Ergative–absolutive alignment

{{Short description|Pattern relating to the subject and object of verbs}} {{Technical|date=March 2025}} alt=A diagram with S and O circled together, with "A" off to the side.|thumb|In ergative languages, the subject (S) of an intransitive verb shares similarities with the object (O) of a transitive verb.|class=skin-invert-image {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2023}} {{Linguistic typology topics}} In linguistic typology, '''ergative–absolutive alignment''' is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the subject of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the subject of a transitive verb.<ref>Comrie (1989), p. 110ff.</ref> All known ergative languages show ergativity in their morphology, and a small portion also show ergativity in their syntax.<ref name="er"/>{{rp|172}}

The ergative–absolutive alignment is in contrast to nominative–accusative alignment, which is observed in English, where the single argument of an intransitive verb behaves grammatically like the agent (subject) of a transitive verb but different from the object of a transitive verb. In ergative–absolutive languages with grammatical case, the case for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb is called the absolutive, and the case used for the agent of a transitive verb is called the ergative.

By one measure, 17% the world's languages use an ergative alignment in the marking of noun phrases.<ref name="fn">{{Cite web |last=Comrie |first=Bernard |title=Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases |url=http://wals.info/chapter/98 |url-status=live |access-date=15 February 2026 |website=The World Atlas of Language Structures Online}}</ref> Examples of ergative–absolutive languages include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, Sumerian, and certain Indo-European languages such as Pashto, the Kurdish languages and many others.

==Ergative vs. accusative languages==

An ergative language maintains a syntactic or morphological equivalence (such as the same word order or grammatical case) for the object of a transitive verb and the single core argument of an intransitive verb, while treating the agent of a transitive verb differently. Such languages are said to operate with S/O syntactic pivot.

This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages such as English, where the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb (both called the subject) are treated alike and kept distinct from the object of a transitive verb. Such languages are said to operate with S/A (syntactic) pivot.

{{multiple image |align=left |image1=Ergative alignment.svg |caption1=Ergative alignment (intransitive '''S'''ubject and transitive '''O'''bject treated the same way) displaying S/O pivot |class1=skin-invert-image |image2=Accusative alignment.svg |caption2=Accusative alignment (intransitive '''S'''ubject and transitive '''A'''gent treated the same way) displaying S/A pivot |class2=skin-invert-image}} {{Clear|left}}

(reference for figure:<ref name="mf">Friend, Some Syntactic and Morphological Features of Suleimaniye Kurdish, UCLA, 1985</ref>)

These different arguments are usually symbolized as follows: * '''A''' = agent of transitive verb ("The '''dog''' sees the cat") * '''O''' = object of transitive verb, also symbolized as '''P''' for "patient" ("The cat sees the '''dog'''") * '''S''' = core argument (i.e. subject) of intransitive verb ("The '''dog''' sees")

The relationship between ergative and accusative systems can be schematically represented as the following:

{| class="wikitable" ! ! Ergative–absolutive ! Nominative–accusative |- | '''A''' | ERG | NOM |- | '''O''' | ABS | ACC |- | '''S''' | ABS | NOM |}

''See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation and a comparison with nominative–accusative languages.''

The word ''subject'', as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, has a different application when referring to ergative–absolutive languages, or when discussing morphosyntactic alignment in general.

Ergative languages tend to be either verb-final or verb-initial; there are few, if any, ergative SVO languages.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~asw/lab/lab87/LAB87_lahne.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-10-29 |archive-date=2011-06-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110613112247/http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~asw/lab/lab87/LAB87_lahne.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

== Example comparing Latin and Dyirbal == Latin and Dyirbal are both languages which use case markings. Latin, however, has a nominative–accusative system, while Dyirbal has an ergative–absolutive one.<ref name="er"/>{{rp|9-10}} By comparing the pattern of case markings in these languages, the concept of ergativity can be made clear.

