Split Ergativity Research Articles

Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity (review)

This collection of 16 articles exploring the structural interdependence between tense, moodand aspect in a diverse variety of (mostly Eurasian) languages is appropriately dedicatedas a Festschrift to the Russian linguist Vladimir Nedyalkov, one of the most importantSoviet specialists in the typological study of aspect and valence categories. A listing ofNedyalkov’s main publications appears on pp. xix–xxxiii. Most are in Russian and notaccessible to the majority of Western linguists, though note Nedyalkov (1988). The listreveals that many of the volume’s contributions deal with the same Eurasian languagesthat served as the scholar’s main focus of interest. There is little additional information onNedyalkov’s fruitful career; instead, the editors point the interested reader to Litvinov andNedyalkov (1995). The editors’ introduction (pp. xi–xviii) focusses briefly on the generalhistory of the typological study of TAM (tense-aspect-mood) categories and highlights thecontents of the volume, which is divided thematically into three parts. Important recentprecursors to the descriptive/functional approach taken by the contributing articles includeHopper (1982), Dahl (1985), Bybee (1985), Thieroff and Ballweg (1994), and Thieroff(1995). Many of the articles also make recourse to the concise definitions of conceptsfound in Bernard Comrie’s lucid overviews of tense (1985) and aspect (1976). A thirdkey influence derives from EUROTYPE, an ongoing typology-oriented project aimed atproviding a comprehensive structural description of European languages.Part I is entitled “Transitivity, causativity and tense-aspect: Interdependencies”. “As-pect and transitivityof iterativeconstructions inWarrungu” (pp.3–19), by Tasaku Tsunoda,revealsatypologicalconnection betweenintransitivityandtheimperfectiveinalanguage ofnortheastAustraliatheauthordescribesas“virtuallyextinct”(p.3). LeonidKulikov’s“Splitcausativity: Remarks on correlations between transitivity, aspect, and tense” (pp. 21–42)deals with the early Vedic verb system. Kulikov demonstrates an unexpected dependencebetween present tense and transitivity, on the one hand, and intransitivity and perfectforms, on the other. He notes that a similar interdependence has been detected in Yukaghir(northeast Siberia) and Aleut. “Conceptualization and aspect in some Asian languages”(pp. 43–62), by Kazuyuki Kiryu, investigates periphrastic progressive aspect constructionsin Japanese, Korean, and Newari (Tibeto-Burman) from a conceptual perspective, contrast-ing them with the cognitive type of tense/aspect systems prevalent in European languages.In “Evidentiality, transitivity and split ergativity: Evidence from Svan” (pp. 63–95), NinaSumbatova demonstrates a correlation between evidentiality and transitivity by examiningcase-marking in Svan, a language closely related to Georgian. The last article in Part I,“On the semantics of some Russian causative constructions: Aspect, control, and types ofcausation” (pp. 97–113), by Tatiana v. Bulygina and Alexei D. Shmelev, shows that the

The Interpretation of tu and Kavalan Ergativity

Kavalan, an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan, has been variously analyzed as accusative, ergative, and split ergative. These different conclusions stem from the fact that certain two-argument clause patterns are ambiguous regarding transitivity. To settle the matter, it is necessary to distinguish canonical transitive clauses from dyadic intransitive clauses. In this paper, we evaluate three proposals that have been made concerning Kavalan transitivity and actancy structure in terms of their morphosyntactic and semantic properties. We pay special attention to the form tu and determine that it is best analyzed as an oblique marker rather than as an accusative marker. We also conclude that there is only one canonical transitive construction, that found in two-argument -an clauses. The two-argument m- clauses, commonly analyzed as canonical transitives in most previous analyses, are treated as extended intransitives or pseudo-transitives--a type of intransitive clause. This leads to the conclusion that Kav alan is best analyzed as a purely ergative language. 1. INTRODUCTION (1) In the studies of Formosan, Philippine, and other western Austronesian languages as well, (2) the distinction between valency and transitivity has often been neglected. Many Austronesianists equate monadic clauses with intransitive clauses, and dyadic clauses with transitive clauses without considering the relevant morphosyntactic and semantic properties that each exhibits. As a result, many such languages are analyzed as having two distinct types of transitive constructions and an unconditional split-ergative system, something that is typologically unusual. Kavalan, an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan, has been commonly analyzed in this way. This paper reviews these analyses from a broad typological perspective and determines the canonical transitive construction and actancy structure of Kavalan based on morphosyntactic and semantic criteria. We hope thereby to shed new light on the study of western Austronesian syntax generally. We begin with a brief introduction to our theoretical orientation in section 2. We summarize previous analyses of Kavalan transitivity and actancy structure in section 3. Finally, in section 4, we evaluate three proposals concerning Kavalan transitivity and actancy based on morphosyntactic and semantic criteria (see Hopper and Thompson [1980] and Gibson and Starosta [1990] for detailed discussion). It is shown that the form tu is best analyzed as an oblique marker rather than as an accusative marker. Moreover, based on the morphosyntactic and semantic properties that Kavalan clauses exhibit, we conclude that there is only one canonical transitive construction in Kavalan, that involving two-argument -an clauses. Two argument m- clauses, which have been commonly analyzed as canonical transitives in previous analyses, are treated as extended intransitives or pseudo-transitives, a type of intransitive clause. By analyzing the dyadic -an clauses as canonical transitives and the dyadic m- clauses as extended intra nsitives, we will conclude that Kavalan is best analyzed as a pure ergative language, rather than as an accusative or split-ergative language. 2. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION (3) In this paper, we employ a revised version of Dixon's Basic Linguistic Theory to describe Kavalan clause structure. Some notions that are crucial to the discussion of Kavalan clause structures are discussed in this section. 2.1 CORE ARGUMENTS VS. PERIPHERAL ARGUMENTS Basic Linguistic Theory as outlined in Dixon (1979, 1994) and Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000) distinguishes core arguments from peripheral arguments (also called adjuncts). The occurrence of core arguments is determined by the head (usually a verb) of a clause. The core arguments must be stated (or be understood from the context) for a clause to be acceptable. …

A NOTE ON MAYAN ‘CRAZY’ ANTIPASSIVIZATION

This paper examines an apparently odd situation occurring in three Mayan languages of the Great Kanjobalan branch in the expression of the progressive aspect. Besides showing aspectually conditioned split ergativity, in transitive sentences the verb in these languages is marked with an antipassive suffix. Kaufman (1990) calls this crazy antipassivization. An attempt is made to explain this craziness by examining the semantics of both categories involved: progressive aspect and antipassive voice. The synchronic structure is hypothesized to have arisen as a result of an echeloned reanalysis involving these two phenomena

Split Ergativity and Word Order in Ch'orti'

L'A. decrit les modeles generalement observes de l'ergativite/ergativite eclatee en relation avec la presentation du cas, du temps/aspect, du topic, du type d'information ancien vs. nouveau. Il examine ensuite la maniere dont se realisent ces modeles au niveau de l'ordre des mots dans des phrases transitives et intransitives en ch'orti' (langue maya du Guatemala). Il demontre comment un systeme parallele d'ergativite eclatee apparait au niveau de l'ordre des marqueurs de personne

Split syntactic ergativity: toward an implicational hierarchy

Cet article discute des donnees provenant de dix langues qui presentent des constructions syntaxiques ergatives. Alors que des langues comme le dyirbal manifestant une ergativite syntaxique nette sont assez rares, celles pour lesquelles l'ergativite est partielle ou eclatee ne constituent pas un cas si exceptionnel. Sur la base de ces donnees une hierarchie des constructions est proposee

