The Pages of The Gray Wizard

Ergativity

1.2 Ergativity

The term ergative is used to describe a grammatical pattern in which there is a formal parallel between the P-function argument of a transitive predicate and the S-function argument of an intransitive one. This relation (S=P) will be referred to in this grammar as the Pivot Relation. This patterning can be exhibited on two levels:

1. Morphological Ergativity which deals with the discriminatory application of structural case roles to the core arguments of a predicate within a simple clause. This intraclausal ergativity relates to the marking of syntactic relations in derived structure.
2. Syntactic Ergativity which deals with ergatively motivated syntactic constraints on clause combination and on the omission of coreferential constituents in clause combinations.

These two types of ergativity must be considered as separate parameters in ámman îar because it is morphologically split (ergative nominals/ accusative pronominals) but has an entirely ergative syntax.

Note: Although morphological and syntactic ergativity are two separate parameters, there is a one-way implication in which syntactic ergativity implies morphological ergativity

1.2.1 morphological ergativity

In a "pure" ergative system the A-function argument of a predicate is marked with the ergative case while the S- and P-function arguments take the absolutive case. In a "pure" accusative system the P-function argument takes the accusative case while the A- and S-function arguments take the Nominative case.

ámman îar uses a Split ergative system of inflection on the core arguments of a predicate in which the choice of ergative vs. accusative marking is moderated by animacy considerations. In most instances, the use of a given morphological case correlates highly with a given semantic role or syntactic relation.

1.2.1.1 discriminatory function of case

Consider the NP arguments of intransitive and transitive predications.

S V_intrans

A P V_trans

In the intransitive construction there is only one argument and, therefore, from a functional viewpoint, no need to discriminate this NP from any other. In the transitive construction, however, there are two NPs requiring discrimination to avoid ambiguity.

The case system of ámman îar uses different cases to distinguish A-function from P-function arguments of a transitive predicate. Since it is never necessary to distinguish morphologically between the S-function and the A-function arguments, nor between the S-function and the P-function arguments, (they never co-occur), either case could be used to mark S-function arguments.

1.2.1.2 animacy

In the transitive construction, there is an information flow that involves two entities, the A-function argument, and the P-function argument. Although in principle either argument could be animate, in actual discourse there is a strong tendency for the information flow from A-function to P-function to correlate with an information flow from more to less animate. Deviation from this pattern leads to a more marked construction.

A NP is considered higher in animacy if it is to the left on the following continuum

Since it is most natural to mark a participant when it is in an unaccustomed role, ámman îar uses explicit case markings to indicate an A-function argument of low animacy or a P-function argument of high animacy.

Unmarked nominals are represented by the prototypically high animacy 1^st and 2^nd person pronouns in A-function using the zero-morph nominative case and prototypically low animacy nouns in P-function using the zero-morph absolutive case.

Exceptions to these prototypes are marked forms. Thus the accusative case (-in) is used to mark low animacy 1^st and 2^nd person pronouns, 3^rd person pronouns and demonstratives in P-function and the ergative case (-e) is used to mark high-animacy nouns, 3^rd person pronouns and demonstratives in A-function.

The S-function argument of an intransitive predicate is always unmarked. It is a matter of some debate among scholars who have studied ámman îar as to whether 3^rd person pronouns and demonstratives in S-function take a zero-morph nominative inflection or a zero-morph absolutive inflection or some zero-morph hybrid case.

Note that the tripartite system that emerges for 3rd person pronouns and demonstratives does not emerge for discriminatory reasons, but is rather an artifact of these animacy considerations.

The core arguments of a predicate are marked by these structural cases (ergative/absolutive, nominative/accusative), whereas oblique arguments are marked by semantic cases carrying clear semantic content (dative, instrumental, abessive and the locative cases). These latter cases will be discussed in the section on Nominal Inflections

1.2.2 syntactic ergativity

ámman îar exhibits syntactic ergativity in that rules of coordination, relativization, and subordination treat S- and P-function arguments in the same way and A-function arguments differently. It is this syntactic equivalence of S- and P-function arguments in clause linking operations that is meant by the pivot-relation referred to earlier.

In ámman îar, for example, two clauses may be joined in a coordinate structure only if they contain a coreferential NP which is in Pivot-relation (i.e. S- or P-function) to the predicate in each clause. The occurrence of the coreferential NP in the second clause may be optionally omitted.

Consider:

From which we may derive the coordinated structure:

According to the pivot constraints, the absence of a P-function argument in the second clause signals the omission of a NP that is coreferential with the S-function argument in the first clause.

The following more explicit form has also been attested

eleth an i galdran erdullel na ir anarielle erthemiraen

Here the coreferential argument is explicitly marked as patientive in the matrix clause. This form is less common, however, and tends to be used only when the patient argument is unusual or unexpected for the predicate, i.e.

Galdor came (and would you believe it) Anariel kissed him!

However, coordination of the following clauses is blocked by their failure to meet the pivot constraint.

In this case, the syntactic conditions for coordination are not met since the coreferential NP in the second clause is not in the pivot-relation with the verb. This can be overcome by using an Antipassive construction to recast the second clause into a derived intransitive in which the underlying A-function argument becomes the S-function argument.

Note: The English gloss above is necessarily approximate since English does not have an Antipassive construction. However, this construction has the same cognitive meaning as its active counterpart in the same way that an active and the corresponding passive do in English.

The corresponding coordinate construct can then be formed.

In the above examples, the coreferential NPs are all in absolutive case. It is important to note, however, that this morphological marking is a completely independent parameter. These syntactic ergativity constraints apply irrespective of the morphological marking of the NPs involved. That is irrespective of whether the coreferential NPs contain morphologically ergative-marked nouns or morphologically accusative-marked pronouns. Thus,

Despite the fact that the coreferential NP is in Nominative case (der) in the first clause and in Accusative case (derin) in the second, the pivot constraint is met because they are in S- and P-function respectively.

Thus we may derive the coordinated structure: