The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity

Abstract

As any quick survey of the syntactic literature will show, there are almost as many different views of ergativity as there are so-called ergative languages (languages whose basic clause structure instantiates an ergative case-marking or agreement pattern). While ergativity is sometimes referred to as a typological characteristic of languages, research on the phenomenon has made it more and more clear that (a) languages do not fall clearly into one or the other of the ergative/absolutive vs. nominative/accusative categories and (b) ergative characteristics are not consistent from language to language. This volume contributes to both the theoretical and descriptive literature on ergativity and adds results from experimental investigations of ergativity. The chapters cover overview approaches within generative, typological, and functional paradigms, as well as approaches to the core morpho-syntactic building blocks of an ergative construction (absolutive case and licensing, and ergative case and licensing); common related constructions (anti-passive); common related properties (split-ergativity, syntactic vs. morphological ergativity, word order, the interaction of agreement patterns and ergativity); and extensions and permutations of ergativity (nominalizations, voice systems). While the editors all work within the generative framework and investigate the syntactic properties of ergativity through fieldwork, and many of the chapters represent similar research, there are also chapters representing different frameworks (functional, typological) and different approaches (experimental, diachronic). The theoretical chapters touch on many different languages representing a wide range of language families, and there are sixteen case studies that are more descriptive in nature, attesting to both the pervasiveness and diversity of ergative patterns.

Case Valuation in Transitive Clauses: A Comparative Study of Punjabi and English Syntax

“…This study identifies that current approaches to ergativiy, as maintained in some recent works of Woolford (1999Woolford ( , 2017, Legate (2008Legate ( , 2017, Mahajan (2012Mahajan ( , 2017, Bobaljik (1993), Bobaljik and Branigan (2003), and Baker and Bobaljik (2017) among others, do not fit in the more recent developments of minimalist research as explored by Chomsky in last two decades i.e. based on Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT): the faculty of language provides an optimal solution to the conditions imposed by other systems of human mind i.e.…”

“…For instance, Mahajan's recent studies (2012Mahajan's recent studies ( , 2017 still apply case assigning mechanism which is nearer to G&B, if not, it is at least not near to current minimalism. A test case for strengthening the current argument is that if two conflicting but significant studies of Legate (2017) and Baker and Bobaljik (2017) are incorporated in the current case valuation mechanism as stipulated in Chomsky (2004Chomsky ( , 2008, their findings may find it hard to provide a satisfactory solution to some core problems.…”

“…Adopting the mechanism outlined above, this study compares the case valuation mechanism in English and Punjabi. For ergative case parameter, this study assumes the core argument of the inherent case theorists like Legate (2017) and Woolford (2017), among others, that ergative is assigned by little v. However, it intends to provide solution to some problems which their frameworks on ergativity face while providing details of case marking in ergative clauses.…”

“…The available literature on ergativity can be divided into inherent case approaches and structural case approaches. Woolford (1997Woolford ( , 2006, and many others (Anand & Nevins 2006;Legate 2008Legate , 2017Massam 2006;andMahajan 2012, 2017) view ergative as an inherent case assigned to EA by little v at Spec-v position which is a similar position where the argument is assigned θ-role. These studies, however, differ in further details of case marking to other arguments of the clause particularly to IA.…”

“…Another group of scholars (Marantz 1991;Baker 2014Baker , 2015Baker & Bobaljik, 2017), within structural case approach, views ergative as dependent case. They propose that ergative assignment on an NP/DP depends on some other DP/NP, present in the same domain, which has not already been assigned lexical case.…”