This is quite opaque and does not really add value to the lead.
|
updated references
|
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{Reflist}} |
{{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}} |
|||
*Andréasson Daniel: Active languages, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University |
|||
*Bauer Brigitte |
* {{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}} |
||
*Blake Barry J. 1994 |
* {{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}} |
||
*Benveniste Emile 1971 |
* {{cite book |last=Benveniste |first=Emile |year=1971 |title=Origines de la Formations des Noms en Indoeuropéen |location=Paris |publisher=Adrien- Maissonneuve |pages=171-172}} |
||
*Castro Alves |
* {{cite journal |last=de Castro Alves |first=Flávia |year=2010 |title=Evolution of Alignment in Timbira |journal=International Journal of American Linguistics |volume=76 |issue=4|pages=439-475}} |
||
* {{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 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 |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|title=The Typology of Semantic Alignment|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn= 9780199238385 |editor-first=Mark |editor-last=Donohue |editor2-first=Søren |editor2-last=Wichmann }} |
||
|editor-first=Mark |editor-last=Donohue |editor2-first=Søren |editor2-last=Wichmann }} |
|||
*Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V. 1995 [1984]: Proto-Indo European as a Language of the Active Type, in Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V.: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 233- 276 |
*Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V. 1995 [1984]: Proto-Indo European as a Language of the Active Type, in Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V.: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 233- 276 |
||
*Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V. 1995 [1984]: The grammatical syntagmatics of Proto-Indo European in typological perspective, in Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V.: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 233- 276 |
*Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V. 1995 [1984]: The grammatical syntagmatics of Proto-Indo European in typological perspective, in Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjačeslav V.: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 233- 276 |
||
Line 172: | Line 171: | ||
*Langemann, Katrin 2004 Morphologie und Syntax der Nominativ- und Akkusativkasus im Indogermanischen, Magisterarbeit an der Universitaet Hamburg |
*Langemann, Katrin 2004 Morphologie und Syntax der Nominativ- und Akkusativkasus im Indogermanischen, Magisterarbeit an der Universitaet Hamburg |
||
*Lehmann Winfred P. 1995: Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects, Innsbruck |
*Lehmann Winfred P. 1995: Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects, Innsbruck |
||
*Lehmann |
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann |first=Winfred P. |year=1993 |title=Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics |location=London |publisher=Routledge}} |
||
*Lehmann, Winfred P. 2002: Pre-Indo-European (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 41). |
*Lehmann, Winfred P. 2002: Pre-Indo-European (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 41). |
||
*Mithun 1991 : Active / agentive case marking and its motivation, in Language 67: 510–546, p. 513, 515–516, from Blake 1994 : 126 |
*Mithun 1991 : Active / agentive case marking and its motivation, in Language 67: 510–546, p. 513, 515–516, from Blake 1994 : 126 |
||
* |
* {{cite journal |last=Cunha de Oliveira |first=Christiane |year=2003 |title=Lexical categories and descriptives in Apinajé |journal=International Journal of American Linguistics |volume=69|pages=243-274}} |
||
*Seki |
* {{cite book |last=Seki |first=Lucy |year=1990 |chapter=Kamaiurá (Tupí-Guaraní) as an active–stative language |editor-first=Doris L. |editor-last=Payne |title=Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages |pages=367–391 |location=Austin |publisher=University of Texas Press}} |
||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
*Bentley, D. (2011) ''Split intransitivity in Italian''. De Gruyter Mouton. |
*Bentley, D. (2011) ''Split intransitivity in Italian''. De Gruyter Mouton. |
||
==External links== |
|||
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131251/http://www.ling.su.se/gu/kursmaterial/311_4/active.pdf Active languages], by Daniel Andréasson, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Active-stative language}} |
{{DEFAULTSORT:Active-stative language}} |
![]() |
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.