An Interpretation of Split Ergativity in Indo-Iranian Languages

SUMMARY This paper investigates three problems related to the phenomenon of split ergativity in several Indo-Iranian languages. (1) In ergative tenses Pashto and Kashmiri belong to the canonical ergative-absolutive type — irrespective of the definiteness of the nominal P(atient) — while Sindhî and LahndS pattern erga-tively only if P is indefinite. (2) In the case of pronominal arguments the rare antiabsolutive encodes the transitive Subject in ergative tenses and O in non-ergative tenses; the superabsolutive encodes the intransitive S, O in ergative tenses and the transitive S in non-ergative tenses. The Sindhf and Lahnda systems are based on the antiabsolutive without any traces of the superabsolutive. In Section (3) some historical evidence for the antiabsolutive patterning of pronominal clitics in both Middle Indie and Middle Iranian is presented. However, only in Middle Iranian there are some instances of the incipient superabsolutive which are evaluated as an ancestor of the contemporary Pashto superabsolutive (cf. zeyem "I am" and ze=ye vulid=em "he saw me" where the marker of the ergative O = em is a recategorized clitic form of the copula; originally I=his seen=am). RÉSUMÉ Cet article étudie trois problèmes liés au phénomène de l'ergativité partielle en plusieurs langues indo-iraniennes. (1) Aux temps ergatifs, le pachto et le cachemiri appartiennent au type canonique ergatif-absolutif— sans tenir compte de la nature définie-indéfinie du P(atient) nominal — tandis que le sindhi et lahnda appartiennent à ce type-ci seulement en cas du P indéfini. (2) En pachto et en cachemiri, pour les arguments pronominaux le type rare anti-absolutif-hyper-absolutif s'avère en quelques personnes du verbe (deux Ps sont a distinguer, à savoir, l'O(bjet) du predicat transitif aux temps ergatifs, pas aux temps non-ergatifs. L'anti-absolutif encode le S(ujet) transitif aux temps ergatifs et l'O aux temps non-ergatifs; le hyper-absolutif encode le S intransitif, l'O aux temps ergatifs et le S transitif aux temps non-ergatifs. Les systèmes du sindhi et du lahnda sont basés sur l'anti-absolutif sans aucune trace du hyper-absolutif. Dans (3) l'évidence historique pour le comportement antiabsolutif des clitiques pronominaux en moyen indien et iranien est présentée. En moyen iranien uniquement, il y a quelques exemples du hyper-absolutif naissant. Ceux-ci sont considérés comme le devancier du hyper-absolutif en pachto contemporain (cf. ze yem "je suis" et ze-ye vúlid-em "il m'a vu" où le suffixe de l'O ergatif -dm est la forme clitique de la copule récate-gorisée; originellement je=son vu=suis). ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In diesem Aufsatz werden drei Probleme untersucht, die sich auf das Phänomen der gespaltenen Ergativität in einzelnen indo-iranischen Sprachen beziehen. (1) In den ergativen Tempora — ungeachtet der Bestimmtheit des nominalen P(atienten) — gehören Puschtu und Kaschmiri zum kanonischen ergativ-absolutivischen Typus, während Sindhf und Lahnda nur dann, wenn P unbestimmt ist, zu diesem Typus gehören. (2) Im Falle der pronominalen Argumente ergibt sich der seltene antiabsolutiv-superabsolutivische Typus in verschiedenen Personen in Puschtu und Kaschmiri (zwei verschiedene Ps werden unterschieden: das O(bjekt) der transitiven Prädikate in ergativen im Gegensatz zu nicht-ergativen Tempora). Der Antiabsolutiv grammatikalisiert das transitive S(ubjekt) in ergativen und das O in nicht-ergativen Tempora; der Superabsolutiv grammatikalisiert das intransitive S, O in ergativen und das transitive S in nicht-ergativen Tempora. Die Système des Sindhf und Lahnda beruhen auf dem Antiabsolutiv ohne etwaige Spuren des Superabsolutivs auf-zuweisen. In (3) wird der historische Nachweis fur das antiabsolutivische Ver-halten der pronominalen Enklitika im Mittelindischen und Mitteliranischen geführt. Nur das Mitteliranische bietet ein paar Beispiele des in der Ent-wicklung befindlichen Superabsolutivs an, die hier als Vorfahr des Superabsolutivs im heutigen Puschtu beurteilt werden (vgl. ze yem "Ich bin" und ze-ye vúlid-em "er sah mich", wo das Merkmal des ergativen O =am eine rekate-gorisierte klitische Form der Kopula ist; ursprunglich: Ich=sein gesehe-ner=bin).

A note on split ergativity in Burushaski

In his pioneer work on the Burushaski language, Lorimer (1935a:64) noted the existence of what has been later described as an ergative construction: the subject of a transitive verb is in the ergative case (a special case, usually marked by the suffix-e) while the subject of inttransitive verbs, as well as the object of transitive verbs, are in the absolutive case (morphologically unmarked) as appears in the examples 1(a)-(c) below:

An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns

An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns