Alignment and Ergativity

Morphosyntactic alignment describes how a language groups the single argument of an intransitive clause with the agent or patient of a transitive clause; ergative-absolutive alignment groups it with the patient.

Definition

Alignment is the pattern by which a language treats the sole argument of an intransitive verb relative to the two arguments of a transitive verb; ergativity is the alignment in which the intransitive subject patterns with the transitive patient rather than the agent.

Scope

This topic covers alignment systems: the comparison of the intransitive subject (S), transitive agent (A), and transitive patient (P) arguments; the major patterns (nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, and others such as active and tripartite); split ergativity; and the distinction between morphological and syntactic ergativity. It does not cover grammatical relations or case mechanics in general, which are treated in sibling topics.

Core questions

• How do languages group the S, A, and P arguments?
• What distinguishes ergative-absolutive from nominative-accusative alignment?
• Why do many ergative languages show splits conditioned by tense, aspect, or person?
• How does morphological ergativity differ from syntactic ergativity?

Key concepts

• S, A, and P arguments
• nominative-accusative alignment
• ergative-absolutive alignment
• split ergativity
• morphological versus syntactic ergativity
• active-stative alignment

Key theories

S, A, P alignment typology

The framework, developed by Comrie and Dixon, that compares the marking of the intransitive subject (S), transitive agent (A), and transitive patient (P) to define accusative, ergative, and other alignment systems.

Split and syntactic ergativity

Dixon's account of how ergative marking can be conditioned by a split (for example along an animacy or tense-aspect hierarchy) and of languages such as Dyirbal where ergativity governs syntactic operations, not just morphology.

History

The recognition that many languages do not pattern like familiar accusative European languages grew with twentieth-century fieldwork. Dixon's (1972) description of Dyirbal documented syntactic ergativity, and Silverstein's work on animacy hierarchies explained splits. Comrie (1989) and Dixon (1994) consolidated alignment into a systematic typology built on the comparison of S, A, and P, reshaping theories of grammatical relations.

Debates

Is syntactic ergativity genuine?

Whether any language is ergative at the level of syntax rather than only morphology, and how apparent syntactic ergativity in languages like Dyirbal should be analysed.

Key figures

• R. M. W. Dixon
• Bernard Comrie
• Michael Silverstein

Seminal works

• dixon1972
• comrie1989
• dixon1994

Frequently asked questions

What does ergative alignment look like in practice?

In an ergative language, the subject of an intransitive verb is marked like the object of a transitive verb, while the transitive subject takes a special ergative marking. This is the mirror image of the familiar nominative-accusative pattern.

Are languages purely ergative?

Most ergative languages are split, showing ergative alignment only in part of the grammar, for example in the past tense or with third-person arguments, and accusative alignment elsewhere. Fully ergative systems are rare.