ce after move
|
|
||
(37 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Type of morphosyntactic alignment in linguistic typology}}
{{nf|date=June 2019}}
Line 7 ⟶ 8:
The [[grammatical case|case]] or [[grammatical agreement|agreement]] of the intransitive argument (''S'') depends on semantic or lexical criteria particular to each language. The criteria tend to be based on the degree of [[Volition (linguistics)|volition]], or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant.
For example, if one tripped and fell, an active–stative language might require
If the core arguments of a transitive clause are termed ''A'' ([[Agent (grammar)|agent]] of a transitive verb) and ''P'' ([[Patient (grammar)|patient]] of a transitive verb), active–stative languages can be described as languages that align intransitive ''S'' as ''S = P/O∗∗'' ("fell me") or ''S = A'' ("I fell"), depending on the criteria described above.
Active–stative languages contrast with [[accusative language]]s such as English that generally align ''S'' as ''S = A'', and to [[ergative language]]s that generally align ''S'' as ''S = P/O''.
==Types==
Line 19 ⟶ 18:
For most such languages, the case of the intransitive argument is lexically fixed for each verb, regardless of the actual degree of volition of the subject, but often corresponding to the most typical situation. For example, the argument of ''swim'' may always be treated like the transitive subject ([[agent (grammar)|agent]]-like), and the argument of ''sleep'' like the transitive direct object ([[patient (grammar)|patient]]-like). In [[Dakota language|Dakota]], arguments of active verbs such as ''to run'' are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, and arguments of inactive verbs such as ''to stand'' are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. In such language, if the subject of a verb like ''run'' or ''swallow'' is defined as agentive, it will be always marked so even if the action of swallowing is involuntary. This subtype is sometimes known as '''split-S'''.
In other languages, the marking of the intransitive argument is decided by the speaker, based on semantic considerations. For any given intransitive verb, the speaker may choose whether to mark the argument as agentive or patientive. In some of these languages, agentive marking encodes a degree of [[volition (linguistics)|volition]] or control over the action, with the [[patient (grammar)|patientive]] used as the default case; in others, patientive marking encodes a lack of volition or control, suffering from or being otherwise affected by the action, or sympathy on the part of the speaker, with the agentive used as the default case. These two subtypes (''patientive-default'' and ''agentive-default'') are sometimes known as '''fluid-S'''.
==Argument marking==
If the language has [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] [[grammatical case|case]], the arguments of a [[transitive verb]] are marked by using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object. The argument of an [[intransitive verb]] may be marked as either.<ref>Legate, J. A. (2008). Morphological and abstract case. ''Linguistic Inquiry, 39''(1), 55-101. {{doi|10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55}}</ref>
Languages lacking case [[inflection]]s may indicate case by different [[word order]]s, [[Agreement (linguistics)|verb agreement]], using [[adposition]]s, etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede the [[verb]], and the agentive argument might follow the verb.
Cross-linguistically, the agentive argument tends to be marked, and the patientive argument tends to be unmarked. That is, if one case is indicated by zero-inflection, it is often the patientive.
Additionally, active languages differ from ergative languages in how split case marking intersects with Silverstein's (1976) nominal hierarchy:
:pronouns (1st>2nd>3rd person) > proper nouns > common nouns (human > animate > inanimate)
Specifically, ergative languages with split case marking are more likely to use ergative rather than accusative marking for NPs lower down the hierarchy (to the right), whereas active languages are more likely to use active marking for NPs higher up the hierarchy (to the left), like first and second person pronouns.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yanagida |first1=Yuko |last2=Whitman |first2=John |title=Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40345246 |journal=Journal of East Asian Linguistics |pages=101–144 |date=2009|volume=18 |issue=2 |doi=10.1007/s10831-009-9043-2 |jstor=40345246 |s2cid=121032669 }}</ref> Dixon states that "In active languages, if active marking applies to an NP type a, it applies to every NP type to the left of a on the nominal hierarchy."
==Terminology==
Active languages are a relatively new field of study. Active [[morphosyntactic alignment]] used to be not recognized as such, and it was treated mostly as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive). Also, active languages are few and often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal).<ref>Nichols, J. (1993). Ergativity and linguistic geography. ''Australian Journal of Linguistics, 13''(1), 39-89. {{doi|10.1080/07268609308599489}}</ref>
Thus, the terminology used is rather flexible. The morphosyntactic alignment of active languages is also termed ''active–stative alignment'' or ''semantic alignment''. The terms [[agent (grammar)|''agentive case'']] and [[patient (grammar)|''patientive case'']] used above are sometimes replaced by the terms ''active'' and ''inactive''.
==
(†) = extinct language
Line 39 ⟶ 42:
===South American languages===
* [[Jê languages|Northern Jê languages]] (split-S in finite clauses, central and north-eastern Brazil), including:
** [[
** [[Timbira language
* [[Tupi–Guarani languages]] (Brazil, Bolivia, French Guiana, Paraguay, Peru), including:
** †[[Tupi language|Old Tupi]] and †Tupinambá (fluid-S)
** [[Sirionó language|Sirionó]] (eastern Bolivia)
** [[Kamayurá language|Kamayurá]] (split-S, Brazil)
** [[Guaraní language|Guaraní]] (split-S, with a few verbs allowing fluid-S marking,<ref>{{cite journal |first=Marianne |last=Mithun |title=Active/agentive Case Marking and Its Motivations |journal=Language |year=1991 |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=510–546|doi=10.1353/lan.1991.0015 |s2cid=144965886 }}</ref> Paraguay)
* Many [[Arawakan languages]], including:
** [[Waurá language|Waurá]] (split-S, spoken in Brazil)
** [[Baniwa of Içana|Baniwa]] do Içana (fluid-S; upper Rio Negro, Brazil)
** Lokono
===Central America/Mesoamerican languages===
Line 86 ⟶ 90:
**[[Caddoan languages]]
***[[Caddo language|Caddo]]
***[[Wichita language|Wichita]] (ergative, accusative and S-split mixed type) (†)
***[[Kitsai language|Kitsai]] (also known as Kichai) (†)
***[[Arikara language|Arikara]] (Split-S; also known as Ree)
Line 103 ⟶ 107:
***[[Cherokee language|Cherokee]] (Oklahoma, North Carolina)
* Western North America (in Canada, Alaska, Southern Rocky Mountains, Pacific shore of the US including California)
**[[Na-Dene languages|Na-dene
***[[Haida language|Haida]]
***[[Tlingit language|Tlingit]]
***[[Eyak language|Eyak]] († since 2008)
***[[Slavey language|Slave]]
***[[Chiricahua Apache language|Chiracahua Apache]]
**[[Pomoan languages
***[[Eastern Pomo language|Eastern Pomo]] (fluid-S, Northern California)
***[[Central Pomo language|Central Pomo]]
Line 126 ⟶ 129:
===Caucasus===
* [[Georgian language|Georgian]] (spoken in the Caucasian nation of [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]): generally considered a [[split ergativity|split ergative language]],<ref>Nash, L. (2017). The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in georgian. In L. D. Travis, D. Massam & J. Coon (Eds.), (1st ed., ) Oxford University Press. {{doi|10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.8}} </ref> but [[Alice Harris (linguist)|Alice Harris]] has claimed that it shows active alignment in some verb paradigms (namely, that the ergative marker appears to apply to active-intransitive verbs; also stative experiencers take a different case marking and agreement pattern). However, even that is complicated by the existence of apparently-inactive intransitive verbs taking such marking, such as the verb meaning 'to boil'. Other [[Kartvelian languages]] such [[Laz language|Laz]], [[Svan language|Svan]], and [[Old Georgian]] show similar systems, while the position of [[Mingrelian language|Mingrelian]] is more controversial.
* [[Northeast Caucasian languages]]: [[Bats language|Tsova-Tush]]: according to Holisky (1987), there are 31 intransitive verbs for which the argument is always marked as patientive and refer to uncontrollable states ("be hungry", "tremble", etc.), and 78 intransitive verbs with an agentive argument ("walk", "talk", "think"). They form a split-S subset of the verbs. The rest of the verbs form a fluid-S system; for instance, a single verb root can be interpreted as "slip" when it is used with a patientive argument and as "slide" with an agentive argument.
* [[Tabasaran language|Tabasaran]]
Line 141 ⟶ 144:
* [[Morphosyntactic alignment]]
* [[Marked nominative|Nominative-absolutive language]] (Marked nominative)
* [[Unaccusative verb]]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
* {{cite thesis |last=Andréasson |first=Daniel |title=Active languages |publisher=Stockholm University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131251/http://www.ling.su.se/gu/kursmaterial/311_4/active.pdf |archive-date=2008-03-02 |url=http://www.ling.su.se/gu/kursmaterial/311_4/active.pdf |degree=BA}}
* {{cite book |last=Bauer |first=Brigitte |year=2000 |title=Archaic Syntax in Indo- European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French |publisher=de Gruyter |doi=10.1515/9783110825992 |volume=125 |series=Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs |isbn=978-3-11-016723-8}}
* {{cite book |last=Blake |first=Barry J. |year=1994 |chapter=Survey of Case Marking |title=Case |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=118–160 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139164894.007|isbn=978-0-521-80761-6 }}
* {{cite book |last=Benveniste |first=Emile |year=1971
*Castro Alves, Flávia de 2010: Evolution of Alignment in Timbira, in International Journal of American Linguistics 76(4): 439-475▼
* {{cite journal |
▲* {{cite journal |last=de Castro Alves
* {{cite journal |author-first=R. M. W. |author-last=Dixon| year=1979 |title=Ergativity|journal=Language|volume=55|issue=1 |pages=59–138 |doi=10.2307/412519|jstor=412519 }}
* {{cite book |author-last=Dixon |author-first=R. M. W. |year=1994|title=Ergativity|url=https://archive.org/details/ergativity0000dixo |url-access=registration |publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0-521-44898-0}}
* {{
* {{cite book |last1=Gamkrelidze |first1=Thomas V. |last2=Ivanov |first2=Vjačeslav V. |year=1995 |orig-year=1984 |chapter=Proto-Indo European as a Language of the Active Type |title=Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans |publisher=Mouton de Gruyter |translator-last=Nichols |translator-first=Johanna |pages=233–276 |doi=10.1515/9783110815030.1.233}}
* {{cite book |last1=Gamkrelidze |first1=Thomas V.
*{{cite thesis |last=Gante |first=Christiane |year=2007 |title=Objektkasus im Indogermanischen |degree=Magisterarbeit |publisher=Universität Hamburg}}
** {{cite book |last=Gante |first=Christiane
* {{cite book |last=Haas |first=Mary R. |year=1946
* {{cite book |last=Harris
* {{cite book |last=Harris
* {{cite book |last=Hoijer |first=Harry |year=1946
*{{cite journal |
* {{cite book |last=Iliev |first=Ivan G. |title=Case and Vocativeness |publisher=Pygmalion |location=Plovdiv |year=2007 |isbn=978-954-9402-19-3 |lang=ru, en |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348273522}}
* {{cite thesis |last=Ivanova |first=Natalia |year=2008
* {{cite book |last=Klimov
* {{cite journal |last=Klimov
* {{cite book |last=Klimov
* {{cite book |last=Klimov
* {{cite thesis |last=Langemann
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann |first=Winfred P.
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann |first=Winfred P. |year=1995 |title=Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects |location=Innsbruck}}
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann
* {{cite journal |last=Mithun |first=Marianne |year=1991
* {{cite book |last=Seki
▲*Seki, Lucy 1990.『Kamaiurá (Tupí-Guaraní) as an active–stative language.』In Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages, 367-91. Austin: University of Texas Press.
==
*Bentley, D. (2011) ''Split intransitivity in Italian''. De Gruyter Mouton.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Active-stative language}}
[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Syntax–semantics interface]]
|
![]() |
This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (June 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Linguistic typology |
---|
Morphological |
Morphosyntactic |
Word order |
Lexicon |
|
Inlinguistic typology, active–stative alignment (also split intransitive alignmentorsemantic alignment) is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument ("subject") of an intransitive clause (often symbolized as S) is sometimes marked in the same way as an agent of a transitive verb (that is, like a subject such as "I" or "she" in English) but other times in the same way as a direct object (such as "me" or "her" in English). Languages with active–stative alignment are often called active languages.
The caseoragreement of the intransitive argument (S) depends on semantic or lexical criteria particular to each language. The criteria tend to be based on the degree of volition, or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant.
For example, if one tripped and fell, an active–stative language might require one to say the equivalent of "fell me." To say "I fell" would mean that the person had done it on purpose, such as taking a fall in boxing. Another possibility is empathy; for example, if someone's dog were run over by a car, one might say the equivalent of "died her." To say "she died" would imply that the person was not affected emotionally.
If the core arguments of a transitive clause are termed A (agent of a transitive verb) and P (patient of a transitive verb), active–stative languages can be described as languages that align intransitive SasS = P/O∗∗ ("fell me") or S = A ("I fell"), depending on the criteria described above.
Active–stative languages contrast with accusative languages such as English that generally align SasS = A, and to ergative languages that generally align SasS = P/O.
For most such languages, the case of the intransitive argument is lexically fixed for each verb, regardless of the actual degree of volition of the subject, but often corresponding to the most typical situation. For example, the argument of swim may always be treated like the transitive subject (agent-like), and the argument of sleep like the transitive direct object (patient-like). In Dakota, arguments of active verbs such as to run are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, and arguments of inactive verbs such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. In such language, if the subject of a verb like runorswallow is defined as agentive, it will be always marked so even if the action of swallowing is involuntary. This subtype is sometimes known as split-S.
In other languages, the marking of the intransitive argument is decided by the speaker, based on semantic considerations. For any given intransitive verb, the speaker may choose whether to mark the argument as agentive or patientive. In some of these languages, agentive marking encodes a degree of volition or control over the action, with the patientive used as the default case; in others, patientive marking encodes a lack of volition or control, suffering from or being otherwise affected by the action, or sympathy on the part of the speaker, with the agentive used as the default case. These two subtypes (patientive-default and agentive-default) are sometimes known as fluid-S.
If the language has morphological case, the arguments of a transitive verb are marked by using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object. The argument of an intransitive verb may be marked as either.[1]
Languages lacking case inflections may indicate case by different word orders, verb agreement, using adpositions, etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede the verb, and the agentive argument might follow the verb.
Cross-linguistically, the agentive argument tends to be marked, and the patientive argument tends to be unmarked. That is, if one case is indicated by zero-inflection, it is often the patientive.
Additionally, active languages differ from ergative languages in how split case marking intersects with Silverstein's (1976) nominal hierarchy:
Specifically, ergative languages with split case marking are more likely to use ergative rather than accusative marking for NPs lower down the hierarchy (to the right), whereas active languages are more likely to use active marking for NPs higher up the hierarchy (to the left), like first and second person pronouns.[2] Dixon states that "In active languages, if active marking applies to an NP type a, it applies to every NP type to the left of a on the nominal hierarchy."
Active languages are a relatively new field of study. Active morphosyntactic alignment used to be not recognized as such, and it was treated mostly as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive). Also, active languages are few and often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal).[3]
Thus, the terminology used is rather flexible. The morphosyntactic alignment of active languages is also termed active–stative alignmentorsemantic alignment. The terms agentive case and patientive case used above are sometimes replaced by the terms active and inactive.
(†) = extinct language
According to Castro Alves (2010), a split-S alignment can be safely reconstructed for Proto-Northern Jê finite clauses. Clauses headed by a non-finite verb, on the contrary, would have been aligned ergatively in this reconstructed language.
The reconstructed Pre-Proto-Indo-European language,[6] not to be confused with the Proto-Indo-European language, its direct descendant, shows many features known to correlate with active alignment like the animate vs. inanimate distinction, related to the distinction between active and inactive or stative verb arguments. Even in its descendant languages, there are traces of a morphological split between volitional and nonvolitional verbs, such as a pattern in verbs of perception and cognition where the argument takes an oblique case (called quirky subject), a relic of which can be seen in Middle English methinks or in the distinction between see vs. lookorhear vs. listen. Other possible relics from a structure, in descendant languages of Indo-European, include conceptualization of possession and extensive use of particles.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)