Active–stative language

Linguistic typology
Morphological
Isolating
Synthetic
Polysynthetic
Fusional
Agglutinative
Morphosyntactic
Alignment
Accusative
Ergative
Split ergative
Philippine
Active–stative
Tripartite
Marked nominative
Inverse marking
Syntactic pivot
Theta role
Word Order
VO languages
Subject–verb–object
Verb–subject–object
Verb–object–subject
OV languages
Subject–object–verb
Object–subject–verb
Object–verb–subject
Time–manner–place
Place–manner–time

An active–stative language (active language for short) or split intransitive language, is one in which the sole argument (often symbolized as S) of an intransitive verb is sometimes marked in the same way as the agent of a transitive verb (that is, like a subject in English), and sometimes in the same way as the direct object of a transitive verb.

The case of the intransitive argument (S) varies according to criteria particular to each language. These criteria tend to be based on the degree of volition or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant.

If core arguments are termed A (agent of a transitive verb) and O (object, or patient of a transitive verb), then:

active languages can be described as languages which align S = O or S = A according to the criteria described above.

They contrast to:

accusative languages that align S = A in the vast majority of cases,

and to

ergative languages that align S = O in the vast majority of cases.

Contents

Types

For most languages of this type, the case of the intransitive argument is lexically fixed for each verb, regardless of the actual degree of volition of the subject, but often corresponding to the most typical situation. For example, the argument of swim is always treated like the transitive subject (agent-like), and the argument of sleep is always treated like the transitive direct object (patient-like). In a language like this, if the subject of a verb like swallow is defined as agentive, it will be always marked so, even if the action of swallowing is involuntary. This subtype is sometimes known as split-S.

In other languages, the marking of the intransitive argument is decided by the speaker based on semantic considerations. That is, for any given intransitive verb the speaker may choose whether to mark the subject as agentive or patientive. In some of these languages, agentive marking encodes a degree of volition or control over the action, with the patientive used otherwise; in others, patientive marking encodes a lack of volition or control, suffering from or being otherwise affected by the action, or sympathy on the part of the speaker, with the agentive used otherwise. These subtypes are sometimes known as fluid-S.

Argument marking

If the language has morphological case, then the arguments of a transitive verb are marked using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object, while the argument of an intransitive verb may be marked as either.

Languages lacking case inflections may indicate case with different word orders, using adpositions, etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede the verb, while the agentive argument might follow.

Cross-linguistically, the agentive argument tends to be marked, and the patientive argument tends to be unmarked. That is, if one case is indicated by zero-inflection, it is often the patientive.

Terminology

Active languages are a relatively new field of study; in other times active morphosyntactic alignment was not recognized as such, and was mostly treated as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive). Besides, active languages are few, and they often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal). Therefore, the terminology used to describe them is rather flexible. Active languages are also termed active–stative or even nominative–absolutive. The terms agentive case and patientive case used above are descriptive but not standard; sometimes the terms active and inactive are used.

The names of the subtypes, split-S and fluid-S, come from the designation of the single argument of intransitive verbs as S. They were first used by R. M. W. Dixon in 1979.

Examples

(†) = extinct language

South American languages

Central America/Mesoamerican languages

North American languages

South and Southeast Asia

Caucasus

Others

Reconstructed Languages

The reconstructed Pre-Proto-Indo-European language (not to be confused with the Proto-Indo-European language that is its direct descendant) shows many features known to correlate with active alignment, among them the animate vs. inanimate distinction, related to the distinction between active and inactive or stative verb arguments. Even in its descendant languages there are traces of a morphological split between volitional and nonvolitional verbs, such as a pattern in verbs of perception and cognition where the argument takes an oblique case, a relic of which can be seen in Middle English methinks, or in the distinction between see vs. look or hear vs. listen. Other possible relics from a structure in descendant languages of Indo-European include conceptualization of possession and extensive use of particles.

See also

References

External links