Ergative Case Research Articles

Little‐v0Agreement and Templatic Morphology in Ch'ol

AbstractThis paper addresses typological differences in subject–verb agreement and provides evidence that transitive subject agreement need not always involve a high functional head, namely T0, but may instead be the result of a local relation between the subject and a low functional head, v0. In Mayan languages, grammatical relations are head‐marked on the predicate through two series of morphemes, known as “Set A” (ergative/possessive) and “Set B” (absolutive). I argue that Set A morphemes reflect a local relationship of agreement between v0and the transitive subject in its low base position and, in an analogous structural configuration in the nominal domain, between a possessive n0head and the possessor. Crucially, I show that no higher functional projection is involved. This is important in light of proposals that ergative agreement systems are epiphenomenal, resulting from standard nominative agreement from T0which is blocked from agreeing with morphologically case‐marked ergative subjects (Woolford). In this paper, I examine the morphologically ergative Mayan language Ch'ol to show that true ergative agreement is possible even in the absence of morphological case. This paper has implications for the typology of ergative case and agreement systems and contributes to our understanding of the nature of agreement and clitic doubling.

On ergativity in Bumthang

This report investigates the uses of the ergative case marker in transitive clauses in Bumthang, a language of Central Bhutan. We discuss the conditions under which the ergative is required and show that a simple analysis involving multiple influences models the data. Previous studies have shown that variable case marking may be determined by syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic factors, but in Bumthang we see that all of these factors play a role in determining the use of the ergative case marker. We hope that our analysis will prove useful for understanding the variable uses of the ergative case marker in Himalayan and other languages as well as providing interesting challenges for formal models of case marking.

Electrophysiological Correlates of Second-Language Syntactic Processes Are Related to Native and Second Language Distance Regardless of Age of Acquisition.

In the present study, we investigate how early and late L2 learners process L2 grammatical traits that are either present or absent in their native language (L1). Thirteen early (AoA = 4 years old) and 13 late (AoA = 18 years old) Spanish learners of Basque performed a grammatical judgment task on auditory Basque sentences while their event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The sentences contained violations of a syntactic property specific to participants' L2, i.e., ergative case, or violations of a syntactic property present in both of the participants' languages, i.e., verb agreement. Two forms of verb agreement were tested: subject agreement, found in participants' L1 and L2, and object agreement, present only in participants' L2. Behaviorally, early bilinguals were more accurate in the judgment task than late L2 learners. Early bilinguals showed native-like ERPs for verb agreement, which differed from the late learners' ERP pattern. Nonetheless, approximation to native-likeness was greater for the subject-verb agreement processing, the type of verb-agreement present in participants' L1, compared to object-verb agreement, the type of verb-agreement present only in participants' L2. For the ergative argument alignment, unique to L2, the two non-native groups showed similar ERP patterns which did not correspond to the natives' ERP pattern. We conclude that non-native syntactic processing approximates native processing for early L2 acquisition and high proficiency levels when the syntactic property is common to the L1 and L2. However, syntactic traits that are not present in the L1 do not rely on native-like processing, despite early AoA and high proficiency.

Lak Biabsolutives are Raising Structures

This article introduces new empirical data on the syntax of the biabsolutive construction in Lak that sheds new light on the analysis of this construction presented in Gagliardi et al. (2014). Some case-agreeing elements, such as compound anaphors, are shown to be able to bear ergative case despite the fact that no ergative DP is overtly present in the biabsolutive construction; this evidence necessitates a refinement of the structural analysis presented by Gagliardi et al., which precludes the possibility of ergative marking within the biabsolutive construction. I propose to capture the difference between ergative and biabsolutive constructions by exploiting a potential ambiguity in the content of the functional head Aux above AspP. On my account, the biabsolutive construction is understood as an instance of subject-to-subject raising with a reduced non-restructuring complement: the raising predicate ‘be involved in’ sits in Aux, assigning absolutive case to the closest DP in its c-command domain. All functional heads above AuxP thus bear gender agreement with the absolutive subject.

‘Volitionality’ and Ergative Case Marking in Hindi: Focusing on the Implicational Universals of Greenberg

‘Volitionality’ and Ergative Case Marking in Hindi: Focusing on the Implicational Universals of Greenberg

Ergative case, aspect and person splits: Two case studies

Ergativity splits between perfect and imperfective/progressive predicates are observed in languages with a specialized ergative case (Punjabi) and without it (Kurdish). Perfect predicates correspond to a VP projection; external arguments are introduced by means of an oblique case, namely an elementary part–whole predicate saying that the event is ‘included by’, ‘located at’ the argument. A more complex organization is found with imperfective/progressive predicates, where a head Asp projects a functional layer and introduces the external argument. Our proposal further yields the 1/2P vs. 3P Person split as a result of the intrinsic ability of 1/2P to serve as ‘location-of-event’.

Ergativity and Transitivity

Ergative case is said to mark transitive subjects, and it is widely assumed that this is true under the ordinary definition of transitive; however, Bittner and Hale (1996) propose that ergative languages fall into two types, neither of which is based on the ordinary notion of transitivity. In one, a direct object is not necessary for ergative case: any verb with an external argument counts as transitive, following Hale and Keyser 1993 (e.g., Warlpiri). In the other, a direct object is necessary, but not sufficient: the subject gets ergative case only if the object moves out of the VP (e.g., Inuit). This article argues that Niuean, Dyirbal, and Nez Perce are also of this object shift type. A search yielded no language where ergative case is clearly governed only by ordinary transitivity; languages that do fit the stereotype have only ergative agreement. A formal account of the correlation between object shift and ergative case is proposed, under which ergative case can be used as a ‘‘last resort,’’ as one of three ways to avoid the locality violation that object shift creates.

Limits on Allomorphy: A Case Study in Nominal Suppletion

Reporting on a study of 79 languages (see appendix B), I argue that (morpho-)syntactic structure plays a crucial role in two observed asymmetries: (i) in nouns number-driven root suppletion is common while case-driven root suppletion is virtually unattested, and (ii) in contrast to lexical nouns, pronouns commonly supplete for both number and case. I propose that the structural difference between lexical nouns and pronouns, combined with locality effects as proposed in Distributed Morphology (DM; Halle and Marantz 1993), account for the two asymmetries, which raises the question whether these can be captured in frameworks that deny that hierarchical syntactic structure plays a role in the morphology, such as Word and Paradigm approaches (e.g. Anderson 1992, Stump 2001).

Variations dans l’acquisition du marqueur ergatif en basque par des enfants bilingues basque-français

This paper presents the findings of a longitudinal study of seven Basque-French bilingual children and three monolingual Basque-speaking children concerning the acquisition of the morphological marking of the ergative case in Basque. Following the hypotheses put forth to account for the development of early bilingualism, the aim of the study was to establish whether bilingual children follow the same developmental sequences as monolingual children during the acquisition of the ergative case. The research protocol we have developed involves relatively unguided as well as constrained data focusing on the production of the ergative case in these two contexts. The data show significant inter-individual and inter-task differences in the production of the ergative case that contribute to some variation in language acquisition. The findings lead us to question classifications of early bilinguals based on age of acquisition alone.

The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez

In ergative constructions, the agent of a transitive verb is in the ergative case and the theme is in the absolutive case. By contrast, in biabsolutive constructions, both the agent and theme of a transitive verb appear in the absolutive case. This paper presents and analyzes the biabsolutive construction in two Nakh-Dagestanian languages, Lak and Tsez. Despite many surface similarities, the biabsolutive constructions in Lak and Tsez call for different syntactic analyses. We argue that the biabsolutive construction in Lak is an instance of restructuring in the presence of an aspectual head bearing a progressive (imperfective) feature. Tsez biabsolutive constructions, on the other hand, are biclausal; we argue that the theme and the lexical verb are contained in a PP complement selected by a light verb. Related languages may be classified as “Lak-type” or “Tsez-type” based on the behavior of their biabsolutives. The existence of two underlying structures for one surface pattern in Nakh-Dagestanian poses a learnability problem for a child acquiring a language with biabsolutive constructions. We outline a set of strategies used by a learner who must compare the available input data with a set of structural hypotheses.

Split ergativity based on nominal type

This paper argues that split ergativity based on nominal type is a morphological phenomenon, not a syntactic one. We use three tests to identify the source of this type of split ergativity as morphological syncretism: (i) case agreement, (ii) syntactic ergativity, (iii) coordination. We illustrate the complex patterns of attested splits, demonstrating that analyses positing a single dichotomy (e.g. between first and second person pronouns versus all other nominals) are insufficient. A morphological syncretism analysis is provided whereby ergative case is deleted in featurally-marked contexts.

On Dependent Ergative Case (in Shipibo) and Its Derivation by Phase

Focusing on the Shipibo language, I defend a simple ‘‘dependent case’’ theory of ergative case marking, where ergative case is assigned to the higher of two NPs in a clausal domain. I show how apparent failures of this rule can be explained assuming that VP is a Spell-Out domain distinct from the clause, and that this bleeds ergative case assignment for c-command relationships that already exist in VP and are unchanged in CP. This accounts for the apparent underapplication of ergative case marking with ditransitives, reciprocals, and dyadic experiencer verbs, as opposed to the applicatives of unaccusative verbs, which do have ergative subjects. Finally, I show how case assignment interacts with restructuring to explain constructions in which ergative case appears to be optional.

Transitivity and Ergative Case in Lhasa Tibetan

Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1984), pp. 131-140

Promiscuous Paradigms and the Morphologically Conditioned “Ergative Split” in Texistepec Popoluca (Zoquean)

0. Introduction Many authors have struggled to capture the relationship between the various phenomena to which the label “ergativity” is applied. Languages can conflate transitive objects with intransitive subjects, to the exclusion of transitive subjects, at several different levels: syntactic structure, morphological case marking, and verbal agreement systems (Dixon 1994). While some of these patterns may partially overlap in a single language, the overlap is never complete—no language seems to be 100 percent ergative, by any definition (Dixon 1977, 1994). The diversity of these patterns both within and across languages has challenged efforts to define ergativity in a way that is both informative and restrictive. I argue against the assumption that ergative patterns share some underlying syntactic commonality, based on evidence that, in verbal agreement systems, the source of “ergativity” or “split ergativity” may originate in the morpho-phonology, rather than the assignment of Case in the syntax. This paper advocates a position first adopted by Woolford (1999), that there are two distinct types of ergative agreement. One type is parasitic on Case, typically involving agreement only with Nominative (a.k.a. “Absolutive”) arguments, as in Hindi. A second type occurs in languages with no ergative case morphology on nominals, and crucially does not depend on the assignment of Ergative Case in the syntax (Woolford 1999). I argue that the second type is just one of many examples of phonology and morphology “intrusively” affecting the choice between syntactically distinct agreement paradigms. In support of the distinction between ergative agreement systems that are based on Case and those based on morphological paradigm selection, I present

The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case

We investigate the nature of morphological ergativity through the ergative/split-S system of Basque. We show that in Basque ergative case and agreement reflect structural rather than inherent Case: Agree/Move rather than selection. Evidence comes from the core distinctions between these dependency types, including ergative-absolutive alternations due to absolutive Exceptional Case Marking of external arguments and raising-to-ergative of internal arguments. In consequence, structural Agree/Case systems cannot be reduced to a nominative-accusative basis with an inherent ergative, as has been proposed. Our investigation sheds light on the nature of structural ergativity in Basque. First, ergativity like nominativity comes from the T-system, whereas absolutivity and accusativity are in the v-system. Second, ergative agreement can occur under unbounded c-command through Agree, like nominative, accusative, and absolutive case and agreement, but ergative case requires movement to Spec,T, bearing out the ergative as a ‘marked’ structural Case. Third, structural Agree/Case systems are parametrizable to give both ergative and accusative alignments and islands of exceptionality within each. We develop a theoretical account of these results in the Agree framework of the Principles-and-Parameters approach, building on previous theories of structural ergativity.

Ergative, antipassive and other verb derivational morphemes in Gaahmg

AbstractGaahmg has ergative traces in a predominately nominative-accusative system. Clauses with object focus demonstrate ergative case marking on postverbal noun and pronoun agents, and an ergative morpheme is also bound to verbs. Other evidence for ergativity is that the ergative morpheme is morphologically and syntactically distinct from the passive morpheme. Ergative morphemes and constructions in Gaahmg are similar to those of other Nilo-Saharan languages, including Luwo, Päri, and Shilluk. The Gaahmg antipassive also resembles that of other Nilo-Saharan languages. Yet, unlike other languages with ergativity and antipassives, Gaahmg readily combines the antipassive with ergative, passive, and causative morphemes in the same verb form. The Gaahmg antipassive occurs in nominative-accusative structures, as well as in object-focus clauses with ergative-absolutive structures. Further, the antipassive co-occurs with the passive, as if both the nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive structures are simultaneously present in the same clause, and the language is currently shifting from one structure to the other.

