science

Nominative–accusative alignment

Nominative–accusative alignment is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Nominative–accusative alignment rather than just read about it. In short: In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order.

Key takeaways

Nominative–accusative alignment belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Nominative–accusative alignment to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Nominative–accusative alignment from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order. It has a wide global distribution and is the most common alignment system among the world's languages (including English). Languages with nominative–accusative alignment are commonly called nominative–accusative languages.

Comparison with other alignment types

A transitive verb is associated with two noun phrases (or arguments): a subject and a direct object. An intransitive verb is associated with only one argument, a subject. The different kinds of arguments are usually represented as S, A, and O. S is the sole argument of an intransitive verb, A is the subject (or most agent-like) argument of a transitive verb, and O is the direct object (or most patient-like) argument of a transitive verb. English has nominative–accusative alignment in its case marking of personal pronouns: the single argument (S) of an intransitive verb ("I" in the sentence "I walked.") behaves grammatically like the agent (A) of a transitive verb ("I" in the sentence "I saw them.") but differently from the object (O) of a transitive verb ("me" in the sentence “they saw me.").

This is in contrast with ergative–absolutive alignment, where S is coded in the same way as O, while A receives distinct marking, or tripartite alignment, where A, S and O all are coded in a different manner.

Split ergativity It is common for languages (such as Georgian and Hindustani) to have overlapping alignment systems, which exhibit both nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive coding, a phenomenon called split ergativity. In fact, there are relatively few languages that exhibit only ergative–absolutive alignment (called pure ergativity) and tend to be isolated in certain regions of the world, such as the Caucasus, parts of North America and Mesoamerica, the Tibetan Plateau, and Australia. Such languages include Sumerian, Standard Tibetan, and Mayan.

Coding properties of nominative–accusative alignment Nominative–accusative alignment can manifest itself in visible ways, called coding properties. Often, these visible properties are morphological and the distinction will appear as a difference in the actual morphological form and spelling of the word, or as case particles (pieces of morphology) which will appear before or after the word.

Case marking If a language exhibits morphological case marking, arguments S and A will appear in the nominative case and argument O will appear in the accusative case, or in a similar case such as the oblique. There may be more than one case fulfilling the accusative role; for instance, Finnish marks objects with the partitive or the accusative to contrast telicity. It is highly common for only accusative arguments to exhibit overt case marking while nominative arguments exhibit null (or absent) case markings. In Modern English, case marking is only found with first and (non-neuter) third person pronouns, which have distinct subject and object forms. English

Japanese

Russian

Sanskrit

Differential object marking (DOM)

Not all arguments are equally likely to exhibit overt case marking. In languages with nominative–accusative alignment, it is common to divide direct objects into two classes (with respect to overt case marking), a phenomenon called ‘differential object marking’ by Bossong (1985).

Word order Some languages code very little through morphology and are more dependent on syntax to encode meaning and grammatical relationships. If a language relies less on overt case marking, alignment may be coded through word order, as in this example from Indonesian. Indonesian

In the following example from French, all subjects, both S and A, appear before the verb while O appears after the verb. Arguments occurring before the verb are coded as nominative, while arguments occurring directly after the verb are coded as accusative. French

Verb agreement Alternatively, alignment can also manifest visibly through agreement on the verb. In the following example from Amharic, the verb can be head-marked for S, A, and O. Both S in the intransitive clause and A in the transitive clause are marked by the same affix (-ə ‘3SG.M’), while O in the transitive clause is marked by a different affix (-w ‘3SG.M.O’).

Amharic intransitive

transitive

English has residual verb agreement with nominative–accusative alignment, which is only manifest with third person singular S and A in present tense.

Behavioral properties of accusativity Nominative–accusative alignment can also be distinguished through behavioral properties, in the way a nominative or accusative argument will behave when placed in particular syntactic constructions. This has to do with the impact of alignment on the level of the whole sentence rather than the individual word. Morphosyntactic alignment determines which arguments can be omitted in a coordinate structure during the process of conjunction reduction (deleting arguments from the ends of joined clauses). In nominative–accusative, only arguments S and A can be omitted and not argument O. English

a. Sue-NOMi saw Judy-ACCj , and shei/j ran. b. Suei saw Judyj and ___i/*j ran. c. Suei saw Judyj, and shei/j was frightened. d. Suei saw Judyj and ___i/*j was frightened. The omitted subject argument of the embedded clause must correspond to the subject (nominative) of the matrix-clause. If it corresponds to the object (accusative), the sentence is ungrammatical. If English were an ergative–absolutive language, one would expect to see:

b’. Suei saw Judyj, and ___*i/j ran. c’. Suei saw Judyj, and ___*i/j was frightened. Here the omitted argument of the embedded clause corresponds to the direct object (absolutive) of the matrix-clause. If it corresponds to the subject (ergative), the sentence is ungrammatical. The alignment system also impacts the triggering and realization of other such syntactic processes as raising constructions, subject-controlled subject deletion and object-controlled subject deletion.

Distribution

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Nominative–accusative alignment

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Nominative–accusative alignment claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Nominative–accusative alignment before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Nominative–accusative alignment ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Nominative–accusative alignment

In research: Nominative–accusative alignment appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Nominative–accusative alignment in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Nominative–accusative alignment is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Linguistic typology, Syntax, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Nominative–accusative alignment outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Nominative–accusative alignment” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Nominative–accusative alignment in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Nominative–accusative alignment means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Nominative–accusative alignment out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Nominative–accusative alignment in simple terms?

Why does Nominative–accusative alignment matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Nominative–accusative alignment?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Nominative–accusative alignment.