An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns

DeLancey, Scott

doi:10.2307/414343

Cited by 377 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is typologically noteworthy, since a single direct-inverse marking system across all these domains is not the default cross-linguistically (see DeLancey 2001, Gildea 1994, and Zúñiga 2006.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Encoding in Movima: The Local Domain

Haude¹

2011

International Journal of American Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Argument encoding in Movima transitive clauses is based on a referential hierarchy (1 > 2 > 3 topic > 3 nontopic). Verbal direct and inverse marking indicates the roles (actor/undergoer) of the event participants. The argument with the higher-ranking referent is obligatorily represented by a constituent directly attached to the predicate, while the argument with the lower-ranking referent is represented by a constituent less closely connected to the predicate, aligning with the single argument of the intransitive clause. First and second person can only be encoded in the first way and therefore do not show any alignment effect with the argument of the intransitive clause. However, pragmatic factors can override the person hierarchy: when, for pragmatic reasons, first and second person are expressed by a free pronoun in clause-initial topic position, they can be treated like lower-ranking persons.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Encoding in Movima: The Local Domain

Haude¹

2011

International Journal of American Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It therefore seems to me quite reasonable to conclude that hierarchy effects ultimately must arise external to the grammar itself, from the organization of human cognition and communication -a conclusion in line with various approaches that locate the origin of these effects extra-grammatically (i.a. Silverstein 1976, Dixon 1979, DeLancey 1981, Newmeyer 2002, Haspelmath 2008. Beyond diversity in the status of patterns like person-based split ergativity, the extra-grammatical origin of hierarchy effects has the potential to explain why hierarchy effects come into grammar to such a variety of degrees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic

Deal

2015

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nez Perce is one among many ergative languages that consistently use nominative case, rather than ergative, for 1st and 2nd person transitive subjects. Two major lines of analysis have been proposed for the synchronic grammar of this type of ergative split. Morphological analyses approach the phenomenon as a case of syncretism between ergative and nominative in 1st and 2nd person; all transitive subjects are assigned an identical syntax. Syntactic analyses posit a featural or structural distinction between 3rd person subjects and 1st and 2nd person subjects, or the clauses containing them. On the basis of modification and coordination patterns, I argue that person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce requires a syntactic analysis. Comparison of the Nez Perce data with recent findings by Legate (2014) reveals variation among languages showing person-based split ergativity: some languages require a morphological analysis, and some (like Nez Perce) require a syntactic analysis. A treatment of the syntactic type of person-based split ergativity is proposed, making use of person-sensitive phrase structure as introduced by Bianchi (2006) and Merchant (2006).

show abstract

“…We address this issue by way of a case study of Algonquian and Kiranti verbal paradigms because they are rich in co-argument sensitive markers that could be, and indeed sometimes are, analyzed in terms of hierarchies (Hockett 1966;DeLancey 1981;Michailovsky 1988;Dahlstrom 1991;Ebert 1991;Bickel 1995;LaPolla 2003;Zúñiga 2006). We focus on person categories, ignoring number and the inclusive/ exclusive distinction because only person categories are equally relevant for both families and indeed recur in virtually all work on the referential hierarchies.…”

Section: Case Study: Hierarchies As Determinants In Algonquian and Kimentioning

confidence: 99%

Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apart from common cases of differential argument marking, referential hierarchies affect argument marking in two ways: (a) through hierarchical marking, where markers compete for a slot and the competition is resolved by a hierarchy, and (b) through co-argument sensitivity, where the marking of one argument depends on the properties of its co-argument. Here we show that while co-argument sensitivity cannot be analyzed in terms of hierarchical marking, hierarchical marking can be analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity. Once hierarchical effects on marking are analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity, it becomes possible to examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in exactly the same way as one can examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in cases of differential argument marking and indeed any other condition on alignment (such as tense or clause type). As a result, instances of hierarchical marking of any kind turn out not to present a special case in the typology of alignment, and there is no need for positing an additional non-basic alignment type such as "hierarchical alignment". While hierarchies are not needed for descriptive and comparative purposes, we also cast doubt on their relevance in diachrony: examining two families for which hierarchical agreement has been postulated, Algonquian and Kiranti, we find only

show abstract

An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns

Cited by 377 publications

References 17 publications

Argument Encoding in Movima: The Local Domain

Argument Encoding in Movima: The Local Domain

Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic

Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About