Tripartite alignment
| Linguistic typology |
|---|
| Morphological |
| Morphosyntactic |
| Word order |
| Lexicon |
- Ergative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive languageErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativity
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativity
an ergative language would pattern "she" in "she runs" with "her" in "he likes her", a tripartite language would treat the "she" in "she runs" as morphologically and/or syntactically distinct from either argument in "he likes her".
Which languages constitute genuine examples of a tripartite case alignment is a matter of debate;[1] however, Wangkumara, Nez Perce, Ainu, Vakh dialects of Khanty, Semelai, Kalaw Lagaw Ya, Kham, and Yazghulami have all been claimed to demonstrate tripartite structure in at least some part of their grammar.[2][3][4][5] While tripartite alignments are rare in natural languages,[6] they have proven popular in constructed languages[citation needed], notably the Na'vi language featured in 2009's Avatar.
In languages with morphological case, a tritransitive alignment typically marks the agent argument of a transitive verb with an ergative case, the patient argument of a transitive verb with the accusative case, and the argument of an intransitive verb with an intransitive case.
Tripartite, Ergative and Accusative systems
A tripartite language does not maintain any syntactic or morphological equivalence (such as word order or grammatical case) between the core argument of intransitive verbs and either core argument of transitive verbs. In full tripartite alignment systems, this entails the agent argument of intransitive verbs always being treated differently from each of the core arguments of transitive verbs, whereas for mixed system intransitive alignment systems this may only entail that certain classes of noun are treated differently between these syntactic positions.[6]
The arguments of a verb are usually symbolized as follows:
- A = 'agent' argument of a transitive verb (traditional transitive subject)
- O = 'patient' argument of a transitive verb (traditional transitive object)
- S = argument of an intransitive verb (traditional intransitive subject)
The relationship between accusative, ergative, and tripartite alignments can be schematically represented as follows:
| Ergative-Absolutive | Nominative-Accusative | Tripartite | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | ERG | NOM | ERG |
| O | ABS | ACC | ACC |
| S | ABS | NOM | INTR |
AHbuehwhbfu2jj
The same tripartite distinction is clear in the pronominal system:[7]
Palu-nga
die-PAST
nganyi
1sg.NOM
"I died."
Ngkatu
1sg.ERG
nhanha
3sg.ABS
kalka-nga
hit-PAST
"I hit him/her."
Nulu
3sg.ERG
nganha
1sg.ABS
kalka-ng
hit-PAST
"S/he hit me."
In the above examples, we see the first person singular pronoun taking different forms for each of the S, A, and O arguments (marked NOM, ERG and ABS respectively), indicating the tripartite alignment in pronominal morphology.
Syntactic surveys of Wangkumara suggest this is generally true of the language as a whole.[2] Hence, Wangkumara represents a case of a full tripartite alignment.
Mixed systems
More common than full tripartite systems, mixed system tripartite alignments either demonstrate tripartite alignment in some subsection of the grammar, or else lacks the ergative, the accusative, or both in some classes of nominals.[6] An example of the former kind of mixed system may be Yazghulami, which exhibits tripartite alignment but only in the past tense.[5] An example of the latter would be Nez Perce, which lacks ergative marking in the first and second person.[6]
The following examples from Nez Perce illustrate the intransitive-ergative-accusative opposition that holds in the third person:[8]
Hi-páay-na
3SG-arrive-PERF
háama-Ø
man.NOM
'The man arrived.'
Háamap-im
man-ERG
'áayato-na
woman-ACC
pée-'nehne-ne
3SG-3SG-take-PERF
'The man took the woman away.'
In the above examples, (2a) demonstrates the intransitive case marking (here coded as NOM), while (2b) demonstrates differential ergative and accusative markings. Thus, Nez Perce demonstrates tripartite differentiations in its third person morphology.
Realizations of tripartite alignment
Morphological tripartite alignment
Syntactic tripartite alignment
Passive and anti-passive constructions
Ainu also shows the passive voice formation typical of nominative-accusative languages and the antipassive of ergative-absolutive languages. Like Nez Percé, the use of both the passive and antipassive is a trait of a tripartite language.
Distribution of tripartite alignments
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg?lang=en){kind=small} | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (March 2021) |
Full tripartite alignments
Mixed systems
See also
- Ergative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativityErgative–absolutive language
- Nominative–accusative language
- Split ergativity
References
- ^ Baker, Mark (2015). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-1107055223.
- ^ a b Breen, J. G. (1976). 'Ergative, locative, and instrumental case inflections - Wangkumara', in Dixon, R.M. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 336-339.
- ^ Rude, N. (1985). Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse. University of Oregon: doctoral dissertation.
- ^ Watters, D. E. (2002). A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 69.
- ^ a b Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 40.
- ^ a b c d Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616.
- ^ Siewierska, Anna (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 55.
- ^ Nez Perce examples from Rude, 1985: 83, 228.
Bibliography
- Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nicole Kruspe, 2004. A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge University Press.
- Nez Perce Verb Morphology
- Noel Rude, 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce. In Passive and Voice, ed. M. Shibatani, 547-560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins