Hubbry Logo
Ergative–absolutive alignmentErgative–absolutive alignmentMain
Open search
Ergative–absolutive alignment
Community hub
Ergative–absolutive alignment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ergative–absolutive alignment
Ergative–absolutive alignment
Ergative–absolutive alignment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Linguistic typology
Morphological
Morphosyntactic
Word order
Lexicon

In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the subject of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the subject of a transitive verb.[1] Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, Sumerian, and certain Indo-European languages (such as Pashto and the Kurdish languages and many Indo-Aryan languages like Hindustani). It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic (also called Neo-Aramaic) languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative (for instance, Basque, Pashto and Urdu) and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter.[a]

The ergative-absolutive alignment is in contrast to nominative–accusative alignment, which is observed in English and most other Indo-European languages, where the single argument of an intransitive verb ("She" in the sentence "She walks") behaves grammatically like the agent (subject) of a transitive verb ("She" in the sentence "She finds it") but different from the object of a transitive verb ("her" in the sentence "He likes her"). When ergative–absolutive alignment is coded by grammatical case, the case used for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb is the absolutive, and the case used for the agent of a transitive verb is the ergative. In nominative-accusative languages, the case for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb is the nominative, while the case for the direct object of a transitive verb is the accusative.

Many languages have ergative–absolutive alignment only in some parts of their grammar (e.g., in the case marking of nouns), but nominative-accusative alignment in other parts (e.g., in the case marking of pronouns, or in person agreement). This is known as split ergativity.

Ergative vs. accusative languages

[edit]

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. Such languages are said to operate with S/O syntactic pivot.

This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages such as English, where the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb (both called the subject) are treated alike and kept distinct from the object of a transitive verb. Such languages are said to operate with S/A (syntactic) pivot.

Ergative alignment (intransitive Subject and transitive Object treated the same way) displaying S/O pivot
Accusative alignment (intransitive Subject and transitive Agent treated the same way) displaying S/A pivot

(reference for figure:[2])

These different arguments are usually symbolized as follows:

  • A = agent of transitive verb ("The dog sees the cat")
  • O = object of transitive verb, also symbolized as P for "patient" ("The cat sees the dog")
  • S = core argument (i.e. subject) of intransitive verb ("The dog sees")

The relationship between ergative and accusative systems can be schematically represented as the following:

Ergative–absolutive Nominative–accusative
A ERG NOM
O ABS ACC
S ABS NOM

See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison with nominative–accusative languages.

The word subject, as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, has a different application 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.[3]

Realization of ergativity

[edit]

Ergativity can be found in both morphological and syntactic behavior.[4]

Morphological ergativity

[edit]

If the language has morphological case, then the verb arguments are marked thus:

  • The agent of a transitive verb (A) is marked as ergative case, or as a similar case such as oblique.
  • The core argument of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) are both marked with absolutive case.[2]

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 a verbal agreement structure that is ergative. In languages with ergative–absolutive agreement systems, the absolutive form is usually the most unmarked form of a word (exceptions include Nias and Tlapanec).[5]

Basque

[edit]

The following examples from Basque demonstrate an ergative–absolutive case marking system:

Ergative language
Sentence: Martin etorri da. Martinek Diego ikusi du.
Word: Martin-Ø etorri da Martin-ek Diego-Ø ikusi du
Gloss: Martin-ABS has arrived Martin-ERG Diego-ABS has seen
Function: S VERBintrans A O VERBtrans
Translation: "Martin has arrived." "Martin has seen Diego."

Here -Ø represents a zero morpheme, as the absolutive case is unmarked in Basque with proper nouns (i.e., Martin, Diego, Berlin...). The forms for the ergative are -k after a vowel, and -ek after a consonant. It is a further rule in Basque grammar that in most cases a noun phrase must be closed by a determiner. The default determiner (commonly called the article, which is suffixed to common nouns and usually translatable by "the" in English) is -a in the singular and -ak in the plural, the plural being marked only on the determiner and never the noun. For common nouns, this default determiner is fused with the ergative case marker. Thus one obtains the following forms for gizon ("man"): gizon-a (man-the.sing.abs), gizon-ak (man-the.pl.abs), gizon-ak (man-the.sing.erg), gizon-ek (man-the.pl.erg). When fused with the article, the absolutive plural is homophonous with the ergative singular. See Basque grammar for details.[6]

Circassian

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Circassian languages § Ergative–absolutive.[edit]

The following example shows an ergative–absolutive case marking system while using the same verb "break" in both intransitive and transitive forms:

Ergative language
Sentence: ӏанэр мэкъутэ. Лӏым ӏанэр екъутэ.
Word: ӏанэ-р мэкъутэ Лӏым ӏанэр екъутэ
Gloss: The table-ABS breaks The man-ERG the table-ABS breaks
Function: S VERBintrans A O VERBtrans
Translation: "The table breaks." "The man breaks the table."
Here, "table" has the absolutive case mark -р /-r/ while "man" has the ergative case mark -м /-m/. The verb "break" is in the intransitive form "мэкъутэ" and the transitive form "екъутэ". The example above specifically shows SOV order, but Circassian allows any order.

Japanese

[edit]

In contrast, Japanese is a nominative–accusative language:

Accusative language
Sentence: 男の人が着いた。 Otokonohito ga tsuita. 男の人が子供を見た。 Otokonohito ga kodomo o mita.
Words: otokonohito ga tsuita otokonohito 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.

Conlang english

[edit]

If one sets: 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)
word order SVO SOV VOS
transitive nominative A accusative O ergative A absolutive O absolutive O ergative A
He kisses her. He her kisses. Kisses her he.
She kisses him. She him kisses. Kisses him she.
intransitive nominative S absolutive S absolutive S
He smiles. Him smiles. Smiles him.
She smiles. Her smiles. Smiles her.

Georgian

[edit]

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 has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in the perfective aspect (also known as the "aorist screeve"). Compare:

K'aci vašls č'ams. (კაცი ვაშლს ჭამს) "The man is eating an apple."
K'acma vašli č'ama. (კაცმა ვაშლი ჭამა) "The man ate an apple."

K'ac- is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence (present continuous tense) the agent is in the nominative case (k'aci ). 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:

K'acma daacemina. (კაცმა დააცემინა) "The man sneezed."

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.

Differing noun-pronoun alignment

[edit]

In rare cases, such as the Australian Aboriginal language Nhanda, different nominal elements may follow a different case-alignment template. In Nhanda, common nouns have ergative-absolutive alignment—like in most Australian languages—but most pronouns instead follow a nominative-accusative template. In Nhanda, the absolutive case has a null suffix while ergative case is marked with some allomorph of the suffixes -nggu or -lu. See the common noun paradigm at play below:[7]

Intransitive Subject (ABS)

pundu

rain.ABS

yatka-yu

go-ABL.NFUT

pundu yatka-yu

rain.ABS go-ABL.NFUT

Rain is coming.

