Inlinguistic typology,split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions useergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usuallynominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.^[1]

Nominative–accusative languages (including Indo-European languages) treat both the actor in a clause with atransitive verb and the experiencer in a clause with anintransitive verb in the same way grammatically. If the language usescase markers, they take the same case. If it uses word order, it is parallel.

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 thesubject.

Inergative–absolutive languages (such asBasque andGeorgian, or theEskaleut andMayan 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, "Max" in the former and "Jane" in the latter would be parallel grammatically. Also, a different form (theergative) would be used for "Jane" in the first sentence.

For example, in the followingInuktitut sentences, the subject 'the woman' is in ergative case (arnaup) when occurring with a transitive verb, while the object 'the apple' (aapu) is in absolutive case. In the intransitive sentence, the subject 'the woman'arnaq is in absolutive case.^[2]

• 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.

The split is usually conditioned by one of the following:

1. The presence of adiscourse participant (a first or second person) in the proposition. The Australian languageDyirbal behaves ergatively in allmorphosyntactic contexts unless one of those is involved. When a first- or second-person pronoun appears, however, it is marked according to anominative–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 highanimacy of a first-person or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.
2. The use of certainaspects and/ortenses in the verb. TheIndo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between theperfective and theimperfective aspect. InHindustani (Hindi-Urdu), atransitive verb in theperfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and theimperfective aspects trigger accusative marking.^[3]
3. Theagentivity of the intransitive subject. In languages likeDakota, arguments of active verbs, such asto run, are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, but arguments of inactive verbs, such asto stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. Languages with such a marking are known assplit-S languages and are formally a subtype ofactive languages.
4. Pragmatic considerations or foremphasis, contrast, or clarity. In certainTibeto-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]

An example of split ergativity conditioned by thegrammatical aspect is found inHindustani (Hindi-Urdu); in theperfective aspect of transitive verbs (in active voice), the subject takesergative case and the direct object takes an unmarkedabsolutive case identical to thenominative case, which is sometimes calleddirect case. However, in all other aspects (habitual &progressive), subjects appear either in thedirect/nominative case ordative case (seedative subjects), while direct objects continue to appear in thedirect case (the subject of such sentences is differentiated from the direct object not from a difference in case but from the agreement of the verb with the subject as well as other syntactic and contextual cues such as word order and meaning^{[citation needed]}).

In the following perfective sentence, the agentlaṛke-ne(boy) is marked forergative case, while the undergoerkitāb(book) is in unmarked nominative case. The verbkharīdī (bought) has the feminine ending-ī, showinggender agreement with the undergoerkitāb (book).

In the correspondingimperfective (habitual aspect) sentence, the agentlaṛkā(boy) is in unmarkednominative case. The habitual participle formkharīdatā(buy) has the masculine ending-ā and thus agrees with the agentlaṛkā (boy).

Perfective constructions with certain VV (verb-verb) complexes do not employ ergative case marking (see: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 verbgayī (gone) which although undergoessemantic 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 transitiveexplicator verb (e.g.,phẽkā "threw") can employ ergative case to agent arguments.^[5]

TheMayan languageChol has split-ergative person marking.^[6]

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").

In intransitive clauses, the subject can either be represented by a set A-person marker, or a set B-person marker, depending onaspect.

Inperfective aspect, Chol hasergative–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.

Inimperfective aspect, Chol hasnominative–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.

InColumbia RiverSahaptin, 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.

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):

Inverse:

• Grammar

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from December 2021