Tripartite alignment
| Linguistic typology |
|---|
| Morphological |
| Morphosyntactic |
| Word order |
| Lexicon |
Tripartite language are languages which share a common morphosyntactic case alignment such that, to some greater or lesser degree, each of the single argument of an intransitive verb and the two main arguments of a transitive verb are treated distinctly by the grammar of the language.
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 clained to demonstrate tripartite structure in at least some part of their grammar[2][3][4][5]. It is generally agreed that tripartite alignments are rare in natural languages[6], although it has proven popular in constructed languages, notably including the fictional Na'vi language featured in the 2009 movie Avatar.
In a language with tripartite case alignment, the main argument ('subject') of an intransitive verb, the agent argument ('subject') of a transitive verb, and the patient argument ('direct object') of a transitive verb are each given distinct treatment in the morphosyntax of the language[6]. This is in contrast with nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive alignment languages, in which the argument of an intransitive verb patterns with either the agent argument of the transitive (in accusative langauges) or with the patient argument of the transitive (in ergative languages). Thus, whereas in English, "she" in "she runs" patterns with "she" in "she finds it", and 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".
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 |
See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation.
The term 'subject' has been found to be problematic when applied to languages which have any morphosyntactic alignment other than nominative-accusative, and hence, reference to the 'agent' argument of transitive sentences is preferred to the term 'subject'[7].
Types of tritpartite systems
Languages may be designated as tripartite languages in virtue of having either a full tripartite morphosyntactic alignment, or in virtue of having a mixed system which results in tripartite treatment of one or more specific classes of nouns[6].
Full tripartite systems
A full tripartite system distinguishes between S, A and O arguments in all classes of nominals[6]. It has been claimed that Wangkumara has the only recorded full tripartite alignment system[2][8][6].
Example
Wangkumara consistently differentiates marking on S, A, and O arguments in the morphology, as demonstrated in example (1) below:[9]
| a. | karn-ia | yanthagaria | makurr-anrru |
| man-NOM | walk.PRES | stick-INSTR | |
| 'The man walks with a stick.' | |||
| b. | karna-ulu | kalkanga | thithi-nhanha |
| man-ERG | hit.PAST | dog-ACC.NONM.SG | |
| 'The man hit the (female) dog.' | |||
In the above example, the intransitive case in (a) is glossed NOM, in accordance with Breen's original transcription. Across (1), we see differential case suffixes for each of intranstive (NOM), ergative (ERG), and accusative (ACC) case[10].
The same tripartite distinction is clear in the pronominal system[11]:
Palu-nga nganyi die-PAST 1sg.NOM "I died."
Ngkatu nhanha kalka-nga 1sg.ERG 3sg.ABS hit-PAST "I hit him/her."
Nulu nganha kalka-ng 3sg.ERG 1sg.ABS hit-PAST "S/he hit me."
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
Realizations of tripartite alignment
Morphological tripartite alignment
Syntactic tripartite alignment
Distribution of tripartite alignments
Full tripartite alignments
Mixed systems
Examples
In this Nez Perce intransitive sentence, the intransitive argument has no suffix and the verb carries the third person agreement prefix hi-:
Hi-páayn-a háama 3NOM-arrive-ASP man.INTR "The man arrived." [12]: 126
In a transitive sentence with two third person arguments, the agent is marked with -n(i)m, the patient with -ne, and the verb with the third person on third person transitive agreement marker pée-:
Háama-nm pée-'wi-ye wewúkiye-ne man-ERG 3TR-shoot-ASP elk-ABS "The man shot the elk."[12]: 126
The Ainu language of northern Japan also shows tripartite marking in its pronominal prefixes, with the first person Ku= being the ergative form, =an being the intransitive form and =en= being the accusative form. 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.
Tripartite languages are rare. Besides the above, they include the Vakh dialects of the Khanty language, Semelai, and, in its singular pronouns, Kalaw Lagaw Ya. Kham, a Tibeto-Burman language, also exhibits this marking with referense to a person hierarchy [4]. In addition, Yazghulami is tripartite in the past tense.[5] Several constructed languages, especially engineered languages, use a tripartite case system or tripartite adposition system, notably the fictional Na'vi language featured in the 2009 movie Avatar.
See also
References
- ^ Baker, Mark (2015). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 1107055229.
- ^ a b c Breen, J. G. (1976). 'Ergative, locative, and instrumental case inflections - Wangkumara', in Dixon, R.M. (ed.), Gramatical 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.
- ^ a b 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 e f Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 125. ISBN 9780521807616.
- ^ Falk, Y. N. (2006). Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1139458566.
- ^ McDonald, M.; Wurm, S. A. (1979). Basic materials in Wankumara (Galali): Grammar, sentences, and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
- ^ Wangkumara examples from Breen, 1976: 337-338.
- ^ Siewierska, Anna. (1997). 'The formal realization of case and agreement marking: A functional perspective', in Simon-Vandenberg, A.M., Kristin Davidse, and Dirk Noel (eds.), Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, p.184
- ^ Siewierska, Anna (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 55.
- ^ a b Rude, Noel. 1986. Topicality, transitivity, and the direct object in Nez Perce. International Journal of American Linguistics 52:124-153.
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
 | This syntax-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |