The term ‘ergativity’ is used to describe a grammatical pattern in which there is a formal parallel between the object of a transitive clause and the subject of an intransitive clause. The subject of the transitive clause, however, is treated differently. Dixon, in his standard survey of ergativity, uses the following symbols for these three elements: S = intransitive subject, A = transitive subject, and O = transitive object (1994:6). Initially, the term ‘ergativity’ was only associated with case marking on constituents of a noun phrase. Manning summarises this as folllows: “The more patient-like argument of a transitive verb appears in the same absolutive case as the single argument of an intransitive verb, while the more agent-like argument of a transitive verb is marked differently, in what is known as the ergative case” (1996 : 3). Thus, ergativity is the counterpiece to accusativity, where one case is employed for the intransitive (S) and the transitive subject (A) (nominative) and another case marks the transitive object (O) (accusative).
The term ‘ergativity’ derives from the Greek words ergon ‘work, deed’ and ergátēs ‘doer (of an action)’ (Bussmann 1996 : 151) and thus relates to the active – the “more agent-like” – member of the pair involved in a transitive structure. Dixon states that the first use of this term was in 1912 in a study on the Dagestanian language Rutul (1994 : 3).
Table of Contents
I. Ergativity
I.1 Introduction
I.2 Absolutive-ergative system vs. other systems
I.3 Morphological, syntactic, and split ergativity
II. Causativity
III. Ergativity and causativity
Objectives and Topics
This academic paper explores the linguistic concepts of ergativity and causativity, specifically analyzing their definitions, typological manifestations across various languages, and the critical distinction between grammatical ergativity and causative transformations.
- Theoretical definitions of ergativity and the absolutive-ergative system.
- Comparison between nominative-accusative and absolutive-ergative structures.
- Distinctions between morphological, syntactic, and split ergativity.
- Linguistic coding of causativity in English and other languages.
- Critical evaluation of the misuse of the term "ergative" in transformational processes.
Excerpt from the Book
I.1 Introduction
The term ‘ergativity’ is used to describe a grammatical pattern in which there is a formal parallel between the object of a transitive clause and the subject of an intransitive clause. The subject of the transitive clause, however, is treated differently. Dixon, in his standard survey of ergativity, uses the following symbols for these three elements: S = intransitive subject, A = transitive subject, and O = transitive object (1994 : 6).
(1) The master comes
S
(2) The master hears the slave
A O
Initially, the term ‘ergativity’ was only associated with case marking on constituents of a noun phrase. Manning summarises this as folllows: “The more patient-like argument of a transitive verb appears in the same absolutive case as the single argument of an intransitive verb, while the more agent-like argument of a transitive verb is marked differently, in what is known as the ergative case” (1996 : 3). Thus, ergativity is the counterpiece to accusativity, where one case is employed for the intransitive (S) and the transitive subject (A) (nominative) and another case marks the transitive object (O) (accusative).
The term ‘ergativity’ derives from the Greek words ergon ‘work, deed’ and ergátēs ‘doer (of an action)’ (Bussmann 1996 : 151) and thus relates to the active – the “more agent-like” – member of the pair involved in a transitive structure. Dixon states that the first use of this term was in 1912 in a study on the Dagestanian language Rutul (1994 : 3).
Summary of Chapters
I. Ergativity: This chapter introduces the basic concept of ergativity as a grammatical pattern and contrasts the absolutive-ergative system with nominative-accusative and other systems.
II. Causativity: This section defines causativity and examines how English and other languages express causative relationships, particularly through morphological means or periphrastic constructions.
III. Ergativity and causativity: This final chapter critically discusses the common misapplication of the term "ergative" to describe causative transformations, emphasizing the theoretical importance of keeping these linguistic concepts distinct.
Keywords
Ergativity, Causativity, Absolutive-ergative system, Nominative-accusative, Transitive verb, Intransitive subject, Morphological ergativity, Syntactic ergativity, Split ergativity, Linguistic typology, Argument structure, Case marking, Grammatical relations, Dixon, Comrie.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper examines the linguistic definitions and typological classifications of ergativity and causativity, analyzing how different languages structure their transitive and intransitive clauses.
What are the central thematic fields covered in the text?
The main themes include linguistic alignment systems, the distinction between agent and patient roles, grammatical case marking, and the functional vs. formal views on ergative constructions.
What is the primary research goal of this work?
The goal is to clarify the theoretical definition of ergativity, distinguish it from causative structures, and address the common misuse of terminology when describing transformational processes.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author employs a descriptive and analytical linguistic approach, drawing on standard surveys and foundational research from prominent linguists like Dixon, Comrie, and Bussmann to compare language data.
What content is discussed in the main body?
The main body systematically defines ergativity, contrasts alignment systems (like Latin vs. Dyirbal), explores the three levels of ergativity, defines causativity in English, and provides a critique of conflating ergativity with causative transformation.
Which keywords characterize this academic work?
Key terms include Ergativity, Causativity, Absolutive-ergative system, Nominative-accusative, Transitive/Intransitive verbs, and Split ergativity.
How does the author define the difference between morphological and syntactic ergativity?
Morphological ergativity refers to case-marking and verb-agreement patterns within clauses, while syntactic ergativity relates to constraints on coordination and subordination in complex sentences.
Why does the author caution against the term "lexical ergativity"?
The author, following Dixon and Comrie, warns that using "ergativity" to describe causative pairs like "The window broke" vs. "The man broke the window" is potentially misleading and blurs the distinction between alignment systems and general causative constructions.
What role does the language Dyirbal play in this analysis?
Dyirbal serves as a prototypical example of an ergative-absolutive system, demonstrating how both case marking and syntactic operations can align with the absolutive-ergative model.
- Citar trabajo
- Regina Männle (Autor), 2008, Ergativity and causativity, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/112823
