accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Wolfgang and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Schulze <W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 9:44 AM

W:

> Let me briefly comment upon some of the recent arguments:

> "Patrick C. Ryan" wrote:

>> A sequence like: "Me hurt. Tommy did it" is a virtual ergative so far as I
>> would judge. I have heard children speak in this way.

> This surely is not ERG-like! It's present tense, we ought to have "me hurts
> - Tommy does it" (or so) which shows that "me" still is in the ACC case
> (without AGR on the verb - "-s" has a "dummy agent" as a trigger. The
> same is true with structures like German "mich friert" etc...

Pat:

In spite of the grammar correction, what I have heard is "Me hurt". I assume
from this and other examples I have heard that 'me', regardless of its
function in standard English, is being used absolutively; and 'hurt', in
this phrase, I would think of more as a stative rather than transitive form.

Pat, previously:

>> (3)
>> However, in Language A,
>>         noun(B)+abs. verb
>> will be interpreted as an activity is performed by an unspecified agent--

Wolfgang:

> This is true for only some ERG systems. In such cases, the verb very
> often gets a plural morphology to install AGR with a "hidden" agent. In
> many other ERG systems, the omission of the "agent" leads to new
> intransitive structures with the inference ABS > AGENT (cf. I-ERG
> boy-ABS bring > boy-ABS come etc.).

Pat:

I have attempted to point out the salience of dividing these sentences into
two-element and three-element divisions rather than transitive and
intransitive categories. Obviously, you do not agree. To my analysis,
'boy-ABS. bring' is a transitive sentence with the object unspecified.
'boy-ABS come' is, unless we regard verbs of motion as reflexives (moves
himself to) as I would prefer, are, for most, intransitive --- perhaps
because many people regard a characteristic of transitivity as affecting in
some real way the properties of an object.

[ Moderator's comment:
  In an ergative system, a sentence "boy-ABS bring" would be transitive with an
  upspecified *subject*, as absolute marking on "boy" would require it to be
  the object.
  --rma ]

Wolfgang:

> Discussing the possible PASS background of ERG structures, Jens finally
> asks:

>> A truly innocent question for information: Are there other avenues that
>> are _known_ to have led to the creation of an ergative than the one
>> starting from an old passive?

> Sure, there are plenty such avenues! Most of them have to do with the
> Silverstein Hierarchy (or its expansion). The less a potential agent in
> (stronger) transitive scenarios is thought to bear inherent agentive
> features, the more it becomes likely that this "light agent" is marked
> by something that strengthens its agentive role. Some options are:
> (alienable) genitives (which can be extended to "heavy agents" on an
> inalienable basis), locatives (esp. with very light (or secondarily
> lightened) agents or weather phenomena etc...), instrumentals that are
> metaphorized to "agent" markers in the context of anthropomorphization),
> true "agentive" markers that are grammaticalized from e.g. a deicitic
> source, topic markers... Another possibility (though related to the
> strategies mentioned so far) is the reanalysis of 'active' structures in
> an ergative perspective (note that I do not want to suggest any 'active'
> typology for IE here, see my earlier postings): the S-split would then be
> harmonized on an S=0 level. All these strategies are based on the
> semantic or functional grading of the agentive (in terms of the
> manipulation of "lightness" and "heaviness"). Naturally, ERG techniques
> can also evolve from a special 'treatment' of the objective: One of the
> most prominent one is that of syntactic and/or pragmatic foregrounding
> which means that O is syntactically referred to as an intransitive S.
> Such a technique may be equivalent to passive strategies, however, this
> is only ONE of the many possible inferences.
> The syntactic/lexicical interface is touched upon when causatives of
> intransitives form the basis for newly established ERG features: Here,
> the morphosyntax of the causer can be introduced in the paradigm of
> other 'true' agentives via analogy.
> Finally, agreement strategies may play an important role in the game.
> If, for instance, agreement is coupled with some kind of person
> hierarchy, the presense of any SAP in a clause may condition agreement
> irresepctive their functional or semantic role. Hence, a scheme nSAP:A >
> SAP:O would necessariliy produce an erg-like AGR pattern (in case AGR
> becomes active), whereas SAP:A >nSAP:O would produce ACC-AGR. ERG AGR
> patterns may also result from the reinterpretion of clausal layers, e.g.
> the structure SV // AOV could be read as SV // A[OV] which means that O
> becomes some kind of closer attribute to the (participle-like) verb...

Pat:

All this theorization is undoubtedly interesting but, IMHO, does not answer
Jens' question. As for lessened degrees of animacy, most ergative languages
have antipassives to indicate this.

Although Dixon is certainly a man who has devoted much thought to
ergativity, I find something inherently problematical in combining ergative
and accusative features in one sentence (a little schzophrenic) which he is
forced to do by analyzing pronominal and nominal structures differently when
they occur in the same sentence.

I think it is likelier that, because of perceived greater animacy (or
definiteness), pronouns have a different method of marking that can still be
interpreted within an ergative context.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)