Because nominative–accusative systems align the subject of an intransitive verb with the subject of a transitive verb, the subjects in Latin are marked with the nominative case marker "-us" for both transitive and intransitive verbs. Similarly, the object is always marked with the accusative marker "-um". <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 20px; align-items: flex-start;">

{| class="wikitable" |+ ! colspan="2" |Intransitive Latin Sentences <ref name="er"/>{{rp|9-10}} |- |domin-us |venit |- |master-NOM |comes |- | colspan="2" |"The master comes" |- |serv-us |venit |- |slave-NOM |comes |- | colspan="2" |"The slave comes" |} {| class="wikitable" |+ ! colspan="3" |Transitive Latin Sentences<ref name="er"/>{{rp|9-10}} |- |domin-us |serv-um |audit |- |master-NOM |slave-ACC |hears |- | colspan="3" |"The master hears the slave" |- |serv-us |domin-um |audit |- |slave-NOM |master-ACC |hears |- | colspan="3" |"The slave hears the master" |}

</div>

Compare this to Dyirbal, which uses an ergative–absolutive system. In Dyirbal, a noun has no affixes when it is the sole subject of an intransitive verb as well as when it is the object of a transitive verb.<ref name="er"/>{{rp|9-10}} Only transitive subjects have a case marking "-ŋgu". The fact that the case marking for the subject of an intransitive verb differs from the marking on subjects of a transitive verb is the key difference of ergative–absolutive languages.

{| class="wikitable" |+ ! colspan="2" |Intransitive Dyirbal Sentences<ref name="er"/>{{rp|9-10}} |- |ŋuma-∅ |banaganyu |- |father-ABS |returned |- | colspan="2" |"father returned" |- |yabu-∅ |banaganyu |- |mother-ABS |returned |- | colspan="2" |"mother returned" |}

{| class="wikitable" |+ ! colspan="3" |Transitive Dyirbal Sentences<ref name="er"/>{{rp|9-10}} |- |yabu-ŋgu |ŋuma-∅ |buran |- |mother-ERG |father-ABS |saw |- | colspan="3" |"mother saw father" |- |ŋuma-ŋgu |yabu-∅ |buran |- |father-ERG |mother-ABS |saw |- | colspan="3" |"father saw mother" |}

</div> With an intransitive verb, the subject does not get an affix in Dyirbal. While with a transitive verb, it is the object that does not get an affix.

==Realization of ergativity== Ergativity can be found in both morphological and syntactic behavior.<ref>For a kind of "phonological" ergativity, see Rude (1983), also Vydrin (2011) for a detailed critique.</ref>

===Morphological ergativity=== If the language has morphological case, then the verb arguments are marked thus: * The agent of a transitive verb ('''A''') is marked as ergative case, or as a similar case such as oblique. * The core argument of an intransitive verb ('''S''') and the object of a transitive verb ('''O''') are both marked with absolutive case.<ref name="mf"/>

If there is no case marking, ergativity can be marked through other means, such as in verbal morphology. For instance, Abkhaz and most Mayan languages have no morphological ergative case, but they have a verbal agreement structure that is ergative. In languages with ergative–absolutive agreement systems, the absolutive form is usually the most unmarked form of a word (exceptions include Nias and Tlapanec).<ref>Donohue, Mark (2008). "Semantic alignment systems: what's what, and what's not". In Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann, eds. (2008). ''The Typology of Semantic Alignment''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>

====Basque==== The following examples from Basque demonstrate an ergative–absolutive case marking system:

{| class="wikitable" ! colspan="7" align="center" | Ergative language |- ! Sentence: | colspan="2" | ''Martin etorri da.'' | | colspan="3" | ''Martinek Diego ikusi du.'' |- ! Word: | Martin'''-Ø''' | etorri da | | Martin'''-ek''' | Diego'''-Ø''' | ikusi du |- ! Gloss: | Martin'''-ABS''' | has arrived | | Martin'''-ERG''' | Diego'''-ABS''' | has seen |- ! Function: | '''S''' | VERBintrans | | '''A''' | '''O''' | VERBtrans |- ! Translation: | colspan="2" | "Martin has arrived." | | colspan="3" | "Martin has seen Diego." |}

Here ''-Ø'' represents a zero morpheme, as the absolutive case is unmarked in Basque with proper nouns (i.e., Martin, Diego, Berlin...). The forms for the ergative are ''-k'' after a vowel, and ''-ek'' after a consonant. It is a further rule in Basque grammar that in most cases a noun phrase must be closed by a determiner. The default determiner (commonly called the article, which is suffixed to common nouns and usually translatable by "the" in English) is ''-a'' in the singular and ''-ak'' in the plural, the plural being marked only on the determiner and never the noun. For common nouns, this default determiner is fused with the ergative case marker. Thus one obtains the following forms for ''gizon'' ("man"): ''gizon-a'' (man-the.sing.abs), ''gizon-ak'' (man-the.pl.abs), ''gizon-ak'' (man-the.sing.erg), ''gizon-ek'' (man-the.pl.erg). When fused with the article, the absolutive plural is homophonous with the ergative singular. See Basque grammar for details.<ref>King, Alan R. ''The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction.'' Reno: University of Nevada Press.</ref>

====Circassian==== {{excerpt|Circassian languages#Ergative–absolutive}}

====Georgian==== Georgian has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in the perfective aspect (also known as the "aorist screeve"). Thus exhibiting a form of split ergativity. Compare:

:{{Transliteration|ka|K'aci vašls č'ams.}} ({{lang|ka|კაცი ვაშლს ჭამს}}) "The man is eating an apple." :{{Transliteration|ka|K'ac'''ma''' vašli č'ama.}} ({{lang|ka|კაცმა ვაშლი ჭამა}}) "The man ate an apple."

{{Transliteration|ka|K'ac-}} is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence (present continuous tense) the agent is in the nominative case ({{Transliteration|ka|k'aci}} ). In the second sentence, which shows ergative alignment, the root is marked with the ergative suffix {{Transliteration|ka|-ma}}.

However, there are some intransitive verbs in Georgian that behave like transitive verbs, and therefore employ the ergative case in the past tense. Consider:

:{{Transliteration|ka|K'ac'''ma''' daacemina.}} ({{lang|ka|კაცმა დააცემინა}}) "The man sneezed."

Although the verb "sneeze" is clearly intransitive, it is conjugated like a transitive verb. In Georgian there are a few verbs like these, and there has not been a clear-cut explanation as to why these verbs have evolved this way. One explanation is that verbs such as "sneeze" used to have a direct object (the object being "nose" in the case of "sneeze") and over time lost these objects, yet kept their transitive behavior.

==== Differing noun-pronoun alignment ==== In rare cases, such as the Australian Aboriginal language Nhanda, different nominal elements may follow a different case-alignment template. In Nhanda, common nouns have ergative–absolutive alignment—like in most Australian languages—but most pronouns instead follow a nominative–accusative template. In Nhanda, the absolutive case has a null suffix while ergative case is marked with some allomorph of the suffixes ''-nggu'' or ''-lu.'' See the common noun paradigm at play below:<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Laughren|first1=Mary|last2=Blevins|first2=Juliette|date=June 2003|title=Nhanda: An Aboriginal Language of Western Australia|journal=Oceanic Linguistics|volume=42|issue=1|pages=259|doi=10.2307/3623460|jstor=3623460}}</ref>

'''Intransitive Subject (ABS)''' {{Interlinear|pundu yatka-yu|rain.ABS go-ABL.NFUT|Rain is coming.}} '''Transitive Subject-Object (ERG-ABS)''' {{Interlinear|nyarlu-nggu yawarda nha-'i|woman-ERG kangaroo.ABS see-PAST|The woman saw the kangaroo }} Compare the above examples with the case marking of pronouns in Nhanda below, wherein all subjects (regardless of verb transitivity) are marked (in this case with a null suffix) the same for case while transitive objects take the accusative suffix ''-nha''.

'''Intransitive Pronoun Subject (NOM)''' {{Interlinear|wandha-ra-nyja yatka-ndha?|Where-3.OBL-2SG.NOM go-NPAST|Where are you going? }} '''Transitive Pronoun Subject-Object (NOM-ACC)''' {{Interlinear|nyini nha-'i ngayi-nha|2.NOM see-PST 1-ACC|You saw me }}

===Syntactic ergativity=== Ergativity may be manifested through syntax in addition to morphology. While all known ergative languages show ergativity in their morphology, only a small portion also show ergativity in their syntax.<ref name="er">{{Cite book |last=Dixon |first=Robert M. W. |title=Ergativity |publisher=University of Cambridge |year=1994 |isbn=0521444462 |location=Great Britain}}</ref>{{rp|172}} As with morphology, syntactic ergativity can be placed on a continuum, whereby certain syntactic operations may pattern accusatively and others ergatively. The degree of syntactic ergativity is then dependent on the number of syntactic operations that treat the subject like the object. Syntactic ergativity is also referred to as inter-clausal ergativity, as it typically appears in the relation of two clauses.

Syntactic ergativity may appear in: * Word order (for example, the absolutive argument comes before the verb and the ergative argument comes after it) * Syntactic pivots * Relative clauses – determining which arguments are available for relativization * Subordination * Switch reference

====Example====

Example of syntactic ergativity in the "conjunction reduction" construction (coordinated clauses) in Dyirbal in contrast with English conjunction reduction. (The subscript (i) indicates coreference.)

English (SVO word order): # Father returned. # Father saw mother. # Mother saw father. # Father(i) returned and father(i) saw mother. # Father(i) returned and ____(i) saw mother. # Father(i) returned and mother saw father(i). #<nowiki>*</nowiki> Father(i) returned and mother saw ____(i). (ill-formed, because S and deleted O cannot be coreferential.)

Dyirbal (OSV word order): # Ŋuma banaganyu. (''Father returned.'') # Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Mother father-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Father saw mother.'') # Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Father mother-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Mother saw father.'') # Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, yabu ŋumaŋgu(i) buṛan. (lit. ''Father''(i)'' returned, mother father-''ŋgu(i)'' saw'', i.e. ''Father returned, father saw mother.'') #<nowiki>*</nowiki> Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, yabu ____(i) buṛan. (lit. *''Father''(i)'' returned, mother ____''(i)'' saw''; ill-formed, because S and deleted A cannot be coreferential.) # Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, ŋuma(i) yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Father''(i)'' returned, father''(i)'' mother-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Father returned, mother saw father.'') # Ŋuma(i) banaganyu, ____(i) yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Father''(i)'' returned, ____''(i)'' mother-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Father returned, mother saw father.'')

Crucially, the fifth sentence has an S/A pivot and thus is ill-formed in Dyirbal (syntactically ergative); on the other hand, the seventh sentence has an S/O pivot and thus is ill-formed in English (syntactically accusative).

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="2" | ''Father returned.'' |- | father | returned |- | '''S''' | VERBintrans |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="6" | ''Father returned, and father saw mother.'' |- | father | returned | and | father | saw | mother |- | '''S''' | VERBintrans | CONJ | '''A''' | VERBtrans | '''O''' |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="6" | ''Father returned and saw mother.'' |- | father | returned | and | ____ | saw | mother |- | '''S''' | VERBintrans | CONJ | '''A''' | VERBtrans | '''O''' |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="2" | ''Ŋuma banaganyu.'' |- | ŋuma'''-∅''' | banaganyu |- | father'''-ABS''' | returned |- | '''S''' | VERBintrans |- | colspan="2" | "Father returned." |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="3" | ''Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan.'' |- | yabu'''-∅''' | ŋuma'''-ŋgu''' | buṛan |- | mother'''-ABS''' | father'''-ERG''' | saw |- | '''O''' | '''A''' | VERBtrans |- | colspan="3" | "Father saw mother." |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="3" | ''Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan.'' |- | ŋuma'''-∅''' | yabu'''-ŋgu''' | buṛan |- | father'''-ABS''' | mother'''-ERG''' | saw |- | '''O''' | '''A''' | VERBtrans |- | colspan="3" | "Mother saw father." |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="5" | ''Ŋuma banaganyu, ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan.'' |- | ŋuma'''-∅''' | banaganyu | ŋuma'''-∅''' | yabu'''-ŋgu''' | buṛan |- | father'''-ABS''' | returned | father'''-ABS''' | mother'''-ERG''' | saw |- | '''S''' | VERBintrans | '''O''' | '''A''' | VERBtrans |- | colspan="5" | "Father returned and mother saw father." |}

{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="5" | ''Ŋuma banaganyu, yabuŋgu buṛan.'' |- | ŋuma'''-∅''' | banaganyu | ____ | yabu'''-ŋgu''' | buṛan |- | father'''-ABS''' | returned | (deleted) | mother'''-ERG''' | saw |- | '''S''' | VERBintrans | '''O''' | '''A''' | VERBtrans |- | colspan="5" | "Father returned and was seen by mother." |}

===Split ergativity=== {{main|Split ergativity}}

Few ergative languages are purely ergative. Many ergative systems have parts of their grammar which do not maintain an ergative pattern, a phenomenon known as split ergativity. Some linguists have claimed that all ergative languages have split ergativity.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Coon |first=Jessica |title=The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-19-873937-1 |location=New York, NY |pages=226}}</ref> The two main areas of grammar that often exhibit a split in ergativity are grammatical person and grammatical aspect. In both, cross-linguistic patterns have been observed which make the split of ergativity more predicable.

With grammatical person, a directional hierarchy has been observed cross-linguistically which constricts which grammatical persons may exhibit ergativity in the same language.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dixon |first=Robert M. W |title=Ergativity |publisher=University of Cambridge |year=1994 |isbn=0521444462 |pages=84-85}}</ref> In languages following this pattern of split ergativity, there will be a particular point on the hierarchy in which everything to the left will exhibit ergativity, and everything to the right will not. For example, Dyirbal has split ergativity on grammatical person and divides the hierarchy at the point of 1st/2nd person pronouns. 1st/2nd person pronouns use an accusative pattern, and everything to the left of it on the spectrum follows an ergative pattern. {| class="wikitable" |+Directionality of splits on grammatical person<ref name="he">{{Cite book |last=Coon |first=Jessica |title=The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-19-873937-1 |location=New York, NY |pages=228}}</ref> |''Ergative'' |common nouns |proper nouns |demonstratives, 3rd person pronouns |1st/2nd person pronouns |''Non-Ergative'' |} The same principle has been observed with grammatical aspect. The directionality hierarchy is as follows: {| class="wikitable" |+Directionality of splits on grammatical aspect<ref name="he"/> |''Ergative'' |perfective |imperfective |progressive |''non-ergative'' |} ====In Hindustani==== In Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu), the ergative case is marked on agents in the perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs (also for intransitive verbs when they are volitional),<ref>Witzlack-Makarevich, A. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations Leipzig: University of Leipzig doctoral dissertation (2011).</ref> while in other situations agents appear in the nominative case. {{interlinear|laṛkā kitāb xarīdtā hai.|boy:MASC.SG.NOM book:FEM.SG-NOM buy:HAB.MASC.SG be:3P.SG.PRS|'The boy buys a book' | abbreviations = PRF:perfective; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense }} {{interlinear|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' | abbreviations = PRF:perfective participle; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense }} {{interlinear|laṛkā khā̃sā.|boy:MASC.SG.NOM cough:PRF.MASC.SG|'The boy coughed.' | abbreviations = PRF:perfective; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense }} {{interlinear|laṛke-ne khā̃sā.|boy:MASC.SG.ERG cough:PRF.MASC.SG|'The boy coughed (intentionally).' | abbreviations = PRF:perfective; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense }}

====In Kurmanji==== In the Northern Kurdish language Kurmanji, the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs of transitive verbs in past tenses, for the events actually occurred in the past. Present, future and "future in the past" tenses show no ergative mark neither for agents nor the verbs. For example: :(1) Ez diçim. (I go) :(2) Ez wî dibînim. (I see him.) :(3) Ew diçe. (He goes) :(4) Ew min dibîne. (He sees me.)

but: :(5) Ez çûm. (I went) :(6) Min ew dît. (I saw him.) :(7) Ew çû. (He went.) :(8) Wî ez dîtim. (He saw me.)

In sentences (1) to (4), there is no ergativity (transitive and intransitive verbs alike). In sentences (6) and (8), the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs.

===Optional ergativity===

Many languages with ergative marking display what is known as ''optional ergativity'', where the ergative marking is not always expressed in all situations. McGregor (2010) gives a range of contexts when we often see optional ergativity, and argues that the choice is often not truly ''optional'' but is affected by semantics and pragmatics. Unlike split ergativity, which occurs regularly but in limited locations, optional ergativity can occur in a range of environments, but may not be used in a way that appears regular or consistent.

Optional ergativity may be motivated by: * The animacy of the subject, with more ''animate'' subjects more likely to be marked ergative * The semantics of the verb, with more ''active'' or ''transitive'' verbs more likely to be marked ergative * The grammatical structure or [tense-aspect-mood]

Languages from Australia, New Guinea and Tibet have been shown to have optional ergativity.<ref>McGregor (2010) Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. ''Lingua'' 120: 1610–1636</ref>

==Distribution of ergative languages== thumb|A world map indicating the morphosyntactic alignment of 190 languages. Ergative–absolutive languages are indicated as red.|375x375px A World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) sample of 190 languages found 32 (17%) of languages use an ergative alignment in the marking of noun phrases.<ref name="fn"/> Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of the world: Mesopotamia (Kurdish, and some extinct languages), the Caucasus, the Americas, the Tibetan Plateau, and Australia and parts of New Guinea.

Specific languages and language families include:

=== Americas === {{columns-list|colwidth=10em| * Chibchan languages * Chinookan languages (extinct) * Coosan languages<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Doty |first=Christopher |year=2012 |title=A Reassessment of the Genetic Classification of Miluk Coos |type=Ph.D. dissertation |hdl=1794/12404 |hdl-access=free |publisher=University of Oregon}}</ref> (extinct) * Eskimo–Aleut languages * Guaicuruan languages * Macro-Jê languages * Mayan * Mixe–Zoque * Panoan languages * Salish languages * Tsimshian }} === Africa ===

