m Task 18 (cosmetic): eval 5 templates: del empty params (2×);
|
→South American languages: Guaraní has been analyzed as a close-to-ideal active language of the fluid-S type.{{fact}}. Doesn't look anywhere close to ideal, since the Aktionsart appears to be the dominant factor.
|
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
** [[Sirionó language|Sirionó]] (eastern Bolivia) |
** [[Sirionó language|Sirionó]] (eastern Bolivia) |
||
** [[Kamayurá language|Kamayurá]] (split-S, Brazil) |
** [[Kamayurá language|Kamayurá]] (split-S, Brazil) |
||
** [[Guaraní language|Guaraní]], a language spoken mainly in [[Paraguay]], has been analyzed as a close-to-ideal active language of the fluid-S type. |
** [[Guaraní language|Guaraní]], a language spoken mainly in [[Paraguay]], has been analyzed as a close-to-ideal active language of the fluid-S type.{{fact}}<!--Doesn't look anywhere close to ideal, since the Aktionsart appears to be the dominant factor, as explained in Andreasson's article linked in the bibliography.-- |
||
* Many [[Arawakan languages]], including: |
* Many [[Arawakan languages]], including: |
||
** [[Waurá language|Waurá]] (split-S, spoken in Brazil) |
** [[Waurá language|Waurá]] (split-S, spoken in Brazil) |
![]() |
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 them 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.
Care should be taken when reasoning about language structure, specifically, as reasoning on syntactic roles (S=subject/ O=object) is sometimes difficult to separate from reasoning on semantic functions (A=agent/ P=patient). For example, in some languages, "me fell," is regarded as less impersonal and more empathic.
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.
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).[2]
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