Split ergativity

This article may contain information that is already published in another article on the same subject or may be repeating information already explained.

Split ergativity is a term used by comparative linguists to refer to 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 varies from language to language.

Nominative-accusative vs. Ergative-absolutive

Main article: Ergative-absolutive languages

Nominative-accusative languages (including most of the languages of Europe, with the notable exception of Basque language) treat 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; or if it uses word order, they are parallel.

So, in the two English sentences,

Jane was chasing John.

and

Jane was sweating. 

the grammatical role of "Jane" is identical: in both cases "Jane" is the subject.

In Ergative-absolutive languages (including Basque language, Georgian language and Mayan language), there is a different pattern, where the patient (or target) of a transitive verb and the experiencer of an intransitive verb are treated the same grammatically. So if the two sentences above were expressed in an ergative language, "John" in the first one, and "Jane" in the second would be parallel grammatically, and a different form (the ergative) would be used for "Jane" in the first sentence. (There is no easy way to represent this in English).

In split ergative languages, some constructions pattern with nominative-accusative, and others with ergative-absolutive.

Split conditions

The split is usually conditioned by one of these:

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, except when one of these 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, and with the most marked case when it is the patient). This can be explained in terms of the high animacy of a first or second person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.
2. The use of certain tenses and/or aspects in the verb. The Indo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. A verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked using an ergative pattern, while the imperfective aspect triggers accusative marking. (Related languages and others always tend to associate past tense and/or perfect aspect with ergativity.)
3. The type of marking involved. Some languages (including various Austronesian languages of New Guinea, such as Sinaugoro) exhibit an ergative–absolutive pattern with respect to 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, while arguments of inactive verbs such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. Languages with this kind of 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, while 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).

Examples

An example of split ergativity, conditioned by tense and aspect, is found in Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu), which has an ergative case on subjects in the perfective aspect for transitive verbs in the active voice, but in all other aspects (habitual, progressive), subjects appear in the nominative case:

लड़का	किताब	ख़रीदता	है
laṛkā	kitāb	xarīdtā	hai
boy-Msg.NOM	book.Fsg.NOM	buy-IMPERFECTIVE-Msg	be.PRES.3sg

"The boy buys a book."

लड़के-ने	किताब	ख़रीदी
laṛke-ne	kitāb	xarīdī
boy.Msg-ERG	book.Fsg.NOM	buy-PERFECTIVE.Fsg

"The boy bought a book."

In the first sentence, the verb in present tense has the masculine ending -ā, agreeing with laṛkā (boy), but in the second sentence, the verb in past tense has the feminine ending -ī, agreeing with the feminine noun kitāb (book). "Boy" now appears as laṛke-ne, literally "by the boy".

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 when the direct object is first- or second-person.

ku=š	i-q̓ínu-šan-a	ína	wínš-nɨm
and=1SINGULAR	3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST	me	man-ERGATIVE

"And the man saw me."

ku=nam	i-q̓ínu-šan-a	imaná	wínš-nɨm
and=2SINGULAR	3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST	you.ACCUSATIVE	man-ERGATIVE

"And the man saw you."

ku	i-q̓ínu-šan-a	paanáy	wínš
and	3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-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 always third-person in the inverse.

Direct (same as above example):

ku	i-q̓ínu-šan-a	paanáy	wínš
and	3NOM-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST	him/her/it	man-ERGATIVE

"And the man saw him."

Inverse:

ku	pá-q̓inu-šan-a	paanáy	wínš-in
and	INVERSE-see-IMPERFECTIVE-PST	him/her/it	man

"And the man saw him."

Bibliography

• Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44898-0.

• Iliev, Ivan G. (2007) On the Nature of Grammatical Case ... (Case and Vocativeness)