In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the subject of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agentThis article uses the linguistic term "agent" to refer to the subject of transitive verbs, because the concept of a "subject" reflects the morphosyntactic alignment of English. of a transitive verb.Comrie (1989), p. 110ff. In ergative–absolutive languages with grammatical case, the ergative case refers to the marking of agents of transitive verbs, distinguishing it from the concept of a "subject" of a transitive or intransitive verb in English. The case for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb is called the absolutive.
The ergative–absolutive alignment is in contrast to nominative–accusative alignment, which is observed in English, where the single argument of an intransitive verb behaves grammatically like the agent of a transitive verb but different from the object of a transitive verb.
By one measure, 17% of the world's languages use an ergative alignment in the marking of noun phrases. Examples of ergative–absolutive languages include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, Sumerian, certain Indo-European languages such as Pashto, the Kurdish languages and many others.
Ergative vs. accusative languages
An ergative language maintains a syntactic or morphological equivalence (such as the same word order or grammatical 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/O syntactic pivot.
This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages such as English, where the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb (both called the subject) 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:Friend, Some Syntactic and Morphological Features of Suleimaniye Kurdish, UCLA, 1985)
These different arguments are usually symbolized as follows: A = agent of transitive verb ("The dog sees the cat") O = object of transitive verb, also symbolized as P for "patient" ("The dog sees the cat") S = core argument (i.e. subject) of intransitive verb ("The dog sees")
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
See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison with nominative–accusative languages.
The word subject, as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, has a different application when referring to ergative–absolutive languages, or when discussing morphosyntactic alignment in general.
Ergative languages tend to be either verb-final or verb-initial; there are few, if any, ergative SVO languages.
Example comparing Latin and Dyirbal Latin and Dyirbal are both languages which use case markings. Latin, however, has a nominative–accusative system, while Dyirbal has an ergative–absolutive one.
Latin Example
Because nominative–accusative systems align the subject of an intransitive verb with the subject of a transitive verb, the subjects in Latin are marked with the nominative case marker "-us" for both transitive and intransitive verbs. Similarly, the object is always marked with the accusative marker "-um". +Intransitive Latin Sentencesdomin-usvenitmaster-NOMcomes"The master comes"serv-usvenitslave-NOMcomes"The slave comes" +Transitive Latin Sentencesdomin-usserv-umauditmaster-NOMslave-ACChears"The master hears the slave"serv-usdomin-umauditslave-NOMmaster-ACChears"The slave hears the master"
Dyirbal Example
Dyirbal in contrast, uses an ergative–absolutive system. In Dyirbal, a noun has no affixes when it is the sole subject of an intransitive verb as well as when it is the object of a transitive verb. Only transitive subjects have a case marking "-ŋgu". The fact that the case marking for the subject of an intransitive verb differs from the marking on subjects of a transitive verb is the key difference of ergative–absolutive languages.
+Intransitive Dyirbal Sentencesŋuma-∅banaganyufather-ABSreturned"father returned"yabu-∅banaganyumother-ABSreturned"mother returned"
+Transitive Dyirbal Sentencesyabu-ŋguŋuma-∅buranmother-ERGfather-ABSsaw"mother saw father"ŋuma-ŋguyabu-∅buranfather-ERGmother-ABSsaw"father saw mother" With an intransitive verb, the subject does not get an affix in Dyirbal. While with a transitive verb, it is the object that does not get an affix.
Realization of ergativity Ergativity can be found in both morphological and syntactic behavior.For a kind of "phonological" ergativity, see Rude (1983), also Vydrin (2011) for a detailed critique. All known ergative languages show ergativity in their morphology, and a small portion also show ergativity in their syntax.
Morphological ergativity If the language has morphological case, then the verb arguments are marked thus: The agent of a transitive verb (A) is marked as ergative case, or as a similar case such as oblique. The core argument of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) are both marked with absolutive case.
If there is no case marking, ergativity can be marked through other means, such as in verbal morphology. For instance, Abkhaz and most Mayan 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 most unmarked form of a word (exceptions include Nias and Tlapanec).Donohue, Mark (2008). "Semantic alignment systems: what's what, and what's not". In Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann, eds. (2008). The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Basque The following examples from Basque 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 a zero 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 a determiner. The default determiner (commonly called the article, which is suffixed to common 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 for gizon ("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 is homophonous with the ergative singular. See Basque grammar for details.King, Alan R. The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Circassian
Georgian Georgian has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in the perfective aspect (also known as the "aorist screeve"). Thus exhibiting a form of split ergativity. Compare:
() "The man is eating an apple." () "The man ate an apple."
is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence (present continuous tense) the agent is in the nominative case ( ). In the second sentence, which shows ergative alignment, the root is marked with the ergative suffix .
However, there are some intransitive verbs in Georgian that behave like transitive verbs, and therefore employ the ergative case in the past tense. Consider:
() "The man sneezed."
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.
Differing noun-pronoun alignment In rare cases, such as the Australian Aboriginal language Nhanda, 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 a nominative–accusative template. In Nhanda, the absolutive case has a null suffix while ergative case is marked with some allomorph of the suffixes -nggu or -lu. See the common noun paradigm at play below:
Intransitive Subject (ABS)
Transitive Subject-Object (ERG-ABS)
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 the accusative suffix -nha.
Intransitive Pronoun Subject (NOM)
Transitive Pronoun Subject-Object (NOM-ACC)
Syntactic ergativity Ergativity may be manifested through syntax in addition to morphology. While all known ergative languages show ergativity in their morphology, only a small portion also show ergativity in their 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: Word order (for example, the absolutive argument comes before the verb and the ergative argument comes after it) Syntactic pivots Relative clauses – determining which arguments are available for relativization Subordination Switch reference
Example
Example of syntactic ergativity in the "conjunction reduction" construction (coordinated clauses) in Dyirbal in contrast with English conjunction reduction. (The subscript (i) indicates coreference.)
English (SVO word order): Father returned. Father saw mother. Mother saw father. Father(i) returned and father(i) saw mother. Father(i) returned and ____(i) saw mother. Father(i) returned and mother saw father(i). * Father(i) returned and mother saw ____(i). (ill-formed, because S and deleted O cannot be coreferential.)
Dyirbal (OSV word order): Ŋuma banaganyu. (Father returned.) Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan. (lit. Mother father-ŋgu saw, i.e. Father saw mother.) Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. Father mother-ŋgu saw, i.e. Mother saw father.) Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, yabu ŋumaŋgu(i) buṛan. (lit. Father(i) returned, mother father-ŋgu(i) saw, i.e. Father returned, father saw mother.) * Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, yabu ____(i) buṛan. (lit. *Father(i) returned, mother ____(i) saw; ill-formed, because S and deleted A cannot be coreferential.) Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, ŋuma(i) yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. Father(i) returned, father(i) mother-ŋgu saw, i.e. Father returned, mother saw father.) Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, ____(i) yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. Father(i) returned, ____(i) mother-ŋgu saw, i.e. Father returned, mother saw father.)
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