{{columns-list|colwidth=15em| * Tedaga, a Nilo-Saharan language of Southern Libya and Northern Chad. * Majang language, a Nilo-Saharan language of Ethiopia. * Päri, although recent studies imply a nominative-accusative system.<ref>Ergativity, by R. M. W. Dixon, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, vol. 69, 1994.</ref> }}

=== Asia === {{columns-list|colwidth=15em| * Assamese * Burushaski * Chukchi<ref name="urlLanguage Policy in the Soviet Union - L.A. Grenoble - Google Książki">{{cite book|last1=Grenoble|first1=L. A.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WUeWBwAAQBAJ&q=itelmen+language+ergative-absolutive&pg=PA19|title=Language Policy in the Soviet Union|date=2006-04-11|publisher=Springer |isbn=9780306480836}}</ref> (endangered) * Hawu<ref>{{Cite book |title=A Grammar of Sawu |last=Walker |first=Alan T. |publisher=Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa, Universitas Atma Jaya |year=1982 |series=NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia, Volume 13 |location=Jakarta |hdl=1885/111434 |issn=0126-2874 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> * Tibetan * Sylheti * Yaghnobi * Pashto }}

=== Australian === * Most Australian Aboriginal languages, such as Dyirbal Certain Australian Aboriginal languages (e.g., Wangkumara) possess an intransitive case and an accusative case along with an ergative case, and lack an absolutive case; such languages are called tripartite languages or ergative–accusative languages.

=== Pacific ===

{{columns-list|colwidth=15em| * Proto-Polynesian (debated)<ref name="e4">{{Cite book |last=Dixon |first=Robert M. W |title=Ergativity |publisher=University of Cambridge |year=1994 |isbn=0521444462 |pages=4}}</ref> * Samoan<ref name="e4"/> * Tongan<ref name="e4"/> }}

=== Papua ===

{{columns-list|colwidth=15em| * Eastern Trans-Fly languages * various Trans–New Guinea languages }}

=== Europe === * Basque

=== Caucasus and Near East === {{columns-list|colwidth=15em| * Hurrian (extinct) * Urartian (extinct) * Sumerian (extinct)<ref>{{cite journal |last=Michalowski |first=P. |year=1980 |title=Sumerian as an Ergative Language I |journal=Journal of Cuneiform Studies |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=86–103 |doi=10.2307/1359671 |jstor=1359671|s2cid=164022054 }}</ref> * South Caucasian: Georgian, Laz * Northeast Caucasian: Chechen, Lezgian, Tsez, Archi (endangered) * Northwest Caucasian: Abkhaz, Circassian, Ubykh (extinct) * Kurdish: Sorani<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229004264|title=A Derivational Account for Sorani Kurdish Passives|author=Géraldine Walther|date=1 January 2011|work=ResearchGate|access-date=10 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=fa/node/426|title=What Sorani Kurdish Absolute Prepositions Tell Us about Cliticization - Kurdish Academy of Language|work=kurdishacademy.org|access-date=10 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Walther |first=Géraldine |date=2012 |title=Fitting into morphological structure: accounting for Sorani Kurdish endoclitics |url=https://pasithee.library.upatras.gr/mmm/article/view/2437/2696 |journal=Mediterranean Morphology Meetings |volume=8 |pages=299–321 |doi=10.26220/mmm.2437}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Jügel|first=Thomas|chapter=Ergativität im Sorani-Kurdischen?|editor-last1=Brunner|editor-first1=Rainer|editor-last2=Laut|editor-first2=Jens Peter|editor-last3=Reinkowski|editor-first3=Maurus|title=XXX. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Freiburg, 24.–28. September 2007: Ausgewählte Vorträge|publisher=Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft|year=2008|doi=10.25673/112574|isbn=978-1-002-74580-9 |url=http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:5-92578|issn=1866-2943|language=de}}</ref> <ref>{{Citation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412222124/http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |url=http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |access-date=2012-11-14 |archive-date=2013-04-12 |url-status=dead |title=Chapter 5. Split ergativity}} (Sorani is ergative, page 255)</ref> and Kurmanji<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |title=Chapter 5. Split ergativity |access-date=2012-11-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412222124/http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |archive-date=2013-04-12 }} (kurmanji is ergative)</ref><ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Mahalingappa |first=Laura Jahnavi |title=The acquisition of split-ergativity in Kurmanji Kurdish |date=2009 |degree=Ph.D. |publisher=The University of Texas at Austin |url=http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2009-12-448}}</ref><ref>[https://www.ling.upenn.edu/nwav/abstracts/nwav36_mahalingappa.pdf Abstract. Laura J. Mahalingappa - University of Texas at Austin] upenn.edu</ref> * Gorani language,<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQKCofxuhlMC&pg=PA166|title = Differential Subject Marking|isbn = 9781402064975|last1 = Hoop|first1 = Helen de|last2 = Swart|first2 = Peter de|date = 4 December 2007| publisher=Springer }}</ref> * Zaza language,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.utah.edu/~u0587010/Papers_files/zazaki-lightverbs.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2012-11-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412222337/http://home.utah.edu/~u0587010/Papers_files/zazaki-lightverbs.pdf |archive-date=2013-04-12 }} (Aniko Csirmaz and Markéta Ceplová, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Zazaki is an ergative language)</ref><ref>https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/744-0605/744-ARKADIEV-0-0.PDF (Zazaki is an ergative language, page 17-18)</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Hoop |first1=Helen de |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQKCofxuhlMC&pg=PA166 |title=Differential Subject Marking |last2=Swart |first2=Peter de |date=2007-12-04 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-1-4020-6497-5 |language=en}}</ref> }}

