# Split ergativity

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Split_ergativity
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Split_ergativity.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_ergativity
> Source revision: 1316266363
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Feature in the typology of certain languages

Linguistic typology Morphological Analytic Isolating Synthetic Fusional Agglutinative Polysynthetic Oligosynthetic Morphosyntactic Alignment Nominative–accusative Marked nominative Ergative–absolutive Split ergative Symmetrical voice Active–stative Tripartite Nominative–absolutive Direct-inverse Ditransitive/Monotransitive Secundative Indirective Zero-marking Dependent-marking Double-marking Head-marking Null-subject Syntactic pivot Theta role Word order VO languages Subject–verb–object Verb–subject–object Verb–object–subject OV languages Subject–object–verb Object–subject–verb Object–verb–subject V1 word order V2 word order OS word order Free word order Time–manner–place Place–manner–time Lexicon Color terms Numerals v t e

In [linguistic typology](/source/Linguistic_typology), **split ergativity** is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use [ergative](/source/Ergative%E2%80%93absolutive_language) syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually [nominative–accusative](/source/Nominative%E2%80%93accusative_language). The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.[1]

## Nominative–accusative vs. ergative–absolutive

Main article: [Ergative–absolutive alignment](/source/Ergative%E2%80%93absolutive_alignment)

[Nominative–accusative languages](/source/Nominative%E2%80%93accusative_language) (including Indo-European languages) treat both the actor in a clause with a [transitive verb](/source/Transitive_verb) and the experiencer in a clause with an [intransitive verb](/source/Intransitive_verb) in the same way grammatically. If the language uses [case markers](/source/Case_marker), they take the same case. If it uses word order, it is parallel.

For example, consider these two English sentences:

- Jane was chasing Max.

- Jane was sweating.

The grammatical role of "Jane" is identical. In both cases, "Jane" is the [subject](/source/Subject_(grammar)).

In [ergative–absolutive languages](/source/Ergative%E2%80%93absolutive_language) (such as [Basque](/source/Basque_language) and [Georgian](/source/Georgian_language), or the [Eskaleut](/source/Eskaleut_languages) and [Mayan](/source/Mayan_language) languages), there is a different pattern. The patient (or target) of a transitive verb and the experiencer of an intransitive verb are treated the same grammatically. If the two sentences above were expressed in an ergative language, "Max" in the former and "Jane" in the latter would be parallel grammatically. Also, a different form (the *ergative*) would be used for "Jane" in the first sentence.

For example, in the following [Inuktitut](/source/Inuktitut_language) sentences, the subject 'the woman' is in ergative case (*arnaup*) when occurring with a transitive verb, while the object 'the apple' (*aapu*) is in absolutive case. In the intransitive sentence, the subject 'the woman' *arnaq* is in absolutive case.[2]

- *Arnaup nirijanga aapu.* 'The woman is eating the apple.'

- *Arnaq pisuktuq.* 'The woman is walking.'

In split ergative languages, some constructions pattern with nominative–accusative, and others with ergative–absolutive.

## Split conditions

The split is usually conditioned by one of the following:

1. The presence of a **discourse participant** (a first or second person) in the proposition. The Australian language [Dyirbal](/source/Dyirbal_language) behaves ergatively in all [morphosyntactic](/source/Morphosyntax) contexts unless one of those is involved. When a first- or second-person pronoun appears, however, it is marked according to a [nominative–accusative](/source/Nominative%E2%80%93accusative_language) pattern (with the least-marked case, when it is the agent or intransitive, or with the most marked case, when it is the patient). That can be explained in terms of the high [animacy](/source/Animacy) of a first-person or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.

1. The use of certain **[aspects](/source/Grammatical_aspect)** and/or **[tenses](/source/Grammatical_tense)** in the verb. The [Indo-Iranian](/source/Indo-Iranian_languages) family, for example, shows a split between the [perfective](/source/Perfective_aspect) and the [imperfective aspect](/source/Imperfective_aspect). In [Hindustani](/source/Hindustani_grammar) ([Hindi](/source/Hindi)-[Urdu](/source/Urdu)), a [transitive verb](/source/Transitive_verb) in the [perfective aspect](/source/Perfective_aspect) causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the [imperfective aspects](/source/Imperfective_aspect) trigger accusative marking.[3]

1. The **agentivity of the intransitive subject**. In languages like [Dakota](/source/Dakota_language), arguments of active verbs, such as *to run*, are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, but arguments of inactive verbs, such as *to stand* are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. Languages with such a marking are known as [split-S languages](/source/Split-S_language) and are formally a subtype of [active languages](/source/Active_language).