TAM Split Ergativity, Part I

AbstractThis article surveys empirical and theoretical work on Tense‐Aspect‐Mood (‘‘TAM’’) based split ergativity, and offers an account for how it arises. While these splits are typically assumed to represent a unified phenomenon, I demonstrate that non‐ergative portions of split systems exhibit different patterns. I argue that these patterns reflect at least two different triggers of split ergativity: (i) non‐perfective aspects are more likely to be built on complex auxiliary constructions, and (ii) imperfectivity is associated with demoted objects or lower transitivity. Both causes trigger the same result: in the ‘‘split’’ portions of the grammar the transitive subject is not marked with ergative case because it is not a transitive subject. This structural account of split ergativity allows us to avoid positing variable feature inventories on the same functional head (cf. Ura 2006), and also provides a straight‐forward account of the so‐called ‘‘counter‐universal’’ splits (Gildea and de Castro Alves 2010), which cause problems for purely functionalist accounts (e.g. DeLancey 1981). Furthermore, it is shown that the factors which trigger these splits are not limited to ergative languages, but are present cross‐linguistically—they are not visible in nominative‐accusative systems because (by definition) there is no visible difference between transitive and intransitive subjects. The prevalence of splits in ergative systems is thus not taken to reflect any deep instability of ergativity.

TAM Split Ergativity, Part II

This article surveys empirical and theoretical work on Tense-Aspect-Mood (‘‘TAM’’) based split ergativity, and offers an account for how it arises. While these splits are typically assumed to represent a unified phenomenon, I demonstrate that non-ergative portions of split systems exhibit different patterns. I argue that these patterns reflect at least two different triggers of split ergativity: (i) non-perfective aspects are more likely to be built on complex auxiliary constructions, and (ii) imperfectivity is associated with demoted objects or lower transitivity. Both causes trigger the same result: in the ‘‘split’’ portions of the grammar the transitive subject is not marked with ergative case because it is not a transitive subject. This structural account of split ergativity allows us to avoid positing variable feature inventories on the same functional head (cf. Ura 2006), and also provides a straight-forward account of the so-called ‘‘counter-universal’’ splits (Gildea and de Castro Alves 2010), which cause problems for purely functionalist accounts (e.g. DeLancey 1981). Furthermore, it is shown that the factors which trigger these splits are not limited to ergative languages, but are present cross-linguistically—they are not visible in nominative-accusative systems because (by definition) there is no visible difference between transitive and intransitive subjects. The prevalence of splits in ergative systems is thus not taken to reflect any deep instability of ergativity.

Argument movement in the Tiv language

This paper investigates the mechanism of argument movement in the derivation of grammatical Tiv construction. It examines Tiv as a syntactically ergative language and how ergative case is valued as well as the feature computation of T in ergative constructions. Raising constructions in Tiv is defined as hy­per-raising and this paper also provides insight on how features in such constructions are valued so as to avoid a situation which this paper also identifies as feature roaming. The paper also considers the effects of phase heads: whether strong phase heads block movement or not; it also seeks to account for the features re­sponsible for copy movement where it is operational in Tiv especially in subject to object movement. Using the framework of the Minimalist program, this work submits that DPs ergative constructions value their case in relationship with the verb before movement which makes the movement not for greed but to value the edge feature of T; therefore, T in ergative constructions is identified as mere Ts. In raising constructions, the mechanism of case delay has to be employed so as to avoid “feature roaming”. In this case copies left at the extraction sites, overt or covert are still useful in valuation of case in raising constructions in Tiv. In cases of copy movement, the paper accounts for such instances in terms of strong structural features such as Edge feature and complementation. The paper recommends that narrow syntax condition such as Earliness condi­tion is too strict for Tiv syntax and the syntax of other related languages and therefore should be relaxed.

Reciprocal constructions in Avar

This paper examines reciprocal constructions in Standard Avar, focusing on the syntactic positions (S, A, O, etc.) the reciprocal pronoun coca- and its antecedent fill when they are dependents of the same predicate. Avar, a Daghestanian language spoken in the North East Caucasus in Russia, has an absolutive-ergative case marking system. Standard Avar mainly uses the free reciprocal pronoun coca- for reciprocalization. Taken from a crosslinguistic perspective, coca- displays an interesting distribution pattern. The most unusual property of Standard Avar reciprocal constructions occurs when a reciprocal relation holds between the two participants of an event normally encoded as an ergative-absolutive transitive clause. The reciprocal pronoun coca- often appears in the ergative case and its antecedent in the absolutive case. From a morphological perspective, the ergative reciprocal pronoun and its antecedent appear to occupy the A and O positions, respectively. I argue that, from a syntactic perspective, the absolutive antecedent is S rather than O, and that the ergative reciprocal pronoun is not A but still functions as an NP.