Several scholars have hypothesized that Proto-Indo-European was an ergative language, although this hypothesis is controversial.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bavant|first=Marc|year=2008|title=Proto-Indo-European Ergativity... Still To Be Discussed|journal=Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics|volume=44|issue=4|pages=433–447|doi=10.2478/v10010-008-0022-y|doi-access=free|hdl=10593/7433|s2cid=55922477}}</ref>

=== Languages with limited ergativity === *In Hindi (Indo-Aryan), ergative alignment occurs only when the verb is in the perfective aspect for transitive verbs (also for intransitive verbs but only when they are volitional). *In Pashto, ergative alignment occurs only in the past tense. *In Georgian, ergativity only occurs in the perfective. *The Philippine languages (e.g., Tagalog) are sometimes considered ergative (Schachter 1976, 1977; Kroeger 1993); however, they have also been considered to have their own unique morphosyntactic alignment. See symmetrical voice. *In the Neo-Aramaic languages, which are generally classified into four groups, only Northeastern (NENA) and Ṭuroyo groups exhibit split ergativity, which is formed in the perfective aspect only, whereas the imperfective aspect is nominative–accusative. Some dialects would only mark unaccusative subjects as ergative. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in particular, has an ergative type of construction of the perfective past verbal base, where foregone actions are verbalized by a passive construction with the patient being conferred as the grammatical subject rather than by an active construction, e.g. ''baxta qtile'' ("the woman was killed by him"). The ergative type of inflection with an agentive phrase has been extended by analogy to intransitive verbs, e.g. ''qim-le'' ("he has risen").<ref>A. Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic and the So-called Decay of Ergativity in Kurdish, in: Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Florence, 18–20 April 2005), Dipartamento di Linguistica Università di Firenze 2005, pp. 239–256.</ref> Aramaic has historically been a nominative–accusative language.<ref>Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill.</ref>

===Sign languages=== Sign languages (for example, Nepali Sign Language) should also generally be considered ergative in the patterning of actant incorporation in verbs.<ref>MW Morgan (2009) Cross-Linguistic Typology of Argument Encoding in Sign Language Verbal Morphology. Paper presented at Association of Linguistic Typology, Berkeley</ref> In sign languages that have been studied, classifier handshapes are incorporated into verbs, indicating the subject of intransitive verbs when incorporated, and the object of transitive verbs. (If we follow the "semantic phonology" model proposed by William Stokoe (1991)<ref>William Stokoe (1991) Semantic Phonology. Sign Language Studies, 71 ,107–114.</ref> this ergative–absolutive patterning also works at the level of the lexicon: thus in Nepali Sign Language the sign for TEA has the motion for the verb DRINK with a manual alphabet handshape च /ca/ (standing for the first letter of the Nepali word TEA चिया /chiya:/) being incorporated as the object.)

==Approximations of ergativity in English==

English has a number of so-called ergative verbs, for which the object of the verb when transitive is equivalent to the subject of the verb when intransitive.

