Hubbry Logo
Absolutive caseAbsolutive caseMain
Open search
Absolutive case
Community hub
Absolutive case
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Absolutive case
Absolutive case
Absolutive case
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In grammar, the absolutive case (abbreviated ABS) is the case of nouns in ergative–absolutive languages that would generally be the subjects of intransitive verbs or the objects of transitive verbs in the translational equivalents of nominative–accusative languages such as English.[1]

In ergative–absolutive languages

[edit]

In languages with ergative–absolutive alignment, the absolutive is the case used to mark both the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb in addition to being used for the citation form of a noun. It contrasts with the marked ergative case, which marks the subject of a transitive verb.

For example, in Basque the noun mutil 'boy' takes the bare singular article -a both as the subject of the intransitive clause mutila etorri da ('the boy came') and as the object of the transitive clause Irakasleak mutila ikusi du ('the teacher has seen the boy') in which the agent bears the ergative ending -a-k.

In a very few cases, a marked absolutive has been reported, including in Nias and Sochiapam Chinantec.

Other uses

[edit]

Occasionally, the term 'absolutive case' (or also: 'absolute case') is used for the unmarked case form in languages with other alignment types. This is especially common in the tradition of descriptive linguistics of African languages. In marked nominative languages, where the nominative has case inflection, the accusative is unmarked and also serves as citation form. In these languages, the unmarked accusative/citation form is thus often called 'absolutive'. On the other hand, in certain nominative–accusative languages, it is the accusative which is explicitly marked for case, whereas the nominative is unmarked and serves as citation form. In such situations, the term 'absolutive' is occasionally used to describe the unmarked nominative/citation form.[2]

In tripartite languages

[edit]

In tripartite languages, both the agent and object of a transitive clause have case forms, ergative and accusative, and the agent of an intransitive clause is the unmarked citation form. It is occasionally called the intransitive case, but absolutive is also used and is perhaps more accurate since it is not limited to core agents of intransitive verbs.[citation needed]

References

[edit]

See also

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Absolutive case

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , the absolutive case (abbreviated ABS) is a used in ergative–absolutive languages to mark the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the direct object of a (P), while the subject of a (A) is typically marked by the . This alignment contrasts with the more common pattern found in languages like English, where the subject of both transitive and intransitive verbs (S and A) shares the , and the object (P) takes the accusative. The absolutive is often the unmarked or default form for nouns in these systems, lacking an overt in many languages, which highlights its role as the baseline argument in ergative constructions. Ergative–absolutive languages employing the absolutive case include Basque, various such as Dyirbal, and some Caucasian languages like Lezgian, where it facilitates syntactic patterns that treat S and P similarly in processes like coreferentiality or extraction. For instance, in Basque, the sentence "Maria lotan dago" ("Maria is sleeping") places "Maria" in the absolutive as the intransitive subject, mirroring its use as the object in transitive clauses like "Gizonak Maria ikusi du" ("The man saw Maria"). In Lezgian, the absolutive marks both the subject in "ruš-Ø aluqʰ-na" ("the girl fell") and the object in "ruš-a zi perem-Ø gazun-na" ("the girl tore my shirt"). The is a comparative concept in typological , not always a distinct morphological category in every language, and it often interacts with hierarchies or split-ergativity systems where pronouns or high-animacy nouns may follow nominative–accusative patterns instead. Historically, ergative–absolutive systems, including the absolutive, may derive from nominalized or passive constructions in ancestral languages, as seen in the evolution of Indo-Iranian or Polynesian tongues. This case underscores the diversity of argument encoding across human languages, influencing syntactic behaviors like agreement and control in clauses.