1. Pragmatic considerations or for **emphasis, contrast, or clarity**. In certain [Tibeto-Burmese languages](/source/Tibeto-Burman_languages), elicited data has consistent ergative, aspectually split-ergative or active-stative case marking pattern, and in natural discourse the “ergative” marking is found only in some clauses, often a minority, usually with some pragmatic sense of emphasis or contrast (DeLancey, 2011).[4]

## Examples

### Hindi–Urdu

Main article: [Hindi verbs § Ergativity and Light verbs](/source/Hindi_verbs#Ergativity_and_Light_verbs)

An example of split ergativity conditioned by the [grammatical aspect](/source/Grammatical_aspect) is found in [Hindustani](/source/Hindustani_grammar) ([Hindi](/source/Hindi)-[Urdu](/source/Urdu)); in the [perfective aspect](/source/Perfective_aspect) of transitive verbs (in active voice), the subject takes [ergative case](/source/Ergative_case) and the direct object takes an unmarked [absolutive case](/source/Absolutive_case) identical to the [nominative case](/source/Nominative_case), which is sometimes called [direct case](/source/Direct_case). However, in all other aspects ([habitual](/source/Habitual_aspect) & [progressive](/source/Continuous_and_progressive_aspects)), subjects appear either in the [direct](/source/Direct_case)/[nominative case](/source/Nominative_case) or [dative case](/source/Dative_case) (see [dative subjects](/source/Dative_subject)), while direct objects continue to appear in the [direct case](/source/Direct_case) (the subject of such sentences is differentiated from the direct object not from a difference in case but from the agreement of the verb with the subject as well as other syntactic and contextual cues such as word order and meaning[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]).

In the following perfective sentence, the agent *laṛke-ne* *(boy)* is marked for [ergative case](/source/Ergative_case), while the undergoer *kitāb* *(book)* is in unmarked nominative case. The verb *kharīdī* (bought) has the feminine ending *-ī*, showing [gender agreement](/source/Agreement_(linguistics)) with the undergoer *kitāb (book)*.

लड़के-ने

laṛke-ne

boy:MASC.SG.ERG

किताब

kitāb

book:FEM.SG.NOM

ख़रीदी

xarīdī

buy:PRF.FEM.SG

है

hai.

be:3P.SG.PRS

लड़के-ने किताब ख़रीदी है

laṛke-ne kitāb xarīdī hai.

boy:MASC.SG.ERG book:FEM.SG.NOM buy:PRF.FEM.SG be:3P.SG.PRS

'The boy has bought a book'

In the corresponding [imperfective](/source/Imperfective_aspect) ([habitual aspect](/source/Habitual_aspect)) sentence, the agent *laṛkā* *(boy)* is in unmarked [nominative case](/source/Nominative_case). The habitual participle form *kharīdatā* *(buy)* has the masculine ending *-ā* and thus agrees with the agent *laṛkā (boy)*.

लड़का

laṛkā

boy:MASC.SG.NOM

किताब

kitāb

book:FEM.SG.NOM

ख़रीदता

xarīdatā

buy:HAB.MASC.SG

है

hai.

be:3P.SG.PRS

लड़का किताब ख़रीदता है

laṛkā kitāb xarīdatā hai.

boy:MASC.SG.NOM book:FEM.SG.NOM buy:HAB.MASC.SG be:3P.SG.PRS

'The boy buys a book'

Perfective constructions with certain VV (verb-verb) complexes do not employ ergative case marking (see: [light verbs in Hindi-Urdu](/source/Hindi_verbs)). In perfective constructions, the agent argument is ideally assigned with an ergative case; however in cases like the first example shown below that does not happen. This is because the explicator verb *gayī* (gone) which although undergoes [semantic bleaching](/source/Semantic_bleaching) but still retains its intransitivity which does not allow for an ergative case assignment to the agent argument (i.e., *ninā*). This is why as shown in the second example below, VV complexes involving a transitive [explicator verb](/source/Explicator_verb) (e.g., *phẽkā* "threw") can employ ergative case to agent arguments.[5]

नीना

ninā

nina:FEM.SG.NOM

आम

ām

mango.MASC.SG.NOM

खा

khā

eat.NF

गयी

gayī.

go:PRF.FEM.SG

नीना आम खा गयी

ninā ām khā gayī.

nina:FEM.SG.NOM mango.MASC.SG.NOM eat.NF go:PRF.FEM.SG

'Nina has eaten the mango.'