When English nominalizes a clause, the underlying subject of an intransitive verb and the underlying object of a transitive verb are both marked with the possessive case or with the preposition "of". The underlying subject of a transitive is marked differently (typically with "by" as in a passive construction):

:"(a dentist) extracts a tooth" → "the extraction of a tooth (by a dentist)" :"(I/The editor) revised the essay" → "(my/the editor's) revision of the essay" :"(I was surprised that) the water boiled" → "(I was surprised at) the boiling of the water" :"I departed on time (so I could catch the plane)" → "My timely departure (allowed me to catch the plane)"

==References== {{Reflist}} *{{Cite book| title = Searching for Aboriginal Languages: Memoirs of a Field Worker | last = Dixon | first = R. M. W. | author-link = Robert M. W. Dixon | year = 2011 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=tWHiDB9rJ5kC&pg=PA1 | isbn = 978-1-108-02504-1 }}

==Bibliography== *Aldridge, Edith. (2008). Generative Approaches to Ergativity. ''Language and Linguistics Compass, 2'', 966–995. *Aldridge, Edith. (2008). Minimalist analysis of ergativity. ''Sophia Linguistica, 55'', 123–142. *Aldridge, Edith. (2016). Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. ''Language and Linguistics, 17''(1), 27–62. * Anderson, Stephen. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In C. Li. (Ed.), ''Subject and topic'' (pp. 1–24). New York: Academic Press. {{ISBN|0-12-447350-4}}. * Anderson, Stephen R. (1985). Inflectional morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), ''Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon'' (Vol. 3, pp. 150–201). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. {{ISBN|0-521-58158-3}}. * Comrie, Bernard. (1978). [https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/lrc/resources/books/typology/7-ergativity.php Ergativity] In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), ''Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language'' (pp. 329–394). Austin: University of Texas Press. {{ISBN|0-292-77545-8}}. * Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam and Lisa deMena Travis. (Eds.). (2017). ''The Oxford handbook of ergativity''. Oxford University Press. * Comrie, Bernard (1989 [1981]). ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology'', 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press. * Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. ''Language'', ''55'' (1), 59–138. (Revised as Dixon 1994). * Dixon, R. M. W. (Ed.) (1987). ''Studies in ergativity''. Amsterdam: North-Holland. {{ISBN|0-444-70275-X}}. * Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). ''Ergativity''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|0-521-44898-0}}. * Foley, William; & Van Valin, Robert. (1984). ''Functional syntax and universal grammar''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|0-521-25956-8}}. * Iliev, Ivan G. (2007) [https://www.scribd.com/doc/133271099/Ivan-G-Iliev-CASE-AND-VOCATIVENESS On the Nature of Grammatical Case ... (Case and Vocativeness)] * Kroeger, Paul. (1993). ''Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog''. Stanford: CSLI. {{ISBN|0-937073-86-5}}. * Legate, Julie Anne. (2008). Morphological and Abstract Case. ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 39.1: 55–101. * Mallinson, Graham; & Blake, Barry J. (1981). Agent and patient marking. ''Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax'' (Chap. 2, pp. 39–120). North-Holland linguistic series. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. * McGregor, William B. (2010). Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. ''Lingua'' 120: 1610–1636. *Paul, Ileana & Travis, Lisa. (2006). Ergativity in Austronesian languages: What it can do, what it can't, but not why. In A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), ''Ergativity: Emerging Issues'' (pp. 315–335). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. * Plank, Frans. (Ed.). (1979). ''Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations''. London: Academic Press. * Rude, Noel. (1983). Ergativity and the active-stative typology in Loma. ''Studies in African Linguistics'' 14 (3): 265–283. * Schachter, Paul. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In C. Li. (Ed.), ''Subject and topic'' (pp. 491–518). New York: Academic Press. * Schachter, Paul. (1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.), ''Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations'' (Vol. 8, pp. 279–306). New York: Academic Press. {{ISBN|0-12-613508-8}}. * Silverstein, Michael. (1976). Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) ''Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages'' (pp. 112–171). New Jersey: Humanities Press. {{ISBN|0-391-00694-0}}. Reprinted in Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), ''Features and Projections'' (pp. 163–232). Dordrecht: Foris. {{ISBN|90-6765-144-3}}. * Suda, Junichi (2025). “''The'' ''Late-Klimov Model'' for Typological Classification of Active, Ergative, and Nominative Languages ― Re-evaluation of ''the Five Macroroles Model'', et al.”. ''Typological Studies'' 7: 83–109. * Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. ''Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages.'' Berlin: de Gruyter. *Vydrin, Valentin. (2011). Ergative/Absolutive and Active/Stative alignment in West Africa:The case of Southwestern Mande. ''Studies in Language'' 35 (2): 409–443.

== External links == * [https://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2005/05/quick-tutorial-on-ergativity-by-way-of.html "A quick tutorial on ergativity, by way of the Squid-headed one"], at Recycled Knowledge (blog), by John Cowan, 2005-05-05.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ergative-absolutive language}} Category:Language Category:Linguistic typology