Teaching & Learning Guide for: Typology of Ergativity
Authors: McGregor William B. 
Published: July 2009

Author’s Introduction

Ergativity refers to patterning in which Agents (transitive subjects) show different linguistic behaviour to Actors (intransitive subjects), which behave in the same way as Undergoers (transitive objects). Such patterning may be expressed at any linguistic level, morphological, syntactic, lexical or semantic. At the morphological level, there is ergative case marking, in which the Agent is case marked differently from the Actor, which is marked in the same way as the Undergoer. Perhaps a fifth of the world’s languages shows ergative patterning in case marking, although usually not consistently. The inconsistencies, however, are not random, but tend to be governed by the animacy of the Agent, tense, aspect and mood, or construction type. As a somewhat exotic phenomenon, ergativity has held a considerable fascination to linguists, and has, since the 1970s, raised intriguing descriptive, theoretical and even cognitive questions, including: Is ergativity a useful parameter in linguistic typology? What counts as ergativity? There is, for instance, controversy over whether lexical patterning as in, for example, the boat sank and the skipper sank the boat should be included. There are also differences of opinion as to whether to include case systems in which the occurrence of the Agent marker is not completely predictable grammatically. Is the notion of subject viable in ergative languages, and if so, which roles should be identified with it? How does ergativity emerge and how does it disappear in ordinary historical change and in language obsolescence? Where do ergative case‐markers come from, and what can they develop into? Psycholinguistic questions are also of interest. How do children acquire ergative case‐marking systems, ergative syntax, and is this more difficult than acquiring the corresponding accusative systems? Do speakers of ergative languages have different word‐views from speakers of nominative‐accusative or active languages?

Author Recommends

Numerous works, including grammar and journal articles, deal with ergativity in particular languages. In the list that follows, I include works (mostly collections of articles) that cover the topic in a range of languages, and/or have been significant in the development of research agendas. These recommendations should be understood as essential readings on the topic of ergativity, not necessarily as works that I endorse.

1. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In this book, the most comprehensive monograph on ergativity to date, Dixon lays out his line on ergativity, building on his 1979 article ‘Ergativity’ published in Language (vol. 55, 59–138). Ergativity in case‐marking, cross‐referencing systems, syntax and discourse are covered, as are splits and their motivations. There is a chapter on diachrony, which shows that both directions of change occur, from ergative to accusative, and accusative to ergative. Discussion is also included of problems that ergativity raises for various current linguistic theories.

2. Dixon, Robert M. W. (ed.) 1987. Studies in ergativity. Amsterdam: North‐Holland (Reissue of Lingua, 71).

Originally a special issue of Lingua, this volume presents – aside from an introduction by the editor – a dozen studies of morphological, syntactic and discourse ergativity. It covers a wide geographical spread of languages, covering most of the areas in which ergativity is widespread. Not represented are Africa [the first uncontroversial report of ergative patterning in an African language did not come to light until 1988, with Torben Andersen’s ‘Ergativity in Päri, a Nilotic OVS language’, also published in Lingua (vol. 75, 289–324)] and South America (much better studied now than in the 1980s, and known to have many ergative languages).

3. Plank, Frans. (ed.) 1979. Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press.

This volume consists of some twenty‐six articles dealing with a range of aspects of ergativity, including ergativity and grammatical relations, ergativity and voice, degrees of ergativity, ergativity and linguistic typology and ergativity in a diachronic perspective. Despite being somewhat dated, particularly in terms of theoretical considerations, the collection presents a wealth of data on ergative languages from most areas in which it is common.

4. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, Robert M.W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

In this classic article, Silverstein shows that splits in ergative case marking according to noun phrase type cross‐linguistically strongly tend to be in accordance with an animacy hierarchy (sometimes called Silverstein’s hierarchy). This is not an easy article, and is not recommended for the faint hearted; nevertheless, it contains much food for thought, and definitely repays careful study: there remain a number of ideas that still have not been adequately explored.

5. Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63.805–55.

This influential article argues that ergative patterning in morphology has a basis in discourse. In particular, Du Bois argues that there is a universal association between the Agent role (see ‘Author’s Introduction’ before) and given or predictable information (his ‘Given‐A constraint’), while Actor and Undergoer roles show no such strong association with information status, and serve as grammatical sites for the introduction of new participants into discourse.

6. Johns, Alana, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije. (eds). 2006. Ergativity: emerging issues. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, 65. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

This edited volume consists of fourteen papers confronting theoretical issues in generative grammar, with original data from a range of languages. As the publisher’s description says, “The overall theme of the volume is the formal expression of the range and limits of ergativity”. For further information on this book, including abstracts for each paper, see <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~ajohns/ergativity.html>.

7. McGregor, William B., and Jean‐Christophe Verstraete. (eds).
In press. Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory. Special issue of Lingua.

Five papers dealing with optional ergative case marking comprise this volume, with a particular focus on Australian Aboriginal languages. The introductory paper overviews the cross‐linguistic distribution of optional ergative systems, and proposes parameters for a usage‐based typology. The other papers focus on particular languages, and explore the motivations for use vs. non‐use of the ergative marker. Two papers also examine diachronic issues, and link optional ergative case‐marking systems with the more ‘classical’ types of system in which marking is grammatically determined.

8. König, Christa. 2008. Ergativity, chapter 3. Case in Africa, 95‐137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This chapter provides detailed description of ergative case marking in the very few African languages in which it is found. It also proposes a diachronic origin of ergative systems in Africa in marked nominative systems, which, although rare in world terms, represent the most widespread type of case‐marking system on the continent (chapter 4 describes these systems in detail.).

Online Materials

The reader is cautioned that not everything available online dealing with ergativity is useful, let alone reliable. I next mention two useful typological websites, and one collection of papers that is freely available. Beginners might like to start with the Wikipedia entry (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative‐absolutive_language>), and follow the numerous links.

1. The world atlas of language structures online

<http://wals.info/>

This website presents the data and maps from Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gill, and Bernard Comrie. (eds). 2005. The world atlas of language structures, published by Oxford University Press. Ergativity is one of the features covered, including some of the accompanying explanatory articles.

2. The universals archive

<http://typo.uni‐konstanz.de/archive/intro/index.php>

This website presents a number of universals of human languages, including universals concerning ergativity. It is well worth exploration.

3. Papers available online

<http://celia.cnrs.fr/FichExt/Documents%20de%20travail/Ergativite/Introductions_ergativite.htm>

This website contains online versions of three sets of working papers (Ergatividade na Amazônia I–III) edited by Francesc Queixalós dealing with ergativity mainly in Amazonian languages; most are in Portuguese, although some are in English. This set of volumes is very rich in data, although wider theoretical and typological issues are not entirely ignored.

Sample course: ergativity

The syllabus outlined next is based on a short course taught in the LOT PhD Summer School, Leuven, June 2007, and an MA course taught in Aarhus University, in the second semester of 2008. Each week’s lecture is assumed to be 3 hours; many of the topics could easily be spread over two lectures for more thorough treatment (e.g. weeks 2–4, and 6) in a full‐length course. When taught in Aarhus University, each student gave a short presentation on an article relevant to the topic for the week. Articles suggested for student presentation are marked with an asterisk in the following (these are not always the best articles, but are short, and some will hopefully encourage students to be critical). In larger classes, the discussions of the articles could be given as group presentation.

As preliminary reading, and/or to refresh their memories, students could be directed to chapter 7, ‘Case and agreement’ of Paul R. Kroeger’s Analyzing grammar: an introduction, published in 2005 by Cambridge University Press.

Syllabus

Week 1: Introduction – what is ergativity?

This lecture introduces the notion of ergativity, overviews the ways in which ergative patterning can be manifested linguistically, outlines the history of recognition of ergative systems and the term ergativity, situates ergative patterning with respect to accusative patterning (especially in terms of case marking) and overviews the course. It may be necessary to introduce or remind students of basic grammatical notions.

Suggested reading:  McGregor, William B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1.480–508.

Manaster‐Ramer, Alexis. 1994. The origin of the term “ergative”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47.211–14.

Seely, Jonathan. 1977. An ergative historiography. Historiographia Linguistica 4.191–206.*

Week 2: Morphological ergativity

Morphological marking of core grammatical relations is overviewed, and ergativity is identified in case inflections, case‐marking clitics, adpositions and bound cross‐referencing pronominals and agreement markers; comparison is drawn with other systems, accusative and active. Markedness is discussed in relation to core case systems: ergative is usually marked in ergative systems,1 accusative in accusative systems (although marked nominative systems also exist). Also discussed are other uses of ergative markers, and the existence of multiple ergative morphemes in some languages.

Suggested reading:  Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity, 39–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

König, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa, 95–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palancar, Enrique L. 2008. Varieties of ergative. The Oxford handbook of case, ed. by Andrej L. Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 562–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.*

Week 3: Split ergativity

In this lecture, types of splits in case‐marking systems according to verb semantics; animacy of the Agent; tense, aspect and mood; and status of the clause are identified and their conditioning factors discussed. Counterexamples are mentioned and discussed, and in some cases, counterexamples are shown to be more apparent than real. Motivations for splits are examined.

Suggested reading:  DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.626–57.

Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9.77–113.

Kumakhov, Mukhadin, Karina Vamling, and Zara Kumakhova. 1996. Ergative case in the Circassian languages. Working Papers, Lund University, Department of Linguistics 45.93–111.*

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case‐marking patterns in verb‐types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19.389–438.

Week 4: Syntactic ergativity

In this lecture, we identify ergative patterns in syntax, in conditions on complex sentence formation: in some languages, cross‐clause co‐reference conditions must be met; thus the notions of pivot, and passives and antipassives are introduced. Other ways in which a language can show ergative patterning in syntax include word order, focus marking and role alternations (e.g. the vase broke and the cat broke the vase), although the latter are not always accepted as representing syntactic ergativity.

Suggested reading:  Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity, 143–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, Michael A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 161–75. London: Edward Arnold.*

Larsen, Thomas W. 1987. The syntactic status of ergativity in Quiché. Lingua 71.33–59.

