fbpx
Wikipedia

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 vary among different languages. [1]

Nominative–accusative vs. ergative–absolutive edit

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 Max.
  • Jane was sweating.

The grammatical role of "Jane" is identical. In both cases, "Jane" is the subject.

In ergative–absolutive languages (such as Basque and Georgian, or the Eskaleut 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, "Max" 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.

For example, in the following Inuktitut 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.

Split conditions edit

The split is usually conditioned by one of the following:

  1. 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-person or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.
  2. The use of certain aspects and/or tenses in the verb. The Indo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. In Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), a transitive verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the imperfective aspects trigger accusative marking.[3]
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).[4]

Examples edit

Hindi–Urdu edit

An example of split ergativity conditioned by the grammatical aspect is found in Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu); in the perfective aspect of transitive verbs (in active voice), the subject takes ergative case and the direct object takes an unmarked absolutive case identical to the nominative case, which is sometimes called direct case. However, in all other aspects (habitual & progressive), subjects appear either in the direct/nominative case or dative case (see dative subjects), while direct objects continue to appear in the direct 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 agent laṛke-ne (boy) is marked for ergative case, while the undergoer kitāb (book) is in unmarked nominative case. The verb kharīdī (bought) has the feminine ending , showing gender agreement with the undergoer kitāb (book).

lar̥ke-ne

boy:MASC.SG.ERG

लड़के-ने

kitāb

book:FEM.SG.NOM

किताब

xarīdī

buy:PRF.FEM.SG

ख़रीदी

hai.

be:3P.SG.PRS

है

lar̥ke-ne kitāb xarīdī hai.

boy:MASC.SG.ERG book:FEM.SG.NOM buy:PRF.FEM.SG be:3P.SG.PRS

लड़के-ने किताब ख़रीदी है

'The boy has bought a book'

In the corresponding imperfective (habitual aspect) sentence, the agent laṛkā (boy) is in unmarked nominative case. The habitual participle form kharīdatā (buy) has the masculine ending and thus agrees with the agent laṛkā (boy).

lar̥kā

boy:MASC.SG.NOM

लड़का

kitāb

book:FEM.SG.NOM

किताब

xarīdatā

buy:HAB.MASC.SG

ख़रीदता

hai.

be:3P.SG.PRS

है

lar̥kā kitāb xarīdatā hai.

boy:MASC.SG.NOM book:FEM.SG.NOM buy:HAB.MASC.SG be:3P.SG.PRS

लड़का किताब ख़रीदता है

'The boy buys a book'

Perfective constructions with certain VV (verb-verb) complexes do not employ ergative case marking (seeː 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 verb gayī (gone) which although undergoes semantic 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 transitive explicator verb (e.g., phẽkā "threw") can employ ergative case to agent arguments.[5]

ninā

nina:FEM.SG.NOM

नीना

ām

mango.MASC.SG.NOM

आम

khā

eat.NF

खा

gayī.

go:PRF.FEM.SG

गयी

ninā ām khā gayī.

nina:FEM.SG.NOM mango.MASC.SG.NOM eat.NF go:PRF.FEM.SG

नीना आम खा गयी

'Nina has eaten the mango.'

ninā-ne

nina:FEM.SG.ERG

नीना-ने

takiyā

pillow.MASC.SG.NOM

तकिया

uṭhā

pick.NF

उठा

phẽkā.

throw:PRF.MASC.SG

फेंका

ninā-ne takiyā uṭhā phẽkā.

nina:FEM.SG.ERG pillow.MASC.SG.NOM pick.NF throw:PRF.MASC.SG

नीना-ने तकिया उठा फेंका

'Nina (picked up and) threw the pillow.'

Chol (Mayan) edit

The Mayan language Chol 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").

Mi

IMPF

a-mek'-oñ

2SG.A-hug-1SG.B

Mi a-mek'-oñ

IMPF 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

Tyi wayi-yoñ

PRF 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 subject of transitive verbs.

Mi

IMPF

a-wayel

2SG.A-sleep

Mi a-wayel

IMPF 2SG.A-sleep

'You sleep.'

Sahaptin edit

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

and=1SG

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

ína

me

wínš-nɨm

man-ERG

ku=š i-q̓ínu-šan-a ína wínš-nɨm

and=1SG 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST me man-ERG

"And the man saw me."

ku=nam

and=2SG

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

imaná

you.ACC

wínš-nɨm

man-ERG

ku=nam i-q̓ínu-šan-a imaná wínš-nɨm

and=2SG 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST you.ACC man-ERG

"And the man saw you."

ku

and

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

paanáy

him/her/it

wínš

man

ku i-q̓ínu-šan-a paanáy wínš

and 3.NOM-see-IPFV-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

and

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

paanáy

him/her/it

wínš

man-ERG

ku i-q̓ínu-šan-a paanáy wínš

and 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST him/her/it man-ERG

"And the man saw him."

Inverse:

ku

and

pá-q̓inu-šan-a

INV-see-IPFV-PST

paanáy

him/her/it

wínš-in

man

ku pá-q̓inu-šan-a paanáy wínš-in

and INV-see-IPFV-PST him/her/it man

"And the man saw him."

Notes edit

  1. ^ Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Compton, Richard (2017). "Ergativity in Inuktitut". In Jessica Coon; Diane Massam; Lisa Demena Travis (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. pp. 832–850.
  3. ^ Piepers, J. (19 May 2016). Optional ergative case marking in Hindi (Thesis). S2CID 197863131.
  4. ^ DeLancey, Scott (October 2011). "'Optional' 'ergativity' in Tibeto-Burman languages". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 34 (2): 9–20.
  5. ^ Mukherjee, Atreyee (2017). "Revisiting Ergativity in Hindi". Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics. 1 (1): 18–28. Retrieved 2021-02-05.
  6. ^ Coon, Jessica (2010). "Rethinking Split Ergativity In Chol". International Journal of American Linguistics. 76 (2): 207–253. doi:10.1086/652266. JSTOR 10.1086/652266. S2CID 144864177.

Bibliography edit

split, ergativity, linguistic, typology, split, ergativity, feature, certain, languages, where, some, constructions, ergative, syntax, morphology, other, constructions, show, another, pattern, usually, nominative, accusative, conditions, which, ergative, const. 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 vary among different languages 1 Contents 1 Nominative accusative vs ergative absolutive 2 Split conditions 3 Examples 3 1 Hindi Urdu 3 2 Chol Mayan 3 3 Sahaptin 4 Notes 5 BibliographyNominative accusative vs ergative absolutive editMain article Ergative absolutive alignment 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 Max Jane was sweating The grammatical role of Jane is identical In both cases Jane is the subject In ergative absolutive languages such as Basque and Georgian or the Eskaleut 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 Max 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 For example in the following Inuktitut 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 Split conditions editThe 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 person or second person speaker in the animacy hierarchy The use of certain aspects and or tenses in the verb The Indo Iranian family for example shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect In Hindustani Hindi Urdu a transitive verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern and the imperfective aspects trigger accusative marking 3 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 4 Examples editHindi Urdu edit Main article Hindi verbs Ergativity and Light verbs An example of split ergativity conditioned by the grammatical aspect is found in Hindustani Hindi Urdu in the perfective aspect of transitive verbs in active voice the subject takes ergative case and the direct object takes an unmarked absolutive case identical to the nominative case which is sometimes called direct case However in all other aspects habitual amp progressive subjects appear either in the direct nominative case or dative case see dative subjects while direct objects continue to appear in the direct 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 agent laṛke ne boy is marked for ergative case while the undergoer kitab book is in unmarked nominative case The verb kharidi bought has the feminine ending i showing gender agreement with the undergoer kitab book lar ke neboy MASC SG ERGलड क न kitabbook FEM SG NOMक त बxaridibuy PRF FEM SGख र द hai be 3P SG PRSह lar ke ne kitab xaridi hai boy MASC SG ERG book FEM SG NOM buy PRF FEM SG be 3P SG PRSलड क न क त ब ख र द ह The boy has bought a book In the corresponding imperfective habitual aspect sentence the agent laṛka boy is in unmarked nominative case The habitual participle form kharidata buy has the masculine ending a and thus agrees with the agent laṛka boy lar kaboy MASC SG NOMलड क kitabbook FEM SG NOMक त बxaridatabuy HAB MASC SGख र दत hai be 3P SG PRSह lar ka kitab xaridata hai boy MASC SG NOM book FEM SG NOM buy HAB MASC SG be 3P SG PRSलड क क त ब ख र दत ह The boy buys a book Perfective constructions with certain VV verb verb complexes do not employ ergative case marking seeː 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 verb gayi gone which although undergoes semantic bleaching but still retains its intransitivity which does not allow for an ergative case assignment to the agent argument i e nina This is why as shown in the second example below VV complexes involving a transitive explicator verb e g phẽka threw can employ ergative case to agent arguments 5 ninanina FEM SG NOMन न ammango MASC SG NOMआमkhaeat NFख gayi go PRF FEM SGगय nina am kha gayi nina FEM SG NOM mango MASC SG NOM eat NF go PRF FEM SGन न आम ख गय Nina has eaten the mango nina nenina FEM SG ERGन न न takiyapillow MASC SG NOMतक य uṭhapick NFउठ phẽka throw PRF MASC SGफ क nina ne takiya uṭha phẽka nina FEM SG ERG pillow MASC SG NOM pick NF throw PRF MASC SGन न न तक य उठ फ क Nina picked up and threw the pillow Chol Mayan edit The Mayan language Chol 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 MiIMPFa mek on2SG A hug 1SG BMi a mek onIMPF 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 TyiPRFwayi yonsleep 1SG BTyi wayi yonPRF 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 subject of transitive verbs MiIMPFa wayel2SG A sleepMi a wayelIMPF 2SG A sleep You sleep Sahaptin edit 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 sand 1SGi q inu san a3 NOM see IPFV PSTinamewins nɨmman ERGku s i q inu san a ina wins nɨmand 1SG 3 NOM see IPFV PST me man ERG And the man saw me ku namand 2SGi q inu san a3 NOM see IPFV PSTimanayou ACCwins nɨmman ERGku nam i q inu san a imana wins nɨmand 2SG 3 NOM see IPFV PST you ACC man ERG And the man saw you kuandi q inu san a3 NOM see IPFV PSTpaanayhim her itwinsmanku i q inu san a paanay winsand 3 NOM see IPFV 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 kuandi q inu san a3 NOM see IPFV PSTpaanayhim her itwinsman ERGku i q inu san a paanay winsand 3 NOM see IPFV PST him her it man ERG And the man saw him Inverse kuandpa q inu san aINV see IPFV PSTpaanayhim her itwins inmanku pa q inu san a paanay wins inand INV see IPFV PST him her it man And the man saw him Notes edit Dixon R M W 1994 Ergativity Cambridge University Press Compton Richard 2017 Ergativity in Inuktitut In Jessica Coon Diane Massam Lisa Demena Travis eds The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity pp 832 850 Piepers J 19 May 2016 Optional ergative case marking in Hindi Thesis S2CID 197863131 DeLancey Scott October 2011 Optional ergativity in Tibeto Burman languages Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area 34 2 9 20 Mukherjee Atreyee 2017 Revisiting Ergativity in Hindi Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics 1 1 18 28 Retrieved 2021 02 05 Coon Jessica 2010 Rethinking Split Ergativity In Chol International Journal of American Linguistics 76 2 207 253 doi 10 1086 652266 JSTOR 10 1086 652266 S2CID 144864177 Bibliography editDixon R M W 1994 Ergativity Cambridge University Press ISBN 0 521 44898 0 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Split ergativity amp oldid 1191142676, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.