Definition and Alignment

Definition

The absolutive case is a that marks the subject of an (often denoted as S) and the object of a (denoted as O) in languages exhibiting ergative-absolutive alignment. This case highlights the patient-like or thematic role in verb arguments, unifying the single core argument of intransitive clauses with the more affected participant in transitive clauses. The term "absolutive" derives from Latin absolutivus and was introduced in the linguistic analysis of languages by William Thalbitzer in his 1911 study of Eskimo grammar, where it described the basic, unmarked form of nouns. It was subsequently extended to describe similar patterns in other language families, such as Caucasian languages. In contrast to agentive or ergative cases, which mark the agent (A) of transitive verbs to indicate volitional action or causation, the absolutive typically functions as the unmarked or default case, lacking overt morphological marking in many systems. This unmarked status underscores its role as the baseline form for core arguments aligned with the verb's or undergoer semantics. To illustrate, consider an abstract intransitive sentence like "The dog runs," where "dog" bears the absolutive case as the sole argument (S). In a transitive counterpart, "The cat chases the dog," the "dog" again takes the absolutive as the object (O), while "cat" would receive a distinct agentive marking. This pattern demonstrates how the absolutive unifies non-agentive roles across clause types.

Ergative-Absolutive vs. Nominative-Accusative

In nominative-accusative alignment, the subjects of both intransitive verbs (S) and transitive verbs (A) are treated similarly, typically marked with the , while the objects of transitive verbs (O) receive a distinct accusative marking. This pattern groups the agent-like arguments together, emphasizing the role of the subject across verb types in syntactic and morphological processes. In contrast, ergative-absolutive alignment treats the subject of an (S) and the object of a (O) alike, both receiving the absolutive case, whereas the subject of a (A) is marked separately with the . This configuration aligns patient-like or affected arguments (S and O), distinguishing the agentive transitive subject. The following table summarizes the core argument markings in these alignment systems, assuming the absolutive and nominative as the default unmarked forms:
ArgumentNominative-AccusativeErgative-Absolutive
S (intransitive subject)Nominative (unmarked)Absolutive (unmarked)
A (transitive subject)Nominative (unmarked)Ergative (marked)
O (transitive object)Accusative (marked)Absolutive (unmarked)
Ergative systems functionally emphasize affectedness or patienthood by grouping S and O, which often share semantic properties related to undergoing the action, rather than prioritizing agency as in nominative-accusative systems. Ergative-absolutive alignment occurs in approximately 25% of the world's languages and is particularly prevalent in non-Indo-European families, such as Australian, Papuan, and .

Core Usage in Ergative Systems

Morphological and Syntactic Roles

In ergative-absolutive languages, the absolutive case is frequently realized through zero-marking, appearing as the unmarked or default form of nouns without overt morphological affixation. This unmarked status positions the absolutive as the most morphologically accessible case for processes like agreement, often preceding ergative or oblique cases in accessibility hierarchies. However, morphological expression can vary, incorporating suffixes, prefixes, or clitics to denote the absolutive in certain contexts, such as in polysynthetic structures where it integrates with verbal morphology. Syntactically, absolutive arguments serve as the primary pivots in constructions involving coordination, relativization, and control, functioning as the unmarked or default participant eligible for extraction and movement operations. This pivot role stems from the absolutive's alignment with the subject of intransitive clauses and the object of transitive ones, enabling it to undergo A'-movement while ergative subjects are often restricted. Additionally, the absolutive tends to be the citation form for nouns, reflecting its status as the baseline case in lexical entries and representations. In terms of agreement, verbs in many ergative languages show φ-feature agreement primarily with absolutive arguments, particularly in polysynthetic systems where the absolutive incorporates into the complex. This pattern underscores the absolutive's syntactic prominence, as it licenses agreement even in the presence of ergative subjects, contrasting with accusative systems. Case stacking occurs in some ergative systems, where the absolutive forms the base layer upon which additional cases (such as locative or ) are affixed, especially in complex noun phrases involving adnominal modification. may also arise, with the absolutive form merging morphologically with other cases like the nominative in mixed alignments or obliques in certain paradigms, reflecting historical or functional overlaps.

Alignment Patterns

In ergative-absolutive systems, alignment patterns are shaped by semantic hierarchies that influence case assignment, particularly through and person scales. Higher-ranking entities on the animacy hierarchy—such as humans or first/second person pronouns—occupying the A (agent) role typically trigger ergative marking, while those in the O (patient) role retain absolutive marking, preserving the core alignment despite potential shifts toward accusative-like patterns for prominent agents. This hierarchy effect, first formalized by Silverstein (1976), ensures that absolutive remains the default for less agentive arguments, as seen in Dyirbal where first/second person objects receive accusative-like treatment but third-person patients stay absolutive. Exceptions arise in hierarchical constraints, where a high- A may demote a low- O, yet the O's absolutive form persists to maintain syntactic unity. Tense-aspect splits further constrain absolutive alignment, with the pattern proving most consistent in perfective aspects, where S (intransitive subject) and O align as absolutive while A takes ergative. In non-perfective contexts like progressives or imperfectives, ergative marking often recedes, yielding neutral or nominative patterns, but perfective clauses universally reinforce absolutive for S and O to encode completed events. For instance, in Basque, perfective transitives mark agents ergatively and patients absolutive (e.g., ehiza-le-k 'hunter-ERG' and otso-a 'wolf-ABS'), whereas progressives adopt a bi-absolutive structure; similarly, Ch'ol Mayan maintains absolutive consistency for S and O in perfectives but extends ergative to S in imperfectives. These splits arise from structural embedding in non-perfectives, reducing transitivity and absolutive's pivot role. Word order correlations in ergative systems often position the absolutive prominently, typically in SOV or VSO structures that underscore ergative's peripheral status. In VSO languages like those of the Mayan family, the absolutive (S or O) immediately follows the verb, facilitating its role as a syntactic pivot, while the ergative follows it; SOV orders, common in Australian languages, place absolutive initially or medially, enhancing ergative prominence through post-verbal or oblique placement. This arrangement supports absolutive's morphological neutrality, enabling flexible extraction or agreement without disrupting core alignment. Theoretical models, such as Dixon's (1979) proto-agent/proto-patient framework, explain these patterns semantically: S aligns with O as proto-patients (less agentive, more affected), distinct from proto-agent A, providing a universal basis for absolutive grouping across syntactic variations. This semantic motivation underpins hierarchy effects and splits, viewing ergative alignment as an extension of event structure where absolutive captures non-initiating roles.

Variations in Case Systems

Split ergativity occurs in languages where the absolutive case and associated ergative-absolutive alignment are restricted to specific subsets of clauses, typically alternating with nominative-accusative or other patterns depending on grammatical or semantic factors. This deviation from pure ergative-absolutive systems allows for hybrid alignments that reflect contextual variations in argument marking. The primary types of splits include tense-based, aspect-based, and animacy-based systems. In tense-based splits, ergative marking on the A argument (transitive subject) and absolutive on S (intransitive subject) and O (transitive object) appears in past tenses, while nominative-accusative patterns—nominative on A and S, accusative on O—emerge in non-past tenses. Aspect-based splits, often termed perfective ergativity, condition the alignment on verbal aspect, with ergative-absolutive patterns in perfective or completed actions and accusative patterns in imperfective or ongoing ones. Animacy-based splits rely on a referential hierarchy of nominals, where higher-ranked arguments (e.g., speech-act participants like first and second person pronouns) follow accusative alignment, while lower-ranked ones (e.g., third-person inanimates) exhibit ergative-absolutive marking, ensuring inanimate O arguments consistently receive absolutive case. These shifts can be illustrated through abstract paradigms, as shown below for a tense-based system:
TenseA (Transitive Subject)S (Intransitive Subject)O (Transitive Object)
PastErgativeAbsolutiveAbsolutive
Non-PastNominativeNominativeAccusative
For an aspect-based example:
AspectA (Transitive Subject)S (Intransitive Subject)O (Transitive Object)
PerfectiveErgativeAbsolutiveAbsolutive
ImperfectiveNominativeNominativeAccusative
Such paradigms highlight how the absolutive case's role diminishes outside the split's ergative domain. Functional motivations for these splits often stem from the prominence of agentivity in ongoing or present actions, where accusative patterns emphasize the A argument's volitionality and continuity, contrasting with the event-focused, patient-oriented perspective in completed past or perfective contexts. This reflects a cognitive alignment between temporal structure and salience, favoring accusative marking for foregrounded agents in non-completed events. Split ergativity is prevalent across several language families, notably (e.g., in past versus non-past tenses), (e.g., aspect-conditioned patterns), and (e.g., person-animacy hierarchies). These systems address gaps in pure ergative-absolutive alignment by incorporating semantic and temporal nuances into case assignment.

Tripartite Languages

Tripartite alignment represents a rare morphosyntactic pattern in which the three core arguments—intransitive subject (S), transitive subject (A), and transitive object (O)—are marked by distinct case markers, diverging from more common alignments like nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive. In this system, S is often unmarked or receives a nominative marker, A is typically ergative, and O receives a distinct marker such as accusative. This separation contrasts with ergative-absolutive systems, where S and O align under the absolutive, highlighting how tripartite structures treat all arguments as fundamentally distinct roles. Documented examples of tripartite case marking are scarce and primarily found in isolated language families. (a Sahaptian language) exhibits through case suffixes: the intransitive subject is unmarked or nominative, the transitive subject receives an ergative -ne, and the object an accusative -me. Other instances include certain like Talyshi and Tatic dialects, which show S in nominative, A in ergative, and O in accusative forms in some contexts. Theoretically, is viewed as marginal and unstable, often emerging at the intersection of accusative and ergative patterns but rarely persisting due to pressures toward simplification or realignment. Linguists debate whether some purported examples constitute true tripartite systems or merely splits influenced by , , or clause type, as full separation of S, A, and O demands high morphological complexity with limited functional advantages. In contrast to ergative systems, where the absolutive unifies S and O to emphasize patient-like roles, tripartite marking isolates each with distinct cases, potentially reflecting heightened salience for transitive patients but at the cost of cross-clausal consistency.

Language Examples

Basque and Caucasian Languages

In Basque, an isolate language spoken in the western , the absolutive case serves as the unmarked form (-Ø) for both the subject of intransitive verbs (S) and the object of transitive verbs (O), while the agent of transitive verbs (A) receives the ergative marker -k. This ergative-absolutive alignment is evident in sentences such as Gizonak mutila ikusi du (" has seen the boy"), where gizonak marks the agent in and mutila appears in absolutive case as the object; in contrast, an intransitive sentence like Gizona etorri da (" has arrived") uses absolutive for the subject without ergative marking. The absolutive thus functions as the default or citation form for nouns in Basque dictionaries and unmarked contexts. Georgian, a Kartvelian language of the South Caucasus, exhibits split ergativity conditioned by tense-aspect: it follows an ergative-absolutive pattern in the aorist (past) series but shifts to nominative-accusative alignment in the present/future (Series I) series. In the aorist, the transitive subject takes the ergative suffix -ma, while the object and intransitive subject both appear in the unmarked nominative (absolutive-like) form; for example, Vano-ma kiṭ-eb-i da-kiṭ-a ("Vano wrote the book") shows the agent in ergative and the object in nominative, contrasting with the present-series Vano-s kiṭ-eb-s ("Vano writes the book"), where the subject is nominative and the object dative. This paradigm shift reflects a historical development where Series II verbs retain older ergative features, while Series I aligns more accusatively through dative objects. In Avar, a Northeast Caucasian language of the Nakh-Daghestanian family, the absolutive case is unmarked and triggers gender agreement on , which distinguish 4–8 noun classes (genders) via prefixes, primarily controlled by the absolutive argument. agree in gender with the absolutive, whether it is the subject of an or the object of a transitive one; for instance, in transitive perfective constructions (biabsolutives), the lexical agrees with the absolutive object (e.g., class III prefix b- for ), while the copula agrees with the absolutive subject (e.g., class I w- for male ), as in Emen xer hani-b b-eč́ -u-l-ib w-iz-a ("Father put hay into the pen"), where b- marks the hay (object) and w- the father (subject). Noun classes in Avar are lexical and arbitrary for nonhumans, with agreement extending to absolutive arguments to indicate semantic categories like vs. . Across Basque and these Caucasian languages, the absolutive case consistently appears as the unmarked, citation form for nouns, while other grammatical relations are expressed through suffixes or postpositions, such as Basque's dative -ri or Georgian's instrumental -i and Avar's oblique stems with postpositional markers for locatives and instrumentals.

Australian and Papuan Languages

In , the absolutive case is a hallmark of strict ergative-absolutive alignment, particularly in noun morphology, where the subject of intransitive verbs (S) and the object of transitive verbs (O) share zero marking (-Ø), while the transitive subject (A) receives an ergative , such as -ŋgu in Dyirbal. This pattern is exemplified in Dyirbal, a of , where nouns are prefixed with classifiers that indicate semantic classes (e.g., bayi for masculine entities like men). A representative transitive sentence is bayi yara ŋayu-mba bural-n̦da ('the man sees me'), glossed as man-ABS 1SG.ERG see-NPST, showing the absolutive on the O (yara 'man') and ergative on the A (ŋayu-mba 'I'). Intransitive subjects align with this, as in bayi yara waynydyi-n ('the man goes uphill'), with yara unmarked in absolutive. Although Dyirbal pronouns exhibit nominative-accusative patterns, the core nominal system remains consistently ergative-absolutive, facilitating semantic role-based discourse tracking. Papuan languages, spoken in New Guinea, often display absolutive marking through head-marking strategies in polysynthetic verbs, where pronominal prefixes index S and O arguments in an ergative-absolutive fashion. Yimas, a Lower Sepik language, exemplifies this: verbs carry absolutive prefixes for core arguments, while ergative is marked separately, often as suffixes or postpositions on nouns. For instance, in na-mtu-k ('he hit him'), the verb prefixes na- (3SG.absolutive) for the O, with the A marked ergatively elsewhere if needed, emphasizing the absolutive as the default core participant in head-marking clauses. This system integrates with Yimas's extensive noun classification via prefixes that influence case assignment, such as dative or instrumental roles, but preserves absolutive zero-marking for S and O in verbal agreement. Common traits across Australian and Papuan ergative languages include noun systems that interact with case marking, where classifiers (e.g., bayi in Dyirbal or verbal class markers in Yimas) encode semantic categories like or , thereby modulating absolutive realization in . These languages frequently employ absolutive forms for topic continuity, allowing unmarked S or O arguments to chain across sentences without repetition, as seen in Dyirbal's topic-chaining constructions. Typologically, the prevalence of ergative-absolutive alignment in these regions stems from preferences for semantic alignment, where the absolutive highlights patient-like or thematic roles over agentivity, contrasting with the agent-focused nominative-accusative patterns dominant elsewhere. This distribution reflects areal-typological influences, with over 80% of non-Pama-Nyungan Australian languages and many Papuan families exhibiting such systems.

Mayan and Other Families

In Mayan languages, the absolutive case plays a central role in head-marking verb agreement systems, where nouns themselves typically lack overt case marking, and instead, the verb cross-references the absolutive argument using Set B morphemes for both the single argument of intransitive verbs (S) and the patient of transitive verbs (O). Yucatec Maya exemplifies this pattern with an aspect-based split ergativity: in the completive (perfective) aspect, the system aligns ergative-absolutive, with ergative Set A prefixes marking transitive agents and absolutive Set B suffixes or enclitics marking S and O; in the incompletive (imperfective) aspect, intransitive subjects switch to ergative Set A marking, creating an active-stative pattern. For instance, in a completive transitive clause, the verb agrees with the absolutive patient via a Set B marker, as in in wáah-al le=e'tsab ('I washed the bone'), where in- is the first-person ergative prefix on the agent and -al includes third-person absolutive agreement for the patient le=e'tsab. In intransitive completive contexts, the absolutive is similarly cross-referenced, such as k'uch-uk le=tséek ('the bowl broke'), with -uk as third-person absolutive for the S argument. This split underscores how aspect conditions the alignment, with ergative-absolutive dominating in completed events. In the Inuit language family, represented by , the absolutive case is morphologically unmarked and serves as the default alignment for patients in transitive and subjects in intransitive ones, within a polysynthetic structure where incorporate extensive agreement morphology. Agents of transitive receive overt marking via the -up, while the absolutive patient and intransitive subject remain unmarked, and the agrees with both arguments through bound affixes. For example, in a transitive like arnaq-up qimmiq taku-juk ('the woman sees the '), arnaq-up bears for the agent, qimmiq is absolutive for the patient, and the taku-juk includes third-person absolutive agreement for the patient and ergative for the agent. Intransitive follow suit, with the subject in absolutive case, as in qimmiq sinna-juq ('the sleeps'), where qimmiq is unmarked absolutive and the agrees accordingly. This system highlights the absolutive as the core, obligatorily assigned case in every , often pro-dropped due to rich verbal agreement. Tibetan exhibits a nominal ergative-absolutive system using postpositions for case marking, where the absolutive is typically unmarked on patients and intransitive subjects, while transitive agents receive the ergative postposition gis in perfective or past contexts, creating an aspect-based split. This split is conditioned by volitionality and control in some transitive verbs: ergative marking applies to volitional agents in perfective clauses, but may be omitted or altered for non-volitional or imperfective events, aligning more accusatively. For example, in a perfective transitive sentence like khong-gis rta-la bskad-cin ('he told '), khong-gis marks the agent ergatively with the postposition gis, while rta remains unmarked absolutive as . Intransitive clauses show the subject in absolutive, as in rta 'gro-ba red (' goes'), with no marking on rta. Postpositions like la for locatives further integrate with this system, but ergative-absolutive dominates core arguments in declarative clauses. Across these families—Mayan, Inuit, and Tibeto-Burman—trends reveal the absolutive as frequently realized through verb agreement in head-marking languages like Yucatec Maya and , where Set B or equivalent affixes target the absolutive argument, contrasting with sparser nominal marking. In Tibetan, however, absolutive marking is more dependent-oriented, relying on unmarked nouns and postpositional contrasts for ergative, with verb agreement less directly tied to case. This variation emphasizes the absolutive's role in unifying S and O across splits influenced by aspect or volitionality, often prioritizing completed or controlled events for full ergative patterning.

References

  1. https://glossary.sil.org/term/absolutive-case
  2. https://universaldependencies.org/u/feat/Case.html
  3. https://zenodo.org/records/7625026/files/Haspelmath2022new.pdf?download=1
  4. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/typology/7-ergativity
  5. http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Absolutive_case
  6. https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/49098/when-and-by-whom-was-the-term-absolutive-case-created
  7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1263368
  8. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/797-0106/797-HOOP-0-0.PDF
  9. https://wals.info/chapter/98
  10. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~ardeal/papers/Deal-ergativity-handbook.pdf
  11. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805214/44460/sample/9780521444460ws.pdf
  12. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/52/3/640/97432/The-Role-of-the-Absolutive-Object-in-Morphological
  13. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-315
  14. https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~ardeal/papers/Deal-ARL2.pdf
  15. http://home.uchicago.edu/merchant/pubs/polyvalent.case.pdf
  16. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Haspelmath_Objects.pdf
  17. https://eggschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Jessica_ergativityFriday.pdf
  18. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mpolinsky/files/oup_chapter.pdf
  19. http://grammar.ucsd.edu/courses/lign236/readings/Tsunoda.pdf
  20. https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/32/paper3174.pdf
  21. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7.-Hierarchy-of-Features-and-Ergativity-Silverstein/e4e75fd72fc081111121bd8d2889cb2210d025e0
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/414343
  23. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323333693
  24. https://clls.sbu.ac.ir/article/view/article_105784_9fb090cac41001a73c585ec000c03ebd.pdf
  25. https://www.autotyp.uzh.ch/projects/syn/bickelnichols_casealign.pdf
  26. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/1301871.pdf
  27. https://web.mit.edu/alya/Public/print/Marantz_Case___Licensing.pdf
  28. https://stevenrfoley.github.io/assets/pdfs/Foley_2020_OUP_Agreement.pdf
  29. http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/electronic-docs/Linguistics/General/Dixon_Ergativity.pdf
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/dyirbal-language-of-north-queensland/syntax/C74BBE4E408329AFB7340BDF47691A91
  31. http://www.colinphillips.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/phillips1993_yimas.pdf
  32. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/download/6352/3340
  33. https://www.dickgrune.com/NatLang/Summaries/Indo-Pacific.html
  34. https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/01/UBCWPL26-WSCLA1314-Coon.pdf
  35. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323336285
  36. https://ajohns.artsci.utoronto.ca/ErgativityandChange.pdf
  37. http://www.nicolas-tournadre.net/wp-content/uploads/multimedia/1994-ergativity.pdf
  38. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/general/dissertations/GarrettEdwardDissertationUCLA2001.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.