Transitive Subject-Object (ERG-ABS)

nyarlu-nggu

woman-ERG

yawarda

kangaroo.ABS

nha-'i

see-PAST

nyarlu-nggu yawarda nha-'i

woman-ERG kangaroo.ABS see-PAST

The woman saw the kangaroo

Compare the above examples with the case marking of pronouns in Nhanda below, wherein all subjects (regardless of verb transitivity) are marked (in this case with a null suffix) the same for case while transitive objects take the accusative suffix -nha.

Intransitive Pronoun Subject (NOM)

wandha-ra-nyja

Where-3.OBL-2SG.NOM

yatka-ndha?

go-NPAST

wandha-ra-nyja yatka-ndha?

Where-3.OBL-2SG.NOM go-NPAST

Where are you going?

Transitive Pronoun Subject-Object (NOM-ACC)

nyini

2.NOM

nha-'i

see-PST

ngayi-nha

1-ACC

nyini nha-'i ngayi-nha

2.NOM see-PST 1-ACC

You saw me

Syntactic ergativity

[edit]

Ergativity may be manifested through syntax, such as saying "Arrived I" 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

[edit]

Example of syntactic ergativity in the "conjunction reduction" construction (coordinated clauses) in Dyirbal in contrast with English conjunction reduction. (The subscript (i) indicates coreference.)

English (SVO word order):

  1. Father returned.
  2. Father saw mother.
  3. Mother saw father.
  4. Father(i) returned and father(i) saw mother.
  5. Father(i) returned and ____(i) saw mother.
  6. Father(i) returned and mother saw father(i).
  7. * Father(i) returned and mother saw ____(i). (ill-formed, because S and deleted O cannot be coreferential.)

Dyirbal (OSV word order):

  1. Ŋuma banaganyu. (Father returned.)
  2. Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan. (lit. Mother father-ŋgu saw, i.e. Father saw mother.)
  3. Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. Father mother-ŋgu saw, i.e. Mother saw father.)
  4. Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, yabu ŋumaŋgu(i) buṛan. (lit. Father(i) returned, mother father-ŋgu(i) saw, i.e. Father returned, father saw mother.)
  5. * Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, yabu ____(i) buṛan. (lit. *Father(i) returned, mother ____(i) saw; ill-formed, because S and deleted A cannot be coreferential.)
  6. Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, ŋuma(i) yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. Father(i) returned, father(i) mother-ŋgu saw, i.e. Father returned, mother saw father.)
  7. Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, ____(i) yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. Father(i) returned, ____(i) mother-ŋgu saw, i.e. Father returned, mother saw father.)

Crucially, the fifth sentence has an S/A pivot and thus is ill-formed in Dyirbal (syntactically ergative); on the other hand, the seventh sentence has an S/O pivot and thus is ill-formed in English (syntactically accusative).

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."

Split ergativity

[edit]
Main article: Split ergativity

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 case-marking and verbal agreement, though it shows thoroughly nominative–accusative syntactic alignment.[8]

In Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu), the ergative case is marked on agents in the perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs (also for intransitive verbs when they are volitional),[9] while in other situations agents appear in the nominative case.

laṛkā

boy:MASC.SG.NOM

kitāb

book:FEM.SG-NOM

xarīdtā

buy:HAB.MASC.SG

hai.

be:3P.SG.PRS

laṛkā kitāb xarīdtā hai.

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

'The boy buys a book'

laṛke-ne

boy:MASC.SG.ERG

kitāb

book:FEM.SG-NOM

xarīdī

buy:PRF.FEM.SG

hai.

be:3P.SG.PRS

laṛke-ne kitāb xarīdī hai.

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

'The boy has bought a book'

laṛkā

boy:MASC.SG.NOM

khā̃sā.

cough:PRF.MASC.SG

laṛkā khā̃sā.

boy:MASC.SG.NOM cough:PRF.MASC.SG

'The boy coughed.'

laṛke-ne

boy:MASC.SG.ERG

khā̃sā.

cough:PRF.MASC.SG

laṛke-ne khā̃sā.

boy:MASC.SG.ERG cough:PRF.MASC.SG

'The boy coughed (intentionally).'

In the Northern Kurdish language Kurmanji, the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs of transitive verbs in past tenses, for the events actually occurred in the past. Present, future and "future in the past" tenses show no ergative mark neither for agents nor the verbs. For example:

(1) Ez diçim. (I go)
(2) Ez wî dibînim. (I see him.)
(3) Ew diçe. (He goes)
(4) Ew min dibîne. (He sees me.)

but:

(5) Ez çûm. (I went)
(6) Min ew dît. (I saw him.)
(7) Ew çû. (He went.)
(8) Wî ez dîtim. (He saw me.)

In sentences (1) to (4), there is no ergativity (transitive and intransitive verbs alike). In sentences (6) and (8), the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs.

In Dyirbal, pronouns are morphologically nominative–accusative when the agent is first or second person, but ergative when the agent is a third person.

Optional ergativity

[edit]

Many languages with ergative marking display what is known as optional ergativity, where the ergative marking is not always expressed in all situations. McGregor (2010) gives a range of contexts when we often see optional ergativity, and argues that the choice is often not truly optional but is affected by semantics and pragmatics. Unlike split ergativity, which occurs regularly but in limited locations, optional ergativity can occur in a range of environments, but may not be used in a way that appears regular or consistent.

Optional ergativity may be motivated by:

  • The animacy of the subject, with more animate subjects more likely to be marked ergative
  • The semantics of the verb, with more active or transitive verbs more likely to be marked ergative
  • The grammatical structure or [tense-aspect-mood]

Languages from Australia, New Guinea and Tibet have been shown to have optional ergativity.[10]

Distribution of ergative languages

[edit]

Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of the world: Mesopotamia (Kurdish, and some extinct languages), the Caucasus, the Americas, the Tibetan Plateau, and Australia and parts of New Guinea.

Specific languages and language families include:

Americas

[edit]

Africa

[edit]

Asia

[edit]

Australian

[edit]

Certain Australian Aboriginal languages (e.g., Wangkumara) possess an intransitive case and an accusative case along with an ergative case, and lack an absolutive case; such languages are called tripartite languages or ergative–accusative languages.

Papua

[edit]

Europe

[edit]

Caucasus and Near East

[edit]

Several scholars have hypothesized that Proto-Indo-European was an ergative language, although this hypothesis is controversial.[28]

Languages with limited ergativity

[edit]

Sign languages

[edit]

Sign languages (for example, Nepali Sign Language) should also generally be considered ergative in the patterning of actant incorporation in verbs.[31] In sign languages that have been studied, classifier handshapes are incorporated into verbs, indicating the subject of intransitive verbs when incorporated, and the object of transitive verbs. (If we follow the "semantic phonology" model proposed by William Stokoe (1991)[32] this ergative-absolutive patterning also works at the level of the lexicon: thus in Nepali Sign Language the sign for TEA has the motion for the verb DRINK with a manual alphabet handshape च /ca/ (standing for the first letter of the Nepali word TEA चिया /chiya:/) being incorporated as the object.)

Approximations of ergativity in English

[edit]

English has derivational morphology that parallels ergativity in that it operates on intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. With certain intransitive verbs, adding the suffix "-ee" to the verb produces a label for the person performing the action:

"John has retired" → "John is a retiree"
"John has escaped" → "John is an escapee"

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:

"Susie employs Mike" → "Mike is an employee"
"Mike has appointed Susie" → "Susie is an appointee"

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 British 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.

When English nominalizes a clause, the underlying subject of an intransitive verb and the underlying object of a transitive verb are both marked with the possessive case or with the preposition "of" (the choice depends on the type and length of the noun: pronouns and short nouns are typically marked with the possessive, while long and complex NPs are marked with "of"). The underlying subject of a transitive is marked differently (typically with "by" as in a passive construction):

"(a dentist) extracts a tooth" → "the extraction of a tooth (by a dentist)"
"(I/The editor) revised the essay" → "(my/the editor's) revision of the essay"
"(I was surprised that) the water boiled" → "(I was surprised at) the boiling of the water"
"I departed on time (so I could catch the plane)" → "My timely departure (allowed me to catch the plane)"

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ergative–absolutive alignment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of grammatical alignment in which the single of an (S) and the object of a (P) receive the same morphological marking, known as the absolutive, while the subject of a (A) is marked differently, typically with the ergative. This system contrasts with the more widespread , where S and A are grouped together in the against the accusative-marked P. In ergative–absolutive languages, this alignment can manifest through case marking on nouns, verb agreement, or syntactic behaviors such as restrictions on movement operations. The alignment is attested in diverse language families worldwide, including the isolate Basque, Indo-European languages (e.g., certain dialects of ), Austronesian (e.g., Niuean), Australian Aboriginal languages (e.g., Dyirbal and Warlpiri), and Eskimo-Aleut (e.g., and West Greenlandic). Many such languages exhibit "split ergativity," where the pattern applies only in specific contexts, such as with certain tenses, aspects, or nominal types (e.g., pronouns versus full nouns), while shifting to nominative–accusative elsewhere. For instance, in Georgian, the ergative pattern applies in the perfective () aspect, while in it involves person-based splits. Notable theoretical implications include challenges to universal syntactic assumptions, as some ergative languages display "syntactic ergativity" that limits extraction of A arguments in long-distance dependencies, often resolvable via antipassive constructions. Experimental studies reveal processing advantages for absolutive arguments in comprehension, akin to subject advantages in accusative systems, highlighting the functional adaptability of this alignment. Despite its relative rarity compared to nominative–accusative (estimated in less than 25% of languages), ergative–absolutive systems provide key insights into the typology of and argument encoding.

Core Concepts

Definition and Basic Principles

In ergative–absolutive alignment, a type of found in certain languages, the subject of an (S) and the object of a (O) are treated identically, typically both receiving the absolutive case, while the subject of a (A) is marked differently, often with the . This pattern contrasts with the semantic roles of agent (typically A) and (typically O or S in intransitives), focusing instead on a uniform treatment of "patient-like" arguments (S and O) versus "agent-like" ones (A). The basic principles of this alignment emphasize surface case marking over deep semantic roles: the absolutive case, which is often unmarked (zero ), applies to S and O, allowing them to pattern together in morphological and sometimes syntactic behaviors, while the explicitly flags A. Ergativity can manifest in case marking on nouns, verb agreement, or , but the core hallmark is the S=O grouping. For instance, the following table illustrates the alignment patterns:
ArgumentIntransitive ClauseTransitive Clause
S (intransitive subject)Absolutive—
A (transitive subject)—Ergative
O (transitive object)—Absolutive
This schematic highlights how S aligns with O (absolutive) rather than A (ergative), distinguishing ergative–absolutive from other alignments. A representative example comes from Basque, an isolate language with clear ergative marking. In the transitive sentence Gizonak liburua irakurri du ("The man has read the "), gizonak ("the man," A) bears the ergative suffix -k, while liburua ("the ," O) is in the absolutive (unmarked definite form); the auxiliary du agrees with the ergative subject. In contrast, the intransitive Gizona etorri da ("The man has come") shows gizona (S) in the absolutive, with auxiliary da agreeing accordingly, demonstrating the S=O uniformity. Sumerian, an ancient language of , provides another illustration of this alignment in its nominal case system. The transitive construction lugal-e e₂ mu-un-du₃ ("The king built the temple") marks lugal-e ("the king," A) with the ergative suffix -e, while e₂ ("the temple," O) remains unmarked in the absolutive (zero ). For an intransitive, lugal mu-un-ĝen ("The king went") places lugal (S) in the absolutive, underscoring the consistent treatment of patient-like arguments across types. These examples reveal how ergative–absolutive systems prioritize grammatical function in surface realization, separate from underlying thematic roles like agent and patient.

Comparison to Nominative-Accusative Alignment

In nominative-accusative alignment, the subject of an (S) and the agent of a (A) are treated similarly, typically sharing the , while the patient of a (P) receives distinct marking, such as the . This pattern groups the "actor" roles together, as seen in languages like English or Latin, where both S and A control agreement and exhibit parallel syntactic behavior. In contrast, ergative-absolutive alignment treats S and P as a unified group marked by the absolutive case, while A receives the , emphasizing the "undergoer" roles instead. This inversion highlights a fundamental typological difference: nominative-accusative systems prioritize agents across types, whereas ergative-absolutive systems prioritize patients and intransitive subjects. The following table illustrates the core differences in case marking for representative intransitive and transitive sentences:
Clause TypeNominative-Accusative (e.g., Latvian)Ergative-Absolutive (e.g., Hunzib)
Intransitive (S V)S: nominative (e.g., vīrs "man")S: absolutive (e.g., unmarked)
Transitive (A V P)A: nominative (e.g., vīrs "man"); P: accusative (e.g., zēnu "boy-ACC")A: ergative (e.g., -l ); P: absolutive (e.g., unmarked)
In terms of alignment , nominative-accusative systems follow an S=A , where the subject (S) aligns with the transitive agent (A) in morphological and syntactic properties, such as case and agreement. Ergative-absolutive systems, conversely, exhibit an S=O (or S=P) , aligning the intransitive subject with the transitive , often resulting in shared absolutive marking and parallel behavior in constructions like coordination or relativization. Visually, this can be schematized as:
  • Nominative-Accusative: [S/A](nominative) V [P](accusative)
  • Ergative-Absolutive: [S/P](absolutive) V [A](ergative)
These patterns have significant implications for grammatical processes. In nominative-accusative languages, verbs typically agree with the nominative subject (S or A), and passivization promotes the accusative object to nominative subject while demoting the original agent. In ergative-absolutive languages, agreement often targets the absolutive (S or P), leading to verb forms that match the or intransitive subject rather than the agent; passivization is less common or structurally distinct, with antipassive constructions instead demoting the ergative agent to an oblique role and promoting the absolutive to a more prominent position. A clear example of this contrast appears in parallel sentences. In English (nominative-accusative), "The man sees the boy" marks "the man" (A) and an intransitive subject like "The man runs" with no distinct case, while "the boy" (P) is unmarked but syntactically distinct; the agrees with the subject in both. In Dyirbal (ergative-absolutive), the equivalent is "babi yaraŋgu balgan" (-ABS father-ERG sees), where "" (P) shares unmarked absolutive case with an intransitive subject like "yara banaganu" (man-ABS returned), and the does not agree with the ergative agent "father." This inverts the accusative logic by treating the "undergoer" () as the baseline, unmarked form, rather than the agent. A common misconception is that ergative-absolutive alignment is somehow "backwards" or less logical than nominative-accusative; in reality, it represents a valid typological alternative that reflects different ways of conceptualizing agency and affectedness in clauses. Ergative languages constitute approximately one-quarter of the world's languages, underscoring their prevalence as a natural grammatical strategy.

Grammatical Manifestations

Morphological Ergativity

Morphological ergativity refers to the pattern where the subject of a transitive verb (A) is marked distinctly from the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O), with S and O sharing the unmarked absolutive case while A receives the ergative case, often as a suffix or postposition on nouns and pronouns. In many ergative languages, the absolutive serves as the default or unmarked form, reflecting its role as the baseline for alignment in intransitive and transitive constructions. This case marking is exemplified in Basque, where the ergative case appears as the suffix -k on nouns, as in gizon-a-k liburu-a irakurtzen du ('the man-ERG the book-ABS reads'), contrasting with the unmarked absolutive for the intransitive subject gizon-a etorri da ('the man-ABS has arrived'). Similarly, in Warlpiri, the ergative is marked by the suffix -rlu on transitive subjects, such as ngajulu-rlu marlu pantu-rnu ('I-ERG kangaroo-ABS spear-PAST'), where the absolutive remains unmarked for intransitive subjects like ngajulu ka pirdinyi ('I ABS go'). A common variation in morphological ergativity involves noun-pronoun splits, where nouns and third-person pronouns follow ergative-absolutive alignment, but first- and second-person pronouns align nominatively-accusatively. This is prominent in Dyirbal, an Australian language where full noun phrases and third-person pronouns use ergative marking on transitive subjects, but non-third-person pronouns treat transitive and intransitive subjects alike (nominative) and mark transitive objects distinctly (accusative). For instance, the 'man' in transitive yaraŋgu balam balgan ('man-ERG wallaby-ABS hit') shows ergative -ŋgu on the subject, while the absolutive is unmarked in intransitive balan yara banagay ('the man-ABS returned'). In contrast, first-person pronouns like ŋaya (nominative/absolutive for 'I') appear unmarked in both ŋaya banagay ('I returned') and transitive ŋaya balgan ('I hit it'), with accusative ŋana for the object. The following table illustrates this split in Dyirbal case forms:
CategoryNominative/AbsolutiveErgativeAccusative
(e.g., 'man')balan yarayara-ŋgu(unmarked O)
1st/2nd (e.g., 'I/you')ŋaya / ŋinda(same as nom)ŋana / ŋinda-na
In Basque, nouns take the overt ergative suffix -k, but s often appear as bound forms on the verb that follow ergative-absolutive agreement, such as the third-person absolutive -Ø in gizonak ikusi du ('the man-ERG sees him/her-ABS') versus ergative-bound n- ikusi ('I-ERG see'). Georgian exhibits in its case system, using postpositional-like suffixes for the ergative in past tenses (Series II), such as -ma in bavšv-ma dac'era c'eril-i ('child-ERG wrote letter-ABS'), where the transitive subject is ergative and the object absolutive, differing from nominative alignment in present tenses. In like Adyghe, morphological ergativity extends to prefixal agreement on verbs, where the ergative subject and absolutive object trigger distinct prefixes, as in s-ə-r-zə ('you-ERG-1sg.ABS-see'), with the ergative prefix s- for the subject and absolutive r- slot for the object. Hierarchical ergativity introduces animacy-based splits, where higher-ranked nominals (e.g., speech-act participants or animates) trigger accusative marking instead of ergative, following Silverstein's generalization that accusative patterns spread from the top of the animacy hierarchy. For example, in languages like Awtuw, highly animate subjects of transitive verbs receive nominative marking, while less animate ones take ergative, ensuring alignment reflects topicality and agency prominence. Constructed languages like Ithkuil illustrate morphological ergativity through explicit case suffixes, where the ergative marks agents initiating actions, as in configurations deriving from roots like a-šxel ('to empty'), with the agent in ergative case to denote tangible causation on a patient in absolutive.

Syntactic Ergativity

Syntactic ergativity refers to the patterning of arguments in syntactic operations, where the absolutive arguments (S and O) behave alike, excluding the ergative argument (A), particularly in A'-movement processes such as relativization and wh-extraction. In many ergative languages, this manifests as a restriction on extracting or relativizing ergative subjects, often due to island constraints or case-licensing requirements that treat ergatives as peripheral, such as prepositional phrases. This contrasts with morphological ergativity by affecting phrase structure and movement rules rather than just case marking. A classic diagnostic of syntactic ergativity is the ban on A'-extraction of ergative arguments in Dyirbal, an Australian language, where only absolutive arguments can serve as the head of a relative clause without resorting to antipassivization. Consider the transitive sentence yabu ŋuma-ŋgu bura-n ("father-ERG wallaby-ABS spear-PST"), meaning "Father speared the wallaby." Relativization targeting the absolutive object yields ŋuma bura-n yabu-ŋgu ("wallaby [father-ERG spear-PST]"), glossed as "the wallaby that father speared." However, relativizing the ergative subject is impossible in this form: * yabu ŋuma bura-n is ungrammatical for "the father who speared the wallaby." Instead, Dyirbal requires an antipassive construction, yabu ŋuma-gu bural-ja-n, where the original object demotes to dative, allowing the now-absolutive subject to relativize as yabu [ŋuma-gu bural-ja-n] ("father [wallaby-DAT spear-ANTIP-PST]"). This restriction arises because ergative arguments are structurally lower or frozen by criterial features, preventing crossing dependencies in movement. In control and raising constructions, syntactic ergativity similarly privileges absolutive arguments as controllers or raisees. In Tongan, a Polynesian , absolutive arguments control infinitival complements marked by ke, while ergatives cannot. For instance, the sentence ʻoku totonu ʻa e tamaiki pauʻu i [ke taaʻi ʻe he faiako ___ i] translates to "It is advisable that the teacher hit the naughty children," where the absolutive object tamaiki pauʻu ("naughty children") controls the null subject in the infinitival , raising to the matrix subject position. Attempting control by an ergative subject, such as from a matrix transitive, violates this pattern and requires resumptive pronouns or . This absolutive pivot reinforces the syntactic unity of S and O in dependency formation. These syntactic behaviors underscore how ergativity extends beyond morphology to constrain argument structure, often aligning with processing preferences for nested dependencies over crossing ones. Full syntactic ergativity, where multiple diagnostics consistently exclude ergatives, remains rare and is most robustly attested in languages like Dyirbal, though partial instances occur in such as Kaqchikel, where ergative extraction is blocked in focus and relativization but mitigated by agent-focus constructions. In Mayan, this partiality highlights the interplay between ergative case assignment and syntactic locality, without universal reinforcement across all ergative systems.

Variations in Ergativity

Split Ergativity

Split ergativity refers to systems in which a language employs ergative-absolutive alignment in some constructions and nominative-accusative alignment in others, conditioned by specific grammatical or semantic triggers. This variation allows languages to alternate case marking, agreement, or syntactic behaviors based on factors such as the type of nominal, tense, aspect, or mood (TAM). Unlike pure morphological ergativity, which applies uniformly across nominals, introduces conditioned switches that reflect underlying hierarchies or clausal properties. One common type of split is person/animacy-based, where first- and second-person pronouns follow nominative-accusative patterns while third-person nouns exhibit ergative-absolutive marking. In , an language, transitive subjects marked as third-person nouns receive (-up), aligning the absolutive with both intransitive subjects and transitive objects, whereas pronouns for speech-act participants pattern accusatively in agreement and extraction. This split arises from a semantic prioritizing and person, with higher-ranked arguments (e.g., 1st/2nd person) treated as more agent-like and thus accusative. Another prevalent type is TAM-based split ergativity, where ergative patterns appear in perfective or past tenses and accusative patterns in imperfective or present tenses. In Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), transitive subjects take the ergative postposition -ne in perfective constructions, as in main-ne kitab padhii ("I read the book"), where main ("I") is ergative and kitab ("book") is absolutive, but switch to nominative in imperfective main kitab padhtaa huun ("I am reading the book"). Georgian exemplifies tense-based splits across its verbal series: in Series I (present/future), nominative-accusative alignment marks transitive subjects with nominative case, while in Series II (aorist/perfect), ergative-absolutive alignment applies, with transitive subjects in dative (ergative) and objects in nominative (absolutive). These splits are governed by mechanisms such as semantic agentivity hierarchies, which rank arguments by their propensity to control events (e.g., speech-act participants > 3rd > inanimates), triggering accusative treatment for higher-ranked elements. factors, like topic prominence, can also influence splits by favoring accusative marking for topical agents to enhance . In languages like and Kurdish (), splits are primarily TAM-conditioned, with ergative alignment in past/perfective clauses and accusative in non-past. The following tables illustrate representative patterns:
Clause Type (Pashto)Transitive Subject CaseTransitive Object CaseIntransitive Subject Case
Present/ImperfectiveNominative (direct)Oblique (e.g., -ə)Nominative (direct)
Past/PerfectiveOblique (ergative, e.g., -ə)Direct (absolutive)Direct (absolutive)
Clause Type (Kurdish Kurmanji)Transitive Subject CaseTransitive Object CaseIntransitive Subject Case
Present/ImperfectiveNominativeOblique (e.g., -î)Nominative
Past/PerfectiveOblique (ergative)Nominative (absolutive)Nominative (absolutive)
Split ergativity is the most frequent manifestation of ergativity, occurring in the majority of the approximately 25% of the world's languages that exhibit ergative patterns, as opposed to fully consistent ergative systems which are rare. Theoretically, these splits serve as bridges toward accusative dominance, allowing ergative features to persist in restricted domains while accusative patterns expand diachronically through reanalysis of aspectual or contact influences. Recent post-2020 studies on Neo-Aramaic dialects highlight such shifts, showing how ergative alignment in past tenses is declining via extension of accusative agreement to intransitives, driven by substrate influences and internal morphological leveling.

Optional Ergativity

Optional ergativity describes a grammatical in which the marker, typically required on the subject (A argument) of transitive verbs in ergative-absolutive languages, is not obligatorily applied and may vary across utterances, speakers, or contexts without predictable syntactic rules. This non-obligatory marking is frequently observed in small speech communities and endangered languages, where it appears on nouns but is often consistent on pronouns. Documented in more than 100 languages across diverse families, optional ergativity deviates from stricter morphological systems and highlights variability in case realization. A prominent example occurs in Warrwa, an Australian language from the Kimberley region of , where ergative marking on nouns is optional and serves focal or emphatic functions rather than core syntactic roles. In Warrwa, transitive subjects may appear with one of three ergative suffixes (-na, -ma, or -nma) or unmarked, depending on prominence, with the marker emphasizing unexpected or agentive properties of the subject. Similarly, in Shipibo-Konibo, a Panoan language spoken in the Peruvian Amazon, ergative postpositions on transitive subjects are optional in desiderative constructions formed with the suffix -kas, allowing structural ambiguity between monoclausal and biclausal analyses that affects case assignment. These cases illustrate how optional ergativity operates in core transitive clauses without fixed triggers, contrasting with more conditioned variations. Factors influencing the presence or absence of ergative marking in these systems include semantic properties like agentivity and , as well as pragmatic elements such as discourse focus and prominence, where marked forms highlight new or contrastive . Dialectal differences and speaker idiolects also play a role, particularly in bilingual settings where contact with dominant languages may lead to inconsistent application. Documentation of optional ergativity faces challenges due to its rarity and the endangered status of many affected languages, such as Warrwa, which has few fluent speakers left, limiting comprehensive corpora and analysis. The implications of optional ergativity extend to typological theory, complicating binary classifications of alignment systems and suggesting that case marking can encode subtle functions beyond obligatory syntax. In endangered languages, recent observations link increased optionality to , where incomplete transmission in bilingual environments results in higher rates of unmarked forms, as seen in like Tujia undergoing contact-induced loss. This pattern underscores the vulnerability of morphological complexity in small communities and the need for urgent documentation efforts.

Geographical Distribution

In the Americas

Ergative–absolutive alignment is prominently represented among families across the , with the of serving as a core example of morphological ergativity through verb cross-referencing. In these languages, transitive verbs mark the agent (A) with ergative affixes (often Set A prefixes) and the patient (O) with absolutive affixes (Set B suffixes or prefixes), while intransitive subjects (S) align with the absolutive. This head-marking system contrasts with dependent-marking in other alignments and is consistent across the family, though some members like Ch’ol exhibit aspect-based splits where imperfective forms nominalize the verb, leading to genitive-ergative . Yucatec Maya illustrates this pattern clearly: the transitive verb k’ah-al ('sing to') takes an ergative prefix for the singer (in-k’ah-ah 'I sing to him') and an absolutive suffix or null for the object, whereas intransitive k’ah ('sing') uses only absolutive marking (k’ah-en 'I sing'). Similarly, in K’iche’, absolutive agreement prefixes on verbs handle both intransitive subjects and transitive objects, as in x-Ø-tz’et-ow ('you laughed'), where the absolutive prefix marks the single argument, versus x-u-k’ax-ik ri ak’wal ('the boy hit you'), with ergative u- for the agent and absolutive for the patient. These features underscore the family's syntactic ergativity, where extraction asymmetries favor absolutives in relative clauses. In , the Salishan family demonstrates , particularly in languages like , where suffixes (e.g., -s for third-person agents) appear on transitive in main clauses, but accusative patterns emerge in embedded contexts or with first/second persons. For instance, Halkomelem transitive qw’ey-łexʷ ('look at') marks the agent ergatively in declarative sentences but shifts alignment in passives or non-main clauses, reflecting multiple syntactic positions for arguments. The Na-Dene family shows limited ergativity, primarily in Athabaskan branches with inverse marking that some analyses liken to ergative patient prominence, though full case alignment is absent; , however, maintains robust ergative-absolutive case on nouns. Algonquian languages exhibit ergative-like features in their obviation and inverse systems, where the (a demoted third-person) patterns with transitive patients, resembling absolutive treatment, as in nîsw-âw ('he sees him') versus inverse nîs-ew-âw ('he sees me'), prioritizing proximate agents. Wakashan languages in the display ergative elements in possessive and relational morphology, though overall alignment leans accusative, with Proto-Wakashan reconstructed as lacking full ergativity. Recent research documents changes in ergativity among some Amazonian language families and isolates. A 2023 study on the shows declining ergativity in Northern varieties like Apinajé, with case in pronouns and a shift toward greater reliance on . The isolate Taushiro retains conditioned by person and aspect, as documented in 2024 research. Pirahã, another isolate, has no overt case marking, relying on and context for agent-patient distinctions.

In Asia, Australia, and Papua New Guinea

In Australian languages, the Pama-Nyungan family prominently features full ergative-absolutive alignment, as exemplified by Dyirbal, where transitive subjects receive the ergative suffix -ŋgu, while intransitive subjects and transitive objects remain unmarked in the absolutive case. This system extends across core arguments, with antipassives promoting transitive objects to absolutive for focus. In contrast, many non-Pama-Nyungan languages display optional ergativity, where the ergative marker on transitive subjects can be omitted based on discourse prominence or agentivity, as observed in Warrwa with markers like -na and -ma. This optionality affects at least 10% of Australian languages and correlates with information structure, reducing marking in predictable contexts. Papua New Guinea hosts diverse ergative patterns among its non-Austronesian languages. In the Highland group, Enga exhibits , with nouns following ergative-absolutive marking via the suffix -me for transitive agents, while pronouns align accusatively; this split integrates with verb agreement showing ergative indexing in certain tenses. Trans-New Guinea languages, comprising over 400 members, often employ ergative suffixes on verbs for subject indexing, as in Kaluli and Duna, where transitive subjects trigger distinct suffixes like -e for singular agents, contrasting with absolutive treatment of patients and intransitive subjects. Optional ergativity appears here too, as in Ku Waru, where markers like -e on agents vary with pragmatic factors such as topicality. In , ergative features appear in several families, often as splits. Tibeto-Burman languages like Tibetan show ergative marking with the postposition kyis on transitive agents primarily in past and perfective tenses, yielding a tense-based split where present tenses favor accusative alignment; this optional use ties to agentivity and aspect. Among Indo-Iranian languages, displays conditioned by tense and aspect, with transitive subjects marked by zero in oblique case for perfective forms (e.g., zə for agents), while imperfectives use nominative; this pattern, inherited from Proto-Iranian, affects nouns more than pronouns. Ancient Sumerian, a from , exemplifies full ergative-absolutive alignment, with the agent marker -e distinguishing transitive subjects from unmarked absolutive arguments in both intransitive subjects and transitive objects across indicative moods. Areal typologies across these regions highlight common noun-pronoun splits, where full nouns adhere to ergative marking but pronouns follow accusative patterns, as in Dyirbal (nouns ergative, pronouns accusative) and many Trans-New Guinea languages like . This hierarchy, driven by and person, recurs in Tibeto-Burman contexts. Recent studies on Himalayan languages document ergativity shifts, such as increasing optionality in engagement-marked constructions among rGyalrongic varieties, reflecting contact-induced changes from strict tense splits toward pragmatic conditioning.

In Africa, Europe, Caucasus, and Near East

In Africa, ergative-absolutive alignment is rare but attested in certain Berber languages of the Afro-Asiatic family, particularly through split-ergative patterns conditioned by tense-aspect or nominal states. For instance, Kabyle Berber exhibits split ergativity where the aorist series marks the subject of transitive verbs with an ergative case, while the subject of intransitive verbs and the object of transitives remain unmarked (absolutive); this pattern shifts to nominative-accusative in other tenses like the imperfective. Such splits are typical across Berber varieties, reflecting interactions between morphological case and verbal paradigms. Khoisan languages, spoken in southern Africa, show limited ergative influences, with some like Sandawe displaying optional ergative-like marking in agreement patterns tied to transitivity and subject number, though accusative alignment predominates overall. In , ergative-absolutive alignment appears in isolated cases, most prominently in Basque, a unrelated to Indo-European neighbors. Basque demonstrates consistent morphological ergativity across its noun and verb systems, where the absolutive case marks both intransitive subjects and transitive objects, while the ergative marks transitive subjects; this is evident in periphrastic verb constructions where the auxiliary agrees primarily with the absolutive argument in person and number. agreement in Basque further reinforces this, as finite auxiliaries cross-reference the absolutive (and sometimes dative) but not the ergative, creating a head-marking ergative pattern. Among , Sami varieties show traces of split ergativity inherited from Proto-Uralic reconstructions, where third-person agreement in certain tenses patterns ergatively, though modern Sami is predominantly accusative with ergative remnants in possessive or connegative forms. The Caucasus region hosts several families with robust ergative systems, including Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages like Georgian, which display tense-based split ergativity: the aorist and perfect series use ergative-absolutive alignment for case marking and agreement, with transitive subjects in the ergative and intransitive subjects/objects in the absolutive, while present-future tenses shift to nominative-accusative. Northeast Caucasian languages, such as Archi, feature complex case systems with morphological ergativity, where up to 10 spatial cases interact with a basic ergative-absolutive pattern; transitive subjects take the ergative case, and gender agreement on verbs targets the absolutive argument, often involving intricate head-marking. Burushaski, a language isolate in northern Pakistan near the Near East, maintains a structural ergative case system without lexical exceptions, where ergative marking on transitive subjects depends on syntactic configuration rather than semantics, allowing double absolutive constructions in certain applicative verbs. In the , ergative remnants persist in Neo-Aramaic dialects, particularly North-Eastern varieties, where a construction shows restricted ergative alignment: transitive subjects receive an ergative-like oblique marker, while intransitive subjects and transitive objects align as absolutives, though this is often analyzed as a semantic extension rather than full syntactic ergativity. Recent analyses emphasize microvariation in these patterns, with some dialects extending ergativity to non-past contexts under conditions. Ergativity's rarity in the region may stem from substrate influences on Indo-European branches, as seen in traces within like Hittite, where neuter agents in certain intransitive or transitive contexts bear an "-s" interpreted as an archaic ergative marker, distinct from animate nominatives and possibly reflecting pre-Indo-European substrates. This suggests ergativity as a lingering in contact zones.

Ergativity in Special Contexts

In Sign Languages

In sign languages, ergative-absolutive alignment manifests through spatial positioning in the signing space, where absolutive arguments (patients in transitive clauses and subjects in intransitive clauses) often receive prominence via iconic placement or movement patterns. For instance, in homesign systems developed by deaf children without access to conventional sign languages, gesture production consistently prioritizes the absolutive , with children more likely to express the patient of a transitive event or the single of an intransitive event, while omitting the agent (ergative ) of transitives at higher rates. This pattern aligns the absolutive elements in both clause types, reflecting an underlying ergative structure independent of input. Ergative features also appear via in verb agreement systems, particularly through "backwards agreement verbs" (BAVs), where spatial movement on the shifts from the object (absolutive) toward the subject (ergative), inverting the typical directionality of regular agreement s. In (ASL), this reversal occurs in certain lexical verb classes, such as those involving transfer or invitation, where the path modulation highlights the patient's spatial locus before the agent's. Similarly, in Australian Sign Language (Auslan), indicating s exhibit a split alignment by verb type: regular s follow subject-to-object (accusative-like) paths, while BAVs reverse to object-to-subject movements, approximating ergative patterns in transitive clauses. , as a contact among deaf signers from diverse backgrounds, shows ergative approximations in spatial agreements, where absolutive arguments are localized centrally in the signing space for prominence during cross-linguistic interactions. Typologically, full ergative-absolutive alignment is rarer in established sign languages than in spoken ones, primarily in verb agreement subsets rather than across the entire system, with non-manual markers like eye gaze occasionally reinforcing the ergative argument (A) through directed in transitive constructions. In documented homesign and emerging sign systems, such patterns appear consistently as a default structure, suggesting an innate bias toward absolutive prominence in visual-manual modality. Recent studies on village sign languages highlight patterns in community-based , though documentation remains limited.

Approximations and Limited Ergativity

In some languages with predominantly nominative-accusative alignment, limited ergative features appear in specific constructions, such as nominal possessors or certain verbal derivations. In Japanese, possessors within nominal phrases can exhibit ergative-like case marking, where the possessor takes an ergative or genitive form similar to transitive agents, as seen in constructions involving possessor raising predicates that treat the possessor as a non-canonical argument. This pattern aligns the possessor with agents in transitive clauses while the possessed nominal patterns with patients or intransitive subjects. Similarly, Korean displays split-ergative tendencies in causative constructions, where certain ergative verbs mark the causee in a way that differentiates it from standard accusative patterns, contributing to partial ergativity in derived transitives. English, a nominative-accusative , features approximations of ergative alignment through passive constructions and focus mechanisms. The , as in "The boy was seen by the man," promotes the object () to subject position with unmarked case, while demoting the agent to an oblique role marked by "by," thereby mimicking ergative-absolutive patterning where patients and intransitive subjects share unmarked status. Cleft constructions further approximate this by enabling object focus, such as "It was the boy that the man saw," which highlights the patient in a manner akin to the aligned treatment of objects and intransitive subjects in ergative systems, emphasizing conceptual similarities in information structure. Constructed languages (conlangs) often incorporate ergative elements deliberately, ranging from full implementations to optional variants. employs a complete ergative-absolutive alignment, where the marks agents of transitive verbs (e.g., via vocalic mutation to identify deliberate initiators), while the absolutive marks patients of transitives and subjects of intransitives, allowing precise semantic role distinction. In contrast, permits optional ergative-like interpretations through its positional argument structure, where unmarked subjects of intransitives and objects can align absolutive-style against marked agents in logical predicates, reflecting flexible syntactic options influenced by ergative design principles. Ergative influences extend to creoles via substrate effects, where features from ergative source languages persist. Recent post-2023 analyses of AI-generated languages highlight ergativity's broader impact, with large language models producing conlangs that incorporate ergative alignments when prompted for typological diversity, as demonstrated in interactive systems for conlang development.

Theoretical Perspectives

Historical Development

Ergative-absolutive alignment is hypothesized to have originated from earlier active-stative systems, where intransitive subjects were split based on semantic roles such as agentivity or stativity, potentially evolving into ergative marking through reanalysis of nominalizations or passive constructions. This developmental pathway is supported by cross-linguistic patterns, including in Australian languages where discourse prominence influenced the of ergative markers from active-stative precursors. Regarding Proto-Indo-European (PIE), a controversial posits an ergative stage, particularly in explaining Hittite data and semantic restrictions on inanimate agents, though typological universals like the animacy hierarchy have led many to reject it in favor of a primarily nominative-accusative reconstruction with low probability for full ergativity. The debate persists, as some argue that universals are tendencies rather than absolutes, allowing for split-ergative features in early PIE. Among ancient languages, Sumerian exhibits a full ergative-absolutive system in its nominal morphology, with transitive subjects marked by the -e and intransitive subjects and transitive objects unmarked (absolutive), though verbal agreement shows split-ergative traits influenced by a reanalysis of passive structures into active forms. Akkadian, as an early Semitic language in contact with Sumerian, displays ergative constructions primarily in its stative aspect, where agents appear in the nominative but patients in the absolutive-like form, reflecting substrate influence and partial alignment shifts. Traces of ergativity in Hittite, an early Indo-European language, are evident in its NP split system, where neuter nouns require special ergative forms like -anza (singular) or -anteš (plural) as transitive subjects, while common-gender nouns follow nominative-accusative patterns, suggesting a remnant of an older ergative layer. Diachronic shifts from ergative to accusative alignment are well-documented in , where Old Iranian's accusative system developed split-ergative past tenses via past participle constructions, but later stages in and Parthian largely eroded ergative case-marking, with modern varieties like Ṭālešī retaining only partial features before full accusative restructuring. In Australian languages, ergativity shows cyclical patterns of development and loss, often emerging from discourse-based marking in active-stative systems and eroding under contact or simplification, as seen in the irregular grammaticalization and subsequent reduction of ergative morphology in and the near-total loss in dying Dyirbal. frequently serves as a transitional form in these shifts.

Typological Implications

Ergative–absolutive alignment exhibits several typological universals, particularly in its correlations with other structural features of languages. Ergativity is strongly associated with head-marking languages, where are primarily indicated through affixes on the rather than on dependents, as evidenced by data from the World Atlas of Language Structures showing a significant interaction between head-marking and patterns. Additionally, ergativity frequently co-occurs with polysynthesis, a morphological strategy involving complex forms that incorporate multiple arguments and derivations, as seen in languages like where rich verbal supports ergative cross-referencing. A key implicational governing split ergativity patterns is Silverstein's referential , which ranks nominals from third-person inanimate to first-person pronouns, predicting that higher-ranked nominals (e.g., speech-act participants) are less likely to receive ergative marking in transitive subjects, while lower-ranked ones (e.g., inanimates) more readily do so. This accounts for systematic variations in case alignment across languages, influencing how ergativity manifests in nominal hierarchies. In language acquisition, children demonstrate early mastery of ergative patterns, often producing correct absolutive and ergative markers by age two in such as Chuj and K'iche'. Comparative studies across four reveal that learners acquire verbal agreement inflections reflecting ergative alignment without significant delays compared to nominative-accusative systems, suggesting that ergativity does not impose additional cognitive burdens during early development. studies further indicate advantages in patient-initial structures typical of ergative languages, where incremental comprehension favors agent-first biases even in word orders that prioritize patients, potentially easing thematic role assignment in transitive sentences. These findings highlight how ergative alignment aligns with universal processing preferences, facilitating rapid acquisition and efficient parsing. Theoretical debates in minimalist syntax frame ergativity as arising from variations in case assignment mechanisms, where the little-v head may assign absolutive case downward to objects while is checked via Agree with the subject, diverging from accusative systems where T assigns nominative uniformly. This approach posits that ergativity reflects parametric choices in feature valuation under , allowing syntactic ergativity (e.g., extraction constraints on ergative arguments) to emerge from independent principles like phase impenetrability rather than language-specific rules. Such models reconcile ergative patterns with broader generative assumptions, implying that alignment variations do not challenge the innateness of core syntactic operations but rather modulate their surface realization. Emerging neurolinguistic research from 2024–2025 underscores distinct brain activation patterns for ergative processing. EEG studies on adults and children reveal differential neural responses to ergative versus absolutive markers in sentence-initial positions, with ergative cues eliciting stronger positivity effects linked to case integration, suggesting specialized neural pathways for alignment-specific morphology. In compound light verb constructions, neurophysiological data indicate modulated event-related potentials for ergative alignment, particularly in transitive contexts, highlighting how verbal transitivity influences hemispheric processing advantages. These findings point to cognitive underpinnings that may favor ergative systems in certain linguistic ecologies, bridging typology with brain science.

References

  1. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~ardeal/papers/Deal-ergativity-handbook.pdf
  2. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3492124_4/component/file_3492226/content?download=true
  3. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mpolinsky/files/oup_chapter.pdf
  4. https://ia600204.us.archive.org/12/items/SumerianMorphology/RubioG.2007.SumerianMorphology.pdf
  5. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/1301871.pdf
  6. https://wals.info/chapter/98
  7. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3492124_4/component/file_3492226/content
  8. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yotsuka/pubs/Ch2.pdf
  9. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ergative-construction/
  10. http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15663/10708440-MIT.pdf
  11. http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/electronic-docs/Linguistics/General/Dixon_Ergativity.pdf
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384111002348
  13. https://www.rose.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-c23e-37d9-0000-000058e96b9d/boss_bask_47.pdf
  14. https://universaldependencies.org/ka/feat/Case.html
  15. https://aheku.net/f1jok/files/4052/1-kumachov_et_al.pdf
  16. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1404964/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  17. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323331995
  18. https://ithkuil.net/04_case.html
  19. http://mariapolinsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/syncom_serevised.jan_14_0.pdf
  20. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/53/3/459/97469/Syntactic-Ergativity-as-a-Constraint-on-Crossing
  21. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~jlegate/lsa08h2.pdf
  22. http://lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/34/paper3306.pdf
  23. https://www.lingdomain.org/uploads/2/4/8/4/24841606/clemenstollanproof.pdf
  24. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yotsuka/pubs/Ch5.pdf
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384115002016
  26. https://glowlinguistics.org/asia11/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/11/v2-douglas-etal.pdf
  27. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12025
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384114001417
  29. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323336285
  30. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/29/paper2716.pdf
  31. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/download/4079/3796/5820
  32. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323331362
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/414343
  34. http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/ling/roberts-2001-kurdica-5-3.html
  35. https://sites.rutgers.edu/mark-baker/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/2019/07/kurmanji-split-erg-distributed-July-2014.pdf
  36. https://eggschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Jessica_ergativityFriday.pdf
  37. https://academic.oup.com/book/26985/chapter/196200024
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394913911_Syntax_or_Semantics_%27Ergativity%27_in_Neo-Aramaic
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384109001508
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384105000355
  41. https://sites.rutgers.edu/mark-baker/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/2019/07/shipibo-ergativity-paper-final.pdf
  42. https://sfb1252.uni-koeln.de/sites/sfb_1252/user_upload/Pdfs_Publikationen/Riesberg_2018__Optional_ergative_agentivity.pdf
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002438411830086X
  44. https://www.academia.edu/106244433/Optional_ergative_marking_in_Tujia
  45. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mpolinsky/files/complete_draft.final_.082113_0.pdf
  46. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/652266
  47. https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstreams/9d3155cd-2375-4a59-9c0f-7756937f0751/download
  48. https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/03/1980_Gerdts.pdf
  49. https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2019/11/WSCLA_8_Wiltschko.pdf
  50. https://people.ucsc.edu/~aissen/PUBLICATIONS/aissen-obviation.pdf
  51. https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/03/1997_Beck.pdf
  52. https://amerindia.cnrs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AMERINDIA_44_3-39_2023__Bardagil-Bernat.-The-decline-of-Je-ergativity.pdf
  53. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~zjohagan/pdflinks/deal&ohagan_nels55_taushiro_person-aspect-ergativity_handout_FINAL.pdf
  54. https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_prh
  55. https://www.academia.edu/100599434/What_Determines_Antipassive_in_Dyirbal
  56. https://academic.oup.com/book/46706/chapter/410233654
  57. https://www.academia.edu/10197486/The_acquisition_of_ergative_marking_in_Kaluli_Ku_Waru_and_Duna_Trans_New_Guinea_
  58. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/a55f2891-99d6-4c41-b1a8-6100a5ddd8c4/content
  59. http://sealang.net/archives/ltba/pdf/LTBA-34.2.9.pdf
  60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43076791
  61. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/797-0106/797-HOOP-0-0.PDF
  62. https://escholarship.org/content/qt2zw4c601/qt2zw4c601.pdf
  63. https://homepage.univie.ac.at/helmut.satzinger/Texte/Ergativ.pdf
  64. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110251586.18/html
  65. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-etudes-et-documents-berberes-2013-1-page-105?lang=fr
  66. http://people.linguistics.mcgill.ca/~mcgwpl/McGWPL/2013v23n01/Tollan2013.pdf
  67. https://www.academia.edu/9845499/Proto_Uralic_ergativity_reconsidered
  68. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323340423
  69. https://vja.ruslang.ru/sites/default/files/articles/2022/3/2022-3_75-108.pdf
  70. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37094/chapter/323335743
  71. https://academic.oup.com/jss/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jss/fgaf018/8236586
  72. https://research.tue.nl/files/106525456/anatolianergative_final.pdf
  73. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004409354/BP000010.xml
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272097499_The_Resilience_of_Structure_Built_Around_the_Predicate_Homesign_Gesture_Systems_in_Turkish_and_American_Deaf_Children
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281369169_The_resilience_of_ergative_structure_in_language_created_by_children_and_by_adults
  76. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5075/
  77. https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.468/
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233551150_Transitivity_of_ergative_case-marking_predicates_in_Japanese
  79. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A237726
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8666418/
  81. https://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-no-chunks/
  82. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.07591
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384176900486
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49131704_Proto-Indo-European_Ergativity_Still_to_be_Discussed
  85. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/373769
  86. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/webpage/ergativeparistext.pdf
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438410900148X
  88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/414150
  89. https://sites.rutgers.edu/mark-baker/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/2019/07/ergative-is-not-inherent-revised_20151105.pdf
  90. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01491268/document
  91. https://spw.uni-goettingen.de/projects/maya/units/mateo.pdf
  92. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263142904_The_acquisition_of_agreement_in_four_Mayan_languages
  93. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13340
  94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37715510/
  95. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345787424_Minimalist_Analysis_of_Ergativity
  96. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/download/5254/4916/10135
  97. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/43/2/191/515/Minimalist-C-case
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X25000173
  99. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.03.13.643010v1.full-text
  100. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.03.13.643010v1.full.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.