Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Tripartite alignment.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Tripartite alignment
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
| Linguistic typology |
|---|
| Morphological |
| Morphosyntactic |
| Word order |
| Lexicon |
In linguistic typology, tripartite alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the main argument ('subject') of an intransitive verb, the agent argument ('subject') of a transitive verb, and the patient argument ('direct object') of a transitive verb are each treated distinctly in the grammatical system of a language.[1] This is in contrast with nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive alignment languages, in which the argument of an intransitive verb patterns with either the agent argument of the transitive (in accusative languages) or with the patient argument of the transitive (in ergative languages). Thus, whereas in English, "she" in "she runs" patterns with "she" in "she finds it", and an ergative language would pattern "she" in "she runs" with "her" in "he likes her", a tripartite language would treat the "she" in "she runs" as morphologically and/or syntactically distinct from either argument in "he likes her".
Which languages constitute genuine examples of a tripartite case alignment is a matter of debate;[2] however, Wangkumara, Nez Perce, Ainu, Vakh Khanty, Semelai, Kalaw Lagaw Ya, Kham, and Yazghulami have all been claimed to demonstrate tripartite structure in at least some part of their grammar.[3][4][5][6] While tripartite alignments are rare in natural languages,[1] they have proven popular in constructed languages, notably the Na'vi language featured in 2009's Avatar.
In languages with morphological case, a tritransitive alignment typically marks the agent argument of a transitive verb with an ergative case, the patient argument of a transitive verb with the accusative case, and the argument of an intransitive verb with an intransitive case.
Tripartite, Ergative and Accusative systems
[edit]A tripartite language does not maintain any syntactic or morphological equivalence (such as word order or grammatical case) between the core argument of intransitive verbs and either core argument of transitive verbs. In full tripartite alignment systems, this entails the agent argument of intransitive verbs always being treated differently from each of the core arguments of transitive verbs, whereas for mixed system intransitive alignment systems this may only entail that certain classes of noun are treated differently between these syntactic positions.[1]
Accusative alignment
Ergative alignment
Tripartite alignment
The arguments of a verb are usually symbolized as follows:
- A = 'agent' argument of a transitive verb (traditional transitive subject)
- O = 'patient' argument of a transitive verb (traditional transitive object)
- S = argument of an intransitive verb (traditional intransitive subject)
The relationship between accusative, ergative, and tripartite alignments can be schematically represented as follows:
| Ergative-Absolutive | Nominative-Accusative | Tripartite | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | ERG | NOM | ERG |
| O | ABS | ACC | ACC |
| S | ABS | NOM | INTR |
See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation.
The term 'subject' has been found to be problematic when applied to languages which have any morphosyntactic alignment other than nominative-accusative, and hence, reference to the 'agent' argument of transitive sentences is preferred to the term 'subject'.[7]
Types of tripartite systems
[edit]Languages may be designated as tripartite languages in virtue of having either a full tripartite morphosyntactic alignment, or in virtue of having a mixed system which results in tripartite treatment of one or more specific classes of nouns.[1]
Full tripartite systems
[edit]A full tripartite system distinguishes between S, A and O arguments in all classes of nominals.[1] It has been claimed that Wangkumara has the only recorded full tripartite alignment system.[3][8][1]
Example
[edit]Wangkumara consistently differentiates marking on S, A, and O arguments in the morphology, as demonstrated in example (1) below:[9]
a.
karn-ia
man-NOM
yanthagaria
walk.PRES
makurr-anrru
stick-INSTR
'The man walks with a stick.'
b.
karna-ulu
man-ERG
kalkanga
hit.PAST
thithi-nhanha
dog-ACC.NONM.SG
'The man hit the (female) dog.'
In the above example, the intransitive case in (a) is glossed NOM, in accordance with Breen's original transcription. Across (1), we see differential case suffixes for each of intransitive (NOM), ergative (ERG), and accusative (ACC) case.[10]
The same tripartite distinction is clear in the pronominal system:[11]
Palu-nga
die-PAST
nganyi
1sg.NOM
"I died."
Ngkatu
1sg.ERG
nhanha
3sg.ABS
kalka-nga
hit-PAST
"I hit him/her."
Nulu
3sg.ERG
nganha
1sg.ABS
kalka-ng
hit-PAST
"S/he hit me."
In the above examples, we see the first person singular pronoun taking different forms for each of the S, A, and O arguments (marked NOM, ERG and ABS respectively), indicating the tripartite alignment in pronominal morphology.
Syntactic surveys of Wangkumara suggest this is generally true of the language as a whole.[3] Hence, Wangkumara represents a case of a full tripartite alignment.
Mixed systems
[edit]More common than full tripartite systems, mixed system tripartite alignments either demonstrate tripartite alignment in some subsection of the grammar, or else lacks the ergative, the accusative, or both in some classes of nominals.[1] An example of the former kind of mixed system may be Yazghulami, which exhibits tripartite alignment but only in the past tense;[6] Classical Armenian shows a similar distribution, with synthetic tenses following nominative-accusative alignment and analytic tenses exhibiting tripartite alignment.[12] An example of the latter would be Nez Perce, which lacks ergative marking in the first and second person.[1]
The following examples from Nez Perce illustrate the intransitive-ergative-accusative opposition that holds in the third person:[13]
a.
Hi-páay-na
3SG-arrive-PERF
háama-Ø
man.NOM
'The man arrived.'
b.
Háamap-im
man-ERG
'áayato-na
woman-ACC
pée-'nehne-ne
3SG-3SG-take-PERF
'The man took the woman away.'
In the above examples, (2a) demonstrates the intransitive case marking (here coded as NOM), while (2b) demonstrates differential ergative and accusative markings. Thus, Nez Perce demonstrates tripartite differentiations in its third person morphology.
In Ainu, only first person inclusive and fourth person (first person plural exclusive / logographical / indefinite / etc.) display tripartite alignment as shown in the table.[14]
| Person | A (ERG) | S (INTR) | O (ACC) | Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.SG | ku= | ku= | en= | Nom-Acc |
| 1.PL.EXCL | ci= | =as | un= | Tri. |
| 2.SG | e= | e= | e= | Tri. |
| 2.PL | eci= | eci= | eci= | Dir. |
| 3.SG | ∅= | ∅= | ∅= | Dir. |
| 3.PL | ∅= | ∅= | ∅= | Dir. |
| 4 | a= | =an | i= | Tri. |
Realizations of tripartite alignment
[edit]Morphological tripartite alignment
[edit]Syntactic tripartite alignment
[edit]Passive and anti-passive constructions
[edit]Ainu also shows the passive voice formation typical of nominative-accusative languages and the antipassive of ergative-absolutive languages. Like Nez Perce, the use of both the passive and antipassive is a trait of a tripartite language.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616.
- ^ Baker, Mark (2015). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-1107055223.
- ^ a b c Breen, J. G. (1976). 'Ergative, locative, and instrumental case inflections - Wangkumara', in Dixon, R.M. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 336-339.
- ^ Rude, N. (1985). Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse. University of Oregon: doctoral dissertation.
- ^ Watters, D. E. (2002). A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 69.
- ^ a b Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 40.
- ^ Falk, Y. N. (2006). Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1139458566.
- ^ McDonald, M.; Wurm, S. A. (1979). Basic materials in Wankumara (Galali): Grammar, sentences, and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
- ^ Wangkumara examples from Breen, 1976: 337-338.
- ^ Siewierska, Anna. (1997). 'The formal realization of case and agreement marking: A functional perspective', in Simon-Vandenberg, A.M., Kristin Davidse, and Dirk Noel (eds.), Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, p.184
- ^ Siewierska, Anna (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 55.
- ^ Robin Meyer (2024). Iranian Syntax in Classical Armenian: The Armenian Perfect and Other Cases of Pattern Replication. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191885839.
- ^ Nez Perce examples from Rude, 1985: 83, 228.
- ^ a b Anna Bugaeva (2012). "Southern Hokkaido Ainu". In Nicolas Tranter (ed.). The languages of Japan and Korea. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge. pp. 461–509.
There is no morphologically distinctive class of adjectives. The content expressed by adjectives in other languages is expressed by intransitive verbs in Ainu, cf. (14b).
Bibliography
[edit]- Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nicole Kruspe, 2004. A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge University Press.
- Nez Perce Verb Morphology
- Noel Rude, 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce. In Passive and Voice, ed. M. Shibatani, 547–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Tripartite alignment
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Tripartite alignment is a rare type of morphosyntactic alignment in linguistic typology, characterized by the distinct morphological treatment of the single core argument of an intransitive verb (S), the agent-like argument of a transitive verb (A), and the patient-like argument of a transitive verb (P), rather than grouping any of them together as in more common systems like nominative-accusative or absolutive-ergative alignment.[1] This differentiation typically occurs through case marking on noun phrases or verbal person marking, ensuring that each argument role receives unique encoding without overlap.[2]
Such systems are exceptionally uncommon among the world's languages, with only a small number of attested examples, often limited to specific grammatical contexts or paradigms rather than applying uniformly across the entire morphology.[1] For instance, in case marking of full noun phrases, languages like Nez Perce (Sahaptian, North America) exhibit tripartite patterns where S remains unmarked, A takes an ergative marker, and P receives an accusative marker.[1] Similarly, Yukulta (Tangkic, Australia) demonstrates tripartite verbal person marking in first and second person singular forms, where distinct affixes differentiate S, A, and P—for example, the form waranaŋkuḷu-ka-ti ("I’m trying to go") uses a unique S marker for the first-person intransitive subject.[2] Other partial realizations appear in languages such as Ainu (isolate, Japan) for certain person forms and Wangkumara (Maric, Australia) for case systems, though full tripartite alignment across all arguments and contexts remains debated and exceedingly scarce. These patterns highlight the diversity of argument encoding strategies but underscore tripartite alignment's marginal role in global linguistic variation, often emerging at intersections of split-ergative or mixed systems.[1]
This paradigm extends to seven cases in total, including dative, locative, and ablative, but the tripartite distinction holds consistently for core arguments.[23]
Illustrative sentences demonstrate the alignment. For an intransitive clause: Diti-ani Qani-guru gula-Qa. "That dog sat there." (dog-NOM 3SG-there sit-PST) Here, the S argument "diti" (dog) bears nominative -ani.[23] In a transitive clause: Yundru naQa-gala daldra-aQa. "You see the kangaroo." (2SG-ERG see-PRES kangaroo-ACC) The A "yundru" (you) takes ergative -ndru, while the O "daldra" receives accusative -aQa.[23] Another transitive example: Ŋatu nana winbi-ra. "I will throw that." (1SG-ERG 3SG-ACC throw-FUT) shows ergative on the A and accusative on the O.[23]
Other candidates for full tripartite alignment, such as Kalaw Lagaw Ya (a Pama-Nyungan language of the Torres Strait Islands, Australia), exhibit limited features rather than grammar-wide application. In Kalaw Lagaw Ya, tripartite marking occurs only in singular pronouns, with nominative for S, ergative for A, and accusative for O, while non-singular forms and nouns show neutral or split patterns (e.g., ergative for non-plural common nouns).[22] For instance: Ngay uzar-iz. "I went away." (1SG.NOM go.away-PST; S in nominative); Ngath ngin matha-man. "I hit you." (1SG.ERG 2SG.ACC hit-PST; A in ergative, O in accusative).[22] Debates on its status highlight exceptions in tenses and nominal classes, preventing classification as fully tripartite.
Historically, full tripartite systems like Wangkumara's may evolve into mixed ones through the grammaticalization of splits, such as person hierarchies or tense conditioning, where certain forms lose distinct marking while others retain it, as observed in related Australian languages.[14]
Fundamentals of Alignment Systems
Definition of Tripartite Alignment
Tripartite alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in linguistic typology that distinguishes three core argument roles associated with verbs: the single argument (S) of an intransitive verb, the agent-like argument (A) of a transitive verb, and the patient-like argument (O or P) of a transitive verb.[1] In such systems, each of these roles receives unique grammatical marking or exhibits distinct syntactic behavior, without any unification or grouping between them. The standard notation for these arguments—S for the sole participant in intransitive clauses, A for the transitive agent, and O (or P) for the transitive patient—was developed in the 1970s to enable precise cross-linguistic analysis of alignment patterns, allowing typologists to compare how languages encode grammatical relations independently of specific morphological forms. This framework, pioneered in early typological work, underscores the non-unified nature of tripartite systems, where S, A, and O do not pattern together in any morphological or syntactic construction, differentiating tripartite alignment as a standalone category rather than an extension of accusative or ergative patterns.[3] The concept of tripartite alignment emerged from typological studies in the 1970s, building on foundational research into ergativity and case systems, and has since been recognized as exceedingly rare among the world's languages, with full tripartite marking across all noun phrases occurring in at most a handful of documented cases.[1]Comparison with Accusative and Ergative Alignments
In accusative alignment, the subject of an intransitive verb (S) patterns with the agent of a transitive verb (A) in morphological marking or syntactic behavior, while the patient of a transitive verb (O) is treated distinctly, often with accusative case marking.[1] This merger of S and A, known as nominative-accusative alignment, facilitates unified treatment of "subjects" across clause types, as seen in languages like Latvian where both S and A take nominative case, but O takes accusative.[1] Such systems predominate in Indo-European languages and emphasize agentivity in core arguments.[4] Ergative alignment, by contrast, groups the S with the O as an "absolutive" category, while marking the A distinctly with ergative case, reflecting a patient-oriented perspective on core arguments.[1] In languages like Hunzib, the S and O remain unmarked or absolutive, whereas the A receives overt ergative marking, highlighting the transitive agent's departure from intransitive neutrality.[1] This pattern merges S and O, common in many Australian and Caucasian languages, and underscores the intransitive subject's alignment with the transitive patient rather than the agent.[4] Tripartite alignment stands apart by treating S, A, and O as three fully distinct categories, eschewing any merger between them and resulting in separate morphological or syntactic encodings for each.[1] Unlike accusative or ergative systems, where two arguments align, tripartite systems—exemplified in languages like Hindi—assign unique markers, such as unmarked for S, ergative for A, and accusative for P.[1] This lack of equivalence leads to more granular clause structures, where verb agreement may target each argument type independently, potentially increasing complexity in agreement paradigms and requiring explicit marking for all core roles without reliance on default alignments.[4] Positioned on the typological spectrum as an extreme form of non-accusative, non-ergative alignment, tripartite systems represent a residual category where argument distinctions are maximized rather than reduced through grouping.[4] They often arise at intersections of accusative and ergative patterns, such as in split systems influenced by animacy or tense, but maintain full separation in core cases.[1] According to the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), based on 190 languages surveyed for case marking of full noun phrases, accusative alignment (including standard and marked nominative variants) accounts for approximately 27% of cases, ergative-absolutive for 17%, neutral alignments (no distinction) for 52%, and tripartite for just 2% (four languages), underscoring its rarity relative to the dominant accusative majority when neutrals are considered agent-subject oriented.[1]Types of Tripartite Alignment
Full Tripartite Systems
Full tripartite systems represent the purest form of tripartite alignment, where the intransitive subject (S), transitive subject (A), and transitive object (O) are consistently distinguished through unique morphological and syntactic markers across the entire grammatical system. This uniformity applies without exception to all tenses, aspects, persons, and nominal categories, including pronouns, full noun phrases, and proper names, ensuring no syncretism or conditional variation in argument encoding. Such systems contrast with partial or split variants by maintaining the distinction in both flagging (case marking on arguments) and indexing (verb agreement), as well as in syntactic processes like control and relativization. Structurally, full tripartite systems typically employ dedicated case markers for each argument role: a neutral or unmarked form for S (often termed nominative or intransitive), an ergative suffix or postposition for A to indicate agentivity, and an accusative marker for O to signal patienthood. This triadic differentiation avoids the grouping seen in accusative (S/A vs. O) or ergative (S/O vs. A) alignments, resulting in a highly explicit encoding of grammatical relations that enhances clause-level disambiguation but demands precise morphological paradigms.