syntactic ergativity may appear in:
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(June 2008) |
Example of syntactic ergativity in the "conjunction reduction" construction (coordinated clauses) inDyirbal in contrast with English conjunction reduction. (The subscript (i) indicates coreference.)
Crucially, the fifth sentence has an S/A pivot and thus is ill-formed in Dyirbal (syntactically ergative); on the other hand, the seventh sentence has an S/O pivot and thus is ill-formed in English (syntactically accusative).
| Father returned. | |
| father | returned |
| S | VERBintrans |
| Father returned, and father saw mother. | |||||
| father | returned | and | father | saw | mother |
| S | VERBintrans | CONJ | A | VERBtrans | O |
| Father returned and saw mother. | |||||
| father | returned | and | ____ | saw | mother |
| S | VERBintrans | CONJ | A | VERBtrans | O |
| Ŋuma banaganyu. | |
| ŋuma-∅ | banaganyu |
| father-ABS | returned |
| S | VERBintrans |
| "Father returned." | |
| Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan. | ||
| yabu-∅ | ŋuma-ŋgu | buṛan |
| mother-ABS | father-ERG | saw |
| O | A | VERBtrans |
| "Father saw mother." | ||
| Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. | ||
| ŋuma-∅ | yabu-ŋgu | buṛan |
| father-ABS | mother-ERG | saw |
| O | A | VERBtrans |
| "Mother saw father." | ||
| Ŋuma banaganyu, ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. | ||||
| ŋuma-∅ | banaganyu | ŋuma-∅ | yabu-ŋgu | buṛan |
| father-ABS | returned | father-ABS | mother-ERG | saw |
| S | VERBintrans | O | A | VERBtrans |
| "Father returned and mother saw father." | ||||
| Ŋuma banaganyu, yabuŋgu buṛan. | ||||
| ŋuma-∅ | banaganyu | ____ | yabu-ŋgu | buṛan |
| father-ABS | returned | (deleted) | mother-ERG | saw |
| S | VERBintrans | O | A | VERBtrans |
| "Father returned and was seen by mother." | ||||
The termergative–absolutive is considered unsatisfactory by some, since there are very few languages without any patterns that exhibitnominative–accusative alignment. Instead they posit that one should only speak ofergative–absolutive systems, which languages employ to different degrees.
Many languages classified as ergative in fact showsplit ergativity, whereby syntactic and/or morphological ergative patterns are conditioned by the grammatical context, typically person or the tense/aspect of the verb.Basque is unusual in having an almost fully ergative system in case-marking and verbalagreement, though it shows thoroughly nominative–accusativesyntactic alignment.[8]
InHindustani (Hindi andUrdu), theergative case is marked onagents in theperfective aspect fortransitive andditransitive verbs (also forintransitive verbs when they arevolitional),[9] while in other situations agents appear in thenominative case.
laṛkā kitāb xarīdtā hai.
boy:MASC.SG.NOM book:FEM.SG-NOM buy:HAB.MASC.SG be:3P.SG.PRS
'The boy buys a book'
laṛke-ne kitāb xarīdī hai.
boy:MASC.SG.ERG book:FEM.SG-NOM buy:PRF.FEM.SG be:3P.SG.PRS
'The boy has bought a book'
laṛkā khā̃sā.
boy:MASC.SG.NOM cough:PRF.MASC.SG
'The boy coughed.'
laṛke-ne khā̃sā.
boy:MASC.SG.ERG cough:PRF.MASC.SG
'The boy coughed (intentionally).'
In the Northern Kurdish languageKurmanji, the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs of transitive verbs in past tenses, for the events actually occurred in the past. Present, future and "future in the past" tenses show no ergative mark neither for agents nor the verbs. For example:
but:
In sentences (1) to (4), there is no ergativity (transitive and intransitive verbs alike). In sentences (6) and (8), the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs.
InDyirbal, pronouns are morphologically nominative–accusative when the agent is first or second person, but ergative when the agent is a third person.
Many languages with ergative marking display what is known asoptional ergativity, where the ergative marking is not always expressed in all situations. McGregor (2010) gives a range of contexts when we often see optional ergativity, and argues that the choice is often not trulyoptional but is affected bysemantics andpragmatics. Unlikesplit ergativity, which occurs regularly but in limited locations, optional ergativity can occur in a range of environments, but may not be used in a way that appears regular or consistent.
Optional ergativity may be motivated by:
Languages from Australia, New Guinea and Tibet have been shown to have optional ergativity.[10]
Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of the world:Mesopotamia (Kurdish, and some extinct languages),the Caucasus,the Americas, theTibetan Plateau, andAustralia and parts ofNew Guinea.
Specific languages and language families include:
CertainAustralian Aboriginal languages (e.g.,Wangkumara) possess anintransitive case and anaccusative case along with anergative case, and lack anabsolutive case; such languages are calledtripartite languages or ergative–accusative languages.
Several scholars have hypothesized thatProto-Indo-European was an ergative language, although this hypothesis is controversial.[28]
Sign languages (for example,Nepali Sign Language) should also generally be considered ergative in the patterning ofactant incorporation in verbs.[31] Insign languages that have been studied,classifier handshapes are incorporated into verbs, indicating thesubject ofintransitive verbs when incorporated, and theobject oftransitive verbs. (If we follow the "semantic phonology" model proposed byWilliam Stokoe (1991)[32] this ergative-absolutive patterning also works at the level of the lexicon: thus inNepali Sign Language the sign for TEA has the motion for the verb DRINK with amanual alphabet handshape च /ca/ (standing for the first letter of theNepali word TEA चिया /chiya:/) being incorporated as theobject.)
English has derivational morphology that parallels ergativity in that it operates on intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. With certain intransitive verbs, adding the suffix "-ee" to the verb produces a label for the person performing the action:
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:
Etymologically, the sense in which "-ee" denotes the object of a transitive verb is the original one, arising from Frenchpast participles in "-é". This is still the prevalent sense inBritish English: the intransitive uses are all 19th-century Americancoinages and all except "escapee" are still marked as "chiefly U.S." by theOxford English Dictionary.
English also has a number of so-calledergative verbs, where the object of the verb when transitive is equivalent to the subject of the verb when intransitive.
When English nominalizes a clause, the underlying subject of an intransitive verb and the underlying object of a transitive verb are both marked with the possessive case or with the preposition "of" (the choice depends on the type and length of the noun: pronouns and short nouns are typically marked with the possessive, while long and complex NPs are marked with "of"). The underlying subject of a transitive is marked differently (typically with "by" as in a passive construction):
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) (Aniko Csirmaz and Markéta Ceplová, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Zazaki is an ergative language)