नीना-ने

ninā-ne

nina:FEM.SG.ERG

तकिया

takiyā

pillow.MASC.SG.NOM

उठा

uṭhā

pick.NF

फेंका

phẽkā.

throw:PRF.MASC.SG

नीना-ने तकिया उठा फेंका

ninā-ne takiyā uṭhā phẽkā.

nina:FEM.SG.ERG pillow.MASC.SG.NOM pick.NF throw:PRF.MASC.SG

'Nina (picked up and) threw the pillow.'

### Chol (Mayan)

The [Mayan](/source/Mayan_languages) language [Chol](/source/Chol_language) has split-ergative person marking.[6]

In transitive clauses, verbs are framed by a person marking prefix (called "set A" in Mayan linguistics) that expresses the subject, and a suffix that expresses the object (= "set B").

Mi

IMPF

a-mek'-oñ

2SG.A-hug-1SG.B

Mi a-mek'-oñ

IMPF 2SG.A-hug-1SG.B

'You hug me.'

In intransitive clauses, the subject can either be represented by a set A-person marker, or a set B-person marker, depending on [aspect](/source/Grammatical_aspect).

In *perfective* aspect, Chol has *ergative–absolutive* alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a suffixed person marker, thus in the same way as the object of transitive verbs.

Tyi

PRF

wayi-yoñ

sleep-1SG.B

Tyi wayi-yoñ

PRF sleep-1SG.B

'I slept.'

In *imperfective* aspect, Chol has *nominative–accusative* alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a prefixed person marker, thus in the same way as the subject of transitive verbs.

Mi

IMPF

a-wayel

2SG.A-sleep

Mi a-wayel

IMPF 2SG.A-sleep

'You sleep.'

### Sahaptin

In [Columbia River](/source/Columbia_River) [Sahaptin](/source/Sahaptin_language), the split is determined by the person of both subject and object. The ergative suffix *-nɨm* occurs only for third-person subjects for which the direct object is in the first or the second person.

ku=š

and=1SG

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

ína

me

wínš-**nɨm**

man-ERG

ku=š i-q̓ínu-šan-a ína wínš-**nɨm**

and=1SG 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST me man-ERG

"And the man saw me."

ku=nam

and=2SG

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

imaná

you.ACC

wínš-**nɨm**

man-ERG

ku=nam i-q̓ínu-šan-a imaná wínš-**nɨm**

and=2SG 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST you.ACC man-ERG

"And the man saw you."

ku

and

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

paanáy

him/her/it

wínš

man

ku i-q̓ínu-šan-a paanáy wínš

and 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST him/her/it man

"And the man saw him."

Another ergative suffix, *-in*, marks the subject in the inverse. Both subject and object are then always in the third-person.

Direct (same as above example):

ku

and

i-q̓ínu-šan-a

3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST

paanáy

him/her/it

wínš

man-ERG

ku i-q̓ínu-šan-a paanáy wínš

and 3.NOM-see-IPFV-PST him/her/it man-ERG

"And **the man** saw him."

Inverse:

ku

and

pá-q̓inu-šan-a

INV-see-IPFV-PST

paanáy

him/her/it

wínš-**in**

man

ku pá-q̓inu-šan-a paanáy wínš-**in**

and INV-see-IPFV-PST him/her/it man

"And the man saw **him**."

## Notes

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Dixon_1-0)** Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). *Ergativity*. Cambridge University Press.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-2)** Compton, Richard (2017). "Ergativity in Inuktitut". In Jessica Coon; Diane Massam; Lisa Demena Travis (eds.). *The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity*. pp. 832–850.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** Piepers, J. (19 May 2016). [*Optional ergative case marking in Hindi*](https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/2440) (Thesis). [S2CID](/source/S2CID_(identifier)) [197863131](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:197863131).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-4)** DeLancey, Scott (October 2011). ["'Optional' 'ergativity' in Tibeto-Burman languages"](https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.980387710679676). *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area*. **34** (2): 9–20.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-5)** Mukherjee, Atreyee (2017). ["Revisiting Ergativity in Hindi"](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325734608). *Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics*. **1** (1): 18–28. Retrieved 2021-02-05.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-6)** Coon, Jessica (2010). "Rethinking Split Ergativity In Chol". *International Journal of American Linguistics*. **76** (2): 207–253. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1086/652266](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F652266). [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [10.1086/652266](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/652266). [S2CID](/source/S2CID_(identifier)) [144864177](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144864177).

## Bibliography

- Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). *Ergativity*. Cambridge University Press. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0-521-44898-0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-44898-0).

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Split ergativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_ergativity) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_ergativity?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.