Split ergativity

Key takeaways

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

Reference excerpt

In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.

Nominative–accusative vs. ergative–absolutive

Nominative–accusative languages (including Indo-European languages) treat both the actor in a clause with a transitive verb and the experiencer in a clause with an intransitive verb in the same way grammatically. If the language uses case markers, they take the same case. If it uses word order, it is parallel. For example, consider these two English sentences:

Jane was chasing Max. Jane was sweating. The grammatical role of "Jane" is identical. In both cases, "Jane" is the subject. In ergative–absolutive languages (such as Basque and Georgian, or the Eskaleut and Mayan languages), there is a different pattern. The patient (or target) of a transitive verb and the experiencer of an intransitive verb are treated the same grammatically. If the two sentences above were expressed in an ergative language, "Max" in the former and "Jane" in the latter would be parallel grammatically. Also, a different form (the ergative) would be used for "Jane" in the first sentence. For example, in the following Inuktitut sentences, the subject 'the woman' is in ergative case (arnaup) when occurring with a transitive verb, while the object 'the apple' (aapu) is in absolutive case. In the intransitive sentence, the subject 'the woman' arnaq is in absolutive case.

Arnaup nirijanga aapu. 'The woman is eating the apple.' Arnaq pisuktuq. 'The woman is walking.' In split ergative languages, some constructions pattern with nominative–accusative, and others with ergative–absolutive.

Split conditions The split is usually conditioned by one of the following:

The presence of a discourse participant (a first or second person) in the proposition. The Australian language Dyirbal behaves ergatively in all morphosyntactic contexts unless one of those is involved. When a first- or second-person pronoun appears, however, it is marked according to a nominative–accusative pattern (with the least-marked case, when it is the agent or intransitive, or with the most marked case, when it is the patient). That can be explained in terms of the high animacy of a first-person or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy. The use of certain aspects and/or tenses in the verb. The Indo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. In Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), a transitive verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the imperfective aspects trigger accusative marking. The agentivity of the intransitive subject. In languages like Dakota, arguments of active verbs, such as to run, are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, but arguments of inactive verbs, such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. Languages with such a marking are known as split-S languages and are formally a subtype of active languages. Pragmatic considerations or for emphasis, contrast, or clarity. In certain Tibeto-Burmese languages, elicited data has consistent ergative, aspectually split-ergative or active-stative case marking pattern, and in natural discourse the “ergative” marking is found only in some clauses, often a minority, usually with some pragmatic sense of emphasis or contrast (DeLancey, 2011).

Examples

Hindi–Urdu

An example of split ergativity conditioned by the grammatical aspect is found in Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu); in the perfective aspect of transitive verbs (in active voice), the subject takes ergative case and the direct object takes an unmarked absolutive case identical to the nominative case, which is sometimes called direct case. However, in all other aspects (habitual & progressive), subjects appear either in the direct/nominative case or dative case (see dative subjects), while direct objects continue to appear in the direct case (the subject of such sentences is differentiated from the direct object not from a difference in case but from the agreement of the verb with the subject as well as other syntactic and contextual cues such as word order and meaning). In the following perfective sentence, the agent laṛkē-nē (boy) is marked for ergative case, while the undergoer pustak (book) is in unmarked nominative case. The verb bēcī (bought) has the feminine ending -ī, showing gender agreement with the undergoer pustak (book).

In the corresponding imperfective (habitual aspect) sentence, the agent laṛkā (boy) is in unmarked nominative case. The habitual participle form bēctā (sell) has the masculine ending -ā and thus agrees with the agent laṛkā (boy).

Perfective constructions with certain VV (verb-verb) complexes do not employ ergative case marking (see: ergativity and light verbs in Hindustani). In perfective constructions, the agent argument is ideally assigned with an ergative case; however in cases like the first example shown below that does not happen. This is because the explicator verb gaī (gone) which although undergoes semantic bleaching but still retains its intransitivity which does not allow for an ergative case assignment to the agent argument (i.e., Nīnā). This is why as shown in the second example below, VV complexes involving a transitive explicator verb (e.g., phē̃kā "threw") can employ ergative case to agent arguments.

Chol (Mayan) The Mayan language Chol has split-ergative person marking. In transitive clauses, verbs are framed by a person marking prefix (called "set A" in Mayan linguistics) that expresses the subject, and a suffix that expresses the object (= "set B").

In intransitive clauses, the subject can either be represented by a set A-person marker, or a set B-person marker, depending on aspect. In perfective aspect, Chol has ergative–absolutive alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a suffixed person marker, thus in the same way as the object of transitive verbs.

In imperfective aspect, Chol has nominative–accusative alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a prefixed person marker, thus in the same way as the subject of transitive verbs.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Split ergativity

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Split ergativity 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 Split ergativity 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 Split ergativity 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 Split ergativity

In research: Split ergativity 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 Split ergativity 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: Split ergativity is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Grammar, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Split ergativity 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.

How to study Split ergativity in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Split ergativity 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 Split ergativity out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Split ergativity in simple terms?

In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.

Why does Split ergativity 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 Split ergativity?

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 Split ergativity.