[5] Theoretically, full tripartite systems impose significant complexity on agreement and case assignment mechanisms, requiring speakers to track three distinct relational categories in real-time processing and production. This elevated complexity is posited to contribute to learnability challenges, as computational models and cross-linguistic surveys indicate that tripartite patterns are strongly dispreferred in language evolution, despite being acquirable by children in attested cases.[6] Linguistic debates persist regarding the existence of truly full tripartite systems, with some analyses questioning whether any language achieves uniform distinction without partial mixing or context-dependent shifts.[7]Mixed and Split Systems
Mixed and split systems represent variations of tripartite alignment where the distinct marking of intransitive subjects (S), transitive agents (A), and transitive patients (O) occurs only in specific grammatical contexts, such as subsets of clauses or nominal categories, while the remainder of the system adheres to accusative or ergative patterns.[8] These configurations arise when alignment shifts conditionally, allowing tripartite distinctions to emerge alongside dominant alignments without uniform application across the grammar. Common triggers for such splits include tense-aspect-mood (TAM) categories, where tripartite marking may apply exclusively in past or perfective tenses; animacy hierarchies, which differentiate marking based on the semantic prominence of arguments; and person distinctions, such as treating first and second persons differently from third persons. These factors create conditional environments that fragment the alignment system, often resulting in hybrid patterns that reflect interactions between multiple alignment types.[8] Theoretically, mixed and split tripartite systems serve as bridges between full tripartite and more prevalent accusative or ergative alignments, highlighting the fluidity of morphosyntactic organization and challenging simplistic binary typologies by necessitating finer-grained classifications of up to 18 distinct alignment types. Unlike rare full tripartite systems, these conditional patterns are more widespread, underscoring the prevalence of alignment variation in natural languages.[8] Recent research since 2020 has identified additional instances of split tripartite features in Iranian languages, such as Tati and Taleshi, where person-based splits yield tripartite-like marking in pronominal paradigms, expanding understanding of alignment diversity in the Indo-Iranian branch.[9] In Austronesian languages, studies have documented mixed alignments involving tripartite elements in voice systems, as seen in complex patterns of argument promotion that blend with ergative-absolutive structures.[10] Evolutionary hypotheses posit mixed systems as transitional stages in alignment shifts, particularly from ergative to accusative patterns, where partial tripartite marking emerges during ongoing grammaticalization processes like the reanalysis of periphrastic constructions.[11] This view frames such systems as dynamic indicators of change, often stabilized by contact influences or internal analogical pressures rather than as stable endpoints.[12]Realizations in Language Structure
Morphological Case Marking
Tripartite alignment manifests morphologically through distinct case markers on nouns or pronouns that differentiate the intransitive subject (S), transitive agent (A), and transitive patient (O), often with S in a neutral or unmarked form, A in an ergative case, and O in an accusative or objective case.[1] This dependent-marking strategy contrasts with head-marking systems, where verb affixes cross-reference arguments in a tripartite pattern, though such verbal realizations are rarer and typically limited to person agreement rather than full case paradigms.[2] In languages like Nez Perce, a Sahaptian language of the northwestern United States, S arguments remain unmarked (e.g., the base noun form for an intransitive subject like 'woman'), A receives the ergative suffix -nim (e.g., 'woman-nim' as transitive agent), and O takes the objective suffix -ne (e.g., 'child-ne' as transitive patient), establishing a clear tripartite distinction on full noun phrases.[13] Variations in tripartite marking include both dependent and head strategies co-occurring, as in Nez Perce, where case affixes flag nouns dependently while verbs exhibit head-marking agreement prefixes (e.g., hi- for third-person subjects) that align with the tripartite noun cases but do not fully replicate them.[13] Clitics play a minor role, occasionally attaching to pronouns or reduced forms to reinforce case distinctions, though they rarely drive the core tripartite system; for instance, in some ergative-absolutive splits approaching tripartite, clitics may mark O in specific contexts without altering the primary affix-based paradigm.[14] In constructed languages designed to illustrate rare alignments, such as Na’vi from the film Avatar, the system employs dependent marking with S unmarked (base form), A suffixed by -l or -ìl (e.g., agentive form for transitive subjects), and O by -t or -it (e.g., patientive for transitive objects), providing a model for explicit tripartite encoding.[15] Tripartite cases interact with number and gender through inflectional stacking, where number markers precede case suffixes on nouns, and gender (when present) applies optionally without disrupting the alignment. In Na’vi, number is prefixed (e.g., dual me-, plural ay-) before case affixes, allowing forms like dual agentive 'me+Neytiri-l', while gender suffixes (-an for masculine, -e for feminine) follow the stem but precede case, as in 'tsmuke-l' (feminine sibling as agent); this preserves tripartite distinctions across categories.[15] Gender, less prominent in systems like Na’vi's, interacts through specific suffixes rather than case fusion. Challenges in tripartite systems arise from syncretism, where case forms merge and risk blurring distinctions, such as the identical realization of ergative and genitive in Nez Perce (both -nim), which can ambiguous possession from agency without context.[13] In split systems, animacy-driven syncretism further complicates full tripartite clarity, as inanimate O may default to neutral marking akin to S, reducing the system's distinctiveness in certain clauses.[16] These issues highlight how morphological economy can undermine the tripartite ideal, often leading to partial or context-dependent implementations.Syntactic Constructions
In tripartite alignment, verb agreement patterns often distinguish the intransitive subject (S), transitive subject (A), and transitive object (O) through separate morphological markers, such as dedicated prefixes or suffixes for each role, rather than grouping S with A or S with O as in accusative or ergative systems.[2] This separation is rare in verbal person marking and typically limited to specific persons within the paradigm, as seen in Yukulta where first and second person forms exhibit distinct affixes for S, A, and O.[2] In Nez Perce, verbal agreement exhibits person-based split ergativity, diverging from the tripartite case system and highlighting how agreement can diverge from overall alignment in clause structure.[17] Word order in tripartite languages frequently allows flexibility to emphasize the distinct roles of S, A, and O, often using particles or postpositions to signal functions independently of rigid positioning, thereby reinforcing the tripartite distinctions beyond morphological case marking.[18] For instance, in languages like Nez Perce, which has flexible word order (including VSO among other possibilities), shifts accommodate focus or topicalization while maintaining role clarity through syntactic cues, such as pronominal clitics that align with the tripartite pattern.[13] This flexibility supports clause structures where arguments are not hierarchically bound in a single linear sequence, allowing constructions that highlight the autonomy of each core role. Passive and antipassive constructions in tripartite systems temporarily disrupt the balanced distinction of S, A, and O by promoting the transitive object (O) to S status in passives—adopting S morphology and syntax—or demoting the transitive subject (A) in antipassives, which elevates A to S while oblique-marking O, effectively shifting toward accusative or ergative alignment within the derived clause.[19] These voices thus serve to manipulate argument prominence without permanently altering the underlying tripartite framework, as the original roles remain traceable through residual markers. Recent syntactic analyses of tripartite languages, particularly non-Indo-European examples like Nez Perce, reveal gaps in understanding control structures, where infinitival complements exhibit person-based splits that interact with the tripartite case system to govern subject selection in a syntactically driven manner.[20] Extraction asymmetries further illustrate these effects, with restrictions on relativizing A arguments compared to O or S in tripartite clauses, often due to phase-based locality constraints in Ā-movement that treat ergative A as structurally deeper than absolutive-like O.[21] In Nez Perce relative clauses, for example, cyclic movement and case connectivity show that O extraction patterns more freely with S than A does, underscoring syntactic hierarchies within tripartite alignment.[21] Such studies highlight the need for more research on non-Indo-European tripartite systems to address underexplored behavioral properties.Distribution and Examples
Languages with Full Tripartite Alignment
Full tripartite alignment, where the single argument of intransitive verbs (S), the agent of transitive verbs (A), and the patient of transitive verbs (O) are morphologically distinguished across the grammar without exceptions, is exceedingly rare among the world's languages, with only one confirmed case documented in linguistic literature.[1] This rarity stems from the inherent instability of such systems, which often develop splits or condition-based variations over time, leading to mixed alignments.[4] Post-2010 documentation, including typological surveys, continues to affirm Wangkumara as the primary exemplar of a full system, while debates persist regarding the "purity" of other candidates due to partial implementations or tense-based exceptions.[22] Wangkumara (also spelled Wankumara), a Pama-Nyungan language formerly spoken in southwestern Queensland, Australia, exemplifies full tripartite alignment through its case-marking system applied uniformly to nouns and free pronouns. In this system, S arguments receive nominative marking, A arguments receive ergative marking, and O arguments receive accusative marking, with no splits by tense, animacy, or person. The core cases are realized as follows:| Case | Marker(s) | Function | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | -ani (or -ni) | S (intransitive subject) | diti-ani "dog-NOM" |
| Ergative | -andru (or -ndru) | A (transitive agent) | ŋandru "1SG-ERG" |
| Accusative | -aQa (or -a, -Qa) | O (transitive patient) | daldra-aQa "kangaroo-ACC" |