An ergative–absolutive language (or simply an ergative language) is a language that treats (i.e., case-marks) the argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb like the object of a transitive verb, but differently from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb.
Contents |
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.
This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages, such as English, where the agent of a transitive verb and the single argument of an intransitive verb are treated alike (called a subject) and kept distinct from the object of a transitive verb.
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 | |
|---|---|---|
| O | same | different |
| S | same | same |
| A | different | same |
See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison with nominative–accusative languages.
Note that the word subject, as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, is inapplicable 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.[1]
Ergativity can be found in both morphological and syntactic behavior.
If the language has morphological case, then the verb 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 most Mayan languages have no morphological ergative case, but they have verbal agreement structure which is ergative. In languages with ergative–absolutive agreement systems, the absolutive form is usually the most unmarked form of a word.
The following Basque examples demonstrate an ergative–absolutive case marking system:
| Ergative Language | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence: | Gizona etorri da. | Gizonak mutila ikusi du. | ||||
| Word: | gizon-a | etorri da | gizon-ak | mutil-a | ikusi du | |
| Gloss: | man-ABS | has arrived | man-ERG | boy-ABS | saw | |
| Function: | S | VERBintrans | A | O | VERBtrans | |
| Translation: | ‘The man has arrived.’ | ‘The man saw the boy.’ | ||||
In Basque, gizon is "man" and mutil is "boy". Gizon has a different case marking depending on whether it is the argument of a transitive or intransitive verb: the absolutive case, -a, and ergative case, -ak. In contrast, the core argument of the intransitive clause and the object of the transitive clause have the same absolutive case.
In contrast, Japanese is a nominative–accusative language:
| Accusative Language | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence: | Otoko ga tsuita. | Otoko ga kodomo o mita. | ||||
| Words: | otoko ga | tsuita | otoko ga | kodomo o | mita | |
| Gloss: | man NOM | arrived | man NOM | child ACC | 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 same nominative case particle ga, while the object of the transitive sentence is marked with the accusative case o.
If we set: 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)
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 also has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in the past tense (also known as the "aorist screeve"). 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'ac'i). 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.
Ergativity may be manifested through syntax, such as saying “Arrived me” 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:
Example of syntactic ergativity in the "conjunction reduction" construction (coordinated clauses) in Dyirbal in contrast with English conjunction reduction. (The subscript (i) indicates coreference.)
| 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 term ergative–absolutive is considered unsatisfactory by some, since there are very few languages without any patterns that exhibit nominative–accusative alignment. Instead they posit that one should only speak of ergative–absolutive systems, which languages employ to different degrees.
Many languages classified as ergative in fact show split 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 Urdu and Hindi, the ergative case is marked on agents in the preterite and perfect tenses for transitive and ditransitive verbs, while in other situations agents appear in the nominative case.
In Dyirbal, pronouns are morphologically nominative–accusative when the agent is first or second person, but ergative when the agent is a third person.
Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of world: the Caucasus, parts of North America and Mesoamerica, the Tibetan Plateau, and Australia.
Some specific languages are the following: Caucasus
Americas
Tibetan plateau
Australian
Certain Australian Aboriginal languages (e.g., Warlpiri) possess an intransitive case and an accusative case along with an ergative case, and lack an absolutive case; such languages are called ergative–accusative languages or tripartite languages.
Other
Many other languages have more limited ergativity, such as Pashto and Hindi (Indo-Iranian), where ergative behavior occurs only in the preterite and perfect tenses, and Georgian, where ergativity only occurs in the aorist.
The Philippine languages (e.g. Tagalog) are sometimes considered ergative (Schachter 1976, 1977; Kroeger 1993). However they would better be considered to have their own morphosyntactic alignment. See Austronesian alignment.
Several scholars have hypothesized that Proto-Indo-European was an Ergative language. However, this hypothesis is disputed.[2]
American English has derivational morphology that parallels ergativity in that it operates on intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. With an intransitive verb, 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 French past participles in "-é". This is still the prevalent sense in UK English: the intransitive uses are all 19th-century American coinages and all except "escapee" are still marked as "chiefly U.S." by the Oxford English Dictionary.
English also has a number of so-called ergative verbs, where the object of the verb when transitive is equivalent to the subject of the verb when intransitive.