Split Ergativity is not about Ergativity

Abstract

This chapter argues that split ergativity is epiphenomenal, and that the factors which trigger its appearance are not limited to ergative systems in the first place. In both aspectual and person splits, the split is the result of a bifurcation of the clause into two distinct case/agreement domains, which renders the clause structurally intransitive. Since intransitive subjects do not appear with ergative marking, this straightforwardly accounts for the absence of ergative morphology. Crucially, such bifurcation is not specific to ergative languages; it is simply obfuscated in nominative-accusative environments because there, by definition, transitive and intransitive subjects pattern alike. The account also derives the universal directionality of splits, by linking the structure that is added to independent facts: the use of locative constructions in nonperfective aspects (Bybee et al. 1994, Laka 2006, Coon 2013), and the requirement that 1st/2nd person arguments be structurally licensed (Bejar & Rezac 2003, Preminger 2014).

On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case

“…The big question, then, is how to account for the fact that AK, like most varieties of Kurmanji, is a split ‐ergative language, not a uniformly ergative language, such that (13a) applies in past clauses but not in present clauses. Recent work on split ergativity has shown that splits can be attributed to phase‐theory domains (Baker , Coon & Preminger ): in order for dependent case (here ergative) to be assigned, NP1 and NP2 must be in the same spellout domain, in accordance with Chomsky's Phase Impenetrability Condition. When they are in different spellout domains, one NP is not visible to the other, and dependent case is not assigned.…”

“…What more precisely is the variable phase head that gives this result? For Coon & Preminger (), aspect is the crucial factor. Imperfective aspect splits the clause into two case domains, resulting in the absence of dependent‐case assignment.…”

“…In fact, a straightforward explanation for this is available to us in terms of phase theory. Recall from section that in order to explain the split‐ergative case pattern in Kurmanji, we assumed, following Baker () and Coon & Preminger (), that some vs are phase heads in AK while others are not. In particular, we argued that v pres , an ingredient in the present‐tense stem, is a phase head, whereas the v past component of the past stem is not, because of its passive nature (diachronically, and perhaps also synchronically).…”

Georgian stem formants and nominalization

“…Stem formants and split ergativity One final argument for a nominalization analysis of stem formants is that it brings Georgian split ergativity in line with analyses of Basque (Laka, 2006) and Chol (Coon and Preminger, 2015), which treat split ergativity as the result of a biclausal structure created by a nominal domain below the subject. As with Georgian, non-perfect tenses and aspects require extra structure and do not assign ergative case to their subjects.…”

“…As with Georgian, non-perfect tenses and aspects require extra structure and do not assign ergative case to their subjects. This split based on the restriction that "in order to appear as a complement to a nonperfective aspect marker, a stem must be nominalized" (Coon and Preminger, 2015). Although much more work is necessary, this restriction is intuitively appropriate for the move from 'linear' and 'punctual' aspect in ProtoGeorgian, to the more diverse aspects available in Modern Georgian, as the addition of the feature [+collective] could allow an Aspect head to pick out sets of sub-events within the collection.…”