Tripartite alignment

Last updated

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".

Contents

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

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.svg
Accusative alignment
Ergative alignment.svg
Ergative alignment
Tripartite alignment.png
Tripartite alignment

The arguments of a verb are usually symbolized as follows:

The relationship between accusative, ergative, and tripartite alignments can be schematically represented as follows:

Ergative-AbsolutiveNominative-AccusativeTripartite
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

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

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

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

karn-ia yanthagaria makurr-anrru

man-NOM walk.PRES stick-INSTR

'The man walks with a stick.'

b.

karna-ulu

man-ERG

kalkanga

hit.PAST

thithi-nhanha

dog-ACC.NONM.SG

karna-ulu kalkanga thithi-nhanha

man-ERG hit.PAST 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

Palu-nga nganyi

die-PAST 1sg.NOM

"I died."

Ngkatu

1sg.ERG

nhanha

3sg.ABS

kalka-nga

hit-PAST

Ngkatu nhanha kalka-nga

1sg.ERG 3sg.ABS hit-PAST

"I hit him/her."

Nulu

3sg.ERG

nganha

1sg.ABS

kalka-ng

hit-PAST

Nulu nganha kalka-ng

3sg.ERG 1sg.ABS 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

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] 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: [12]

a.

Hi-páay-na

3SG-arrive-PERF

háama-Ø

man.NOM

Hi-páay-na háama-Ø

3SG-arrive-PERF man.NOM

'The man arrived.'

b.

Háamap-im

man-ERG

'áayato-na

woman-ACC

pée-'nehne-ne

3SG-3SG-take-PERF

Háamap-im 'áayato-na pée-'nehne-ne

man-ERG woman-ACC 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.

Realizations of tripartite alignment

Morphological tripartite alignment

Syntactic tripartite alignment

Passive and anti-passive constructions

Ainu also shows the passive voice formation typical of nominative-accusative languages and the antipassive of ergative-absolutive languages. Like Nez Percé, the use of both the passive and antipassive is a trait of a tripartite language.

Distribution of tripartite alignments

Full tripartite alignments

Mixed systems

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ergative case</span> Grammatical case

In grammar, the ergative case is the grammatical case that identifies a nominal phrase as the agent of a transitive verb in ergative–absolutive languages.

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

In grammar, an intransitive verb is a verb, aside from an auxiliary verb, whose context does not entail a transitive object. That lack of an object distinguishes intransitive verbs from transitive verbs, which entail one or more objects. Additionally, intransitive verbs are typically considered within a class apart from modal verbs and defective verbs.

In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.

The antipassive voice is a type of grammatical voice that either does not include the object or includes the object in an oblique case. This construction is similar to the passive voice, in that it decreases the verb's valency by one – the passive by deleting the agent and "promoting" the object to become the subject of the passive construction, the antipassive by deleting the object and "promoting" the agent to become the subject of the antipassive construction.

In linguistics, morphosyntactic alignment is the grammatical relationship between arguments—specifically, between the two arguments of transitive verbs like the dog chased the cat, and the single argument of intransitive verbs like the cat ran away. English has a subject, which merges the more active argument of transitive verbs with the argument of intransitive verbs, leaving the object distinct; other languages may have different strategies, or, rarely, make no distinction at all. Distinctions may be made morphologically, syntactically, or both.

In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the single argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb. Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, and certain Indo-European languages. It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. No language has been recorded in which both the morphological and syntactical ergative are present. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter. Dyirbal is said to be the only representative of syntactic ergativity, yet it displays accusative alignment with certain pronouns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nominative–accusative alignment</span> Concept of sentence structure in linguistics

In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order. It has a wide global distribution and is the most common alignment system among the world's languages. Languages with nominative–accusative alignment are commonly called nominative–accusative languages.

In linguistics, a causative is a valency-increasing operation that indicates that a subject either causes someone or something else to do or be something or causes a change in state of a non-volitional event. Normally, it brings in a new argument, A, into a transitive clause, with the original subject S becoming the object O.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenlandic language</span> Inuit language spoken in Greenland

Greenlandic is an Eskimo–Aleut language with about 57,000 speakers, mostly Greenlandic Inuit in Greenland. It is closely related to the Inuit languages in Canada such as Inuktitut. It is the most widely spoken Eskimo–Aleut language. In June 2009, the government of Greenland, the Naalakkersuisut, made Greenlandic the sole official language of the autonomous territory, to strengthen it in the face of competition from the colonial language, Danish. The main variety is Kalaallisut, or West Greenlandic. The second variety is Tunumiit oraasiat, or East Greenlandic. The language of the Inughuit of Greenland, Inuktun or Polar Eskimo, is a recent arrival and a dialect of Inuktitut.

In linguistic typology, active–stative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument ("subject") of an intransitive clause is sometimes marked in the same way as an agent of a transitive verb but other times in the same way as a direct object. Languages with active–stative alignment are often called active languages.

Georgian grammar has many distinctive and extremely complex features, such as split ergativity and a polypersonal verb agreement system.

The applicative voice is a grammatical voice that promotes an oblique argument of a verb to the core object argument. It is generally considered a valency-increasing morpheme. The Applicative is often found in agglutinative languages, such as the Bantu languages and Austronesian languages. Other examples include Nuxalk, Ubykh, and Ainu.

A direct case is a grammatical case used with all three core relations: both the agent and patient of transitive verbs and the argument of intransitive verbs, though not always at the same time. The direct case contrasts with other cases in the language, typically oblique or genitive.

Canela is a dialect of the Canela-Krahô language, a Timbira variety of the Northern Jê language group spoken by the Apànjêkra (Apaniêkrá) and by the Mẽmõrtũmre in Maranhão, Brazil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wagiman language</span> Indigenous Australian language

Wagiman, also spelt Wageman, Wakiman, Wogeman, and other variants, is a near-extinct Aboriginal Australian language spoken by a small number of Wagiman people in and around Pine Creek, in the Katherine Region of the Northern Territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wanano language</span> Tucanoan language spoken in Brazil and Colombia

Guanano (Wanano), or Piratapuyo, is a Tucanoan language spoken in the northwest part of Amazonas in Brazil and in Vaupés in Colombia. It is spoken by two peoples, the Wanano and the Piratapuyo. They do not intermarry, but their speech is 75% lexically similar.

In generative linguistics, Burzio's generalization is the observation that a verb can assign a theta role to its subject position if and only if it can assign an accusative case to its object. Accordingly, if a verb does not assign a theta role to its subject, then it does not assign accusative case to its object. The generalization is named after Italian linguist Luigi Burzio, based on work published in the 1980s, but the seeds of the idea are found in earlier scholarship. The generalization can be logically written in the following equation:

    θ ↔ A  Where: θ = Subject Theta Role  A = Accusative Case

In linguistic typology, transitive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment used in a small number of languages in which a single grammatical case is used to mark both arguments of a transitive verb, but not with the single argument of an intransitive verb. Such a situation, which is quite rare among the world's languages, has also been called a double-oblique clause structure.

In linguistic typology, nominative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument of an intransitive verb shares some coding properties with the agent argument of a transitive verb and other coding properties with the patient argument of a transitive verb. It is typically observed in a subset of the clause types of a given language.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.  125. ISBN   9780521807616.
  2. Baker, Mark (2015). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN   978-1107055223.
  3. 1 2 3 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.
  4. Rude, N. (1985). Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse. University of Oregon: doctoral dissertation.
  5. Watters, D. E. (2002). A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 69.
  6. 1 2 Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 40.
  7. Falk, Y. N. (2006). Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   1139458566.
  8. McDonald, M.; Wurm, S. A. (1979). Basic materials in Wankumara (Galali): Grammar, sentences, and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  9. Wangkumara examples from Breen, 1976: 337-338.
  10. 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
  11. Siewierska, Anna (2004). Person . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.  55.
  12. Nez Perce examples from Rude, 1985: 83, 228.

Bibliography