Li, Charles N. and Ranier Lang. 1979. The syntactic irrelevance of an ergative case in Enga and other Papuan languages. Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Frans Plank, 307–24. London: Academic Press.*

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages. Passive and voice, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 595–649. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Week 5: Optional ergative case marking

In some ergative case‐marking systems, the ergative marker is not obligatory on all transitive Agents; this is referred to as optional ergative marking. The distribution of optional ergative marking within the grammatical system of languages is shown to follow the distribution of split ergative marking. Factors motivating use vs. non‐use of the ergative marker are discussed. Optional ergative marking of intransitive Actors is also discussed.

Suggested reading:  McGregor, William B. 1998. “Optional” ergative marking in Gooniyandi revisited: implications to the theory of marking. Leuvense Bijdragen 87.491–534.

McGregor, William B. 2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 116.393–423.

McGregor, William B. and Jean‐Christophe Verstraete. (eds). In press. Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory. Special issue of Lingua.

Tournadre, Nicolas. 1991. The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative. Linguistics of the Tibeto‐Burman Area 14.93–107.*

Week 6: Origins and development of ergative case‐marking systems

In this lecture, some pathways of development of ergative case‐marking systems are identified; the notion that ergative systems always derive historically from accusative systems is shown to be unsupported. It is revealed that some accusative systems arose from earlier ergative systems. Some origins of ergative case‐markers are discussed, including other case‐markers, lexical items and determinatives. Loss and attrition of ergative case‐marking systems in language obsolescence are also discussed, as is the stability of ergative case systems.

Suggested reading:  Dench, Alan. 1982. The development of an accusative case marking pattern in the Ngayarda langauges of Western Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2.43–59.*

Klaiman, Miriam H. 1987. Mechanisms of ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71.61–102.

McGregor, William B. 2008. Indexicals as sources of case markers in Australian languages. Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, ed. by Folke Josephson and Ingmar Söhrman, 299–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pensalfini, Robert. 1999. The rise of case suffixes as discourse markers in Jingulu – a case study of innovation in an obsolescent language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 19.225–40.*

Week 7: Wider issues

To wind up the course, it is useful to situate ergativity in a wider framework, and topics like the following could be discussed: discourse organisation and ergativity; ergativity and cognition; the acquisition of ergative case marking; the typological significance of being ergative and theoretical implications.

Suggested reading:  DeLancey, Scott. 2006. The blue bird of ergativity. Unpublished manuscript. <http://celia.cnrs.fr/FichExt/Documents%20de%20travail/Ergativite/3dDelancey.htm>*

Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Volume 2, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duranti, Alessandro. 1990. Politics and grammar: agency in Samoan political discourse. American Ethnologist 40.646–66.*

Goldin‐Meadow, Susan. 2003. Thought before language: do we think ergative? Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought, ed. by Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin‐Meadow, 493–522. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.*

Ochs, Elinor. 1982. Ergativity and word order in Samoan child language. Language 58.646–71.

Focus Questions

What is meant by ‘alignment system’? Identify the types of alignment systems occurring in human languages, and discuss ergative alignment systems in relation to the other types.

What motivations or explanations have been suggested in the literature for animacy, tense, mood, aspect and construction type as conditioning factors in ergativity splits?

In what respect has it been claimed that discourse shows universal ergative patterning? What criticisms have been levelled against this claim? How would you go about testing it in a particular language?

A number of claims have been made, of varying degrees of plausibility, linking ergative patterning to cognition. Find some such claims in the literature, and critically examine them.

What reasons have been suggested for and against including patterning such as that illustrated by pairs like The clothes soaked overnight and Harold soaked the clothes overnight? Critically evaluate these reasons. Which position do you consider preferable, and why? If you agree that ergative patterning is represented, what level (e.g. lexical, semantic or syntactic) do you consider it belongs to?

How are marked nominative systems similar to and different from ergative systems? Linguists have suggested both types of systems as the diachronic source for the other; find some proposed instances of each direction of change. What evidence is used in support of the proposed directionality?

Can an ergative language have passives? Can an accusative language have antipassives? If you answer ‘yes’ to either of the questions, what might the motivations for the presence of these constructions be?

Discuss and evaluate the claim that ergativity is not a typologically significant feature. Which linguists have suggested this, and why? Do you agree with their reasoning? (You might like to look at the Universals Archive, listed under (2) in ‘Online Materials’ before.)

Seminar/Project Idea

Ergativity in a particular language

Find a grammar of an ergative in a language in your library, for example, Basque, Burushaski, Cavineña, Dyirbal, Gooniyandi, Jaru, Kâte, Lesgian, Mongsen Ao, Nepali, Nyangumarta, Pitta‐Pitta, Samoan, a Tibetan variety, Trumai, Wambaya, Yankunytjatjara, Yidiny, etc. (It would also be advisable to check journals and the internet for other sources of information on ergativity in the language.) At what level or levels is ergative patterning manifested: morphological, syntactic, lexical or discourse? Write your own description of ergativity in the language based on the author’s discussion and data presented. If sample texts are included in the grammar, examine them and test the author’s claims; are they all supported? [Depending on the number of participants, it might be sensible to focus on one (or a few) aspect of ergativity.]