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.
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]
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-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]
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]
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]
Wangkumara consistently differentiates marking on S, A, and O arguments in the morphology, as demonstrated in example (1) below: [9]
karn-ia
man-NOM
yanthagaria
walk.PRES
makurr-anrru
stick-INSTR
'The man walks with a stick.'
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.
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]
Hi-páay-na
3SG-arrive-PERF
háama-Ø
man.NOM
'The man arrived.'
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 [13] .
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. |
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.
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (March 2021) |
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 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.
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.
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.
Dameli (دَميلي), also Damia, Damɛ̃ḍī, Dāmia bāṣa or Gidoj, is an Indo-Aryan language of the Dardic subgroup spoken by approximately 5,000 people in the Domel Town, in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
Nez Perce, also spelled Nez Percé or called nimipuutímt, is a Sahaptian language related to the several dialects of Sahaptin. Nez Perce comes from the French phrase nez percé, "pierced nose"; however, Nez Perce, who call themselves nimíipuu, meaning "the people", did not pierce their noses. This misnomer may have occurred as a result of confusion on the part of the French, as it was surrounding tribes who did so.
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.
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.
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.
The Nias language is an Austronesian language spoken on Nias Island and the Batu Islands off the west coast of Sumatra in Indonesia. It is known as Li Niha by its native speakers. It belongs to the Northwest Sumatra–Barrier Islands subgroup which also includes Mentawai and the Batak languages. It had about 770,000 speakers in 2000. There are three main dialects: northern, central and southern. It is an open-syllable language, which means there are no syllable-final consonants.
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
Vamale (Pamale) is a Kanak language of northern New Caledonia. The Hmwaeke dialect, spoken in Tiéta, is fusing with Haveke and nearly extinct. Vamale is nowadays spoken in Tiendanite, We Hava, Téganpaïk and Tiouandé. It was spoken in the Pamale valley and its tributaries Vawe and Usa until the colonial war of 1917, when its speakers were displaced.
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.
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).