Pathways to split ergativity

This paper reassesses the rise of ergative alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan, two branches of the Indo-European linguistic family. Both of these branches acquire split-ergative morphosyntax in the course of their history but via different grammaticalization paths and with different results. In the Anatolian language Hittite, a denominative derivational suffix develops into an ergative case marker, which is restricted to so-called neuter nouns. In Indo-Aryan, on the other hand, a new ergative category with anterior aspectual semantics emerges in Middle Indo-Aryan originating from a P-oriented resultative construction in Old Indo-Aryan.

The split word orders APV and PAV of Nuosu Yi

Nuosu Yi is a Tibeto-Burman (henceforth TB) language lacking sufficient core case markers. Depending on the telicity and aspectuality of the predicates, its basic word order splits into APV and rigid PAV. To be specific, the atelic and/or imperfective predicates are APV, while the telic predicates indicated by the resultativity or perfect aspect are PAV. This paper describes the semantics and syntax of the syntactic PAV and APV of Nuosu Yi thoroughly; and compares them to other TB languages in terms of role marking strategies. I propose that the conditions of split word order in Nuosu Yi are on a par with those of the split ergativity encoded by the morphological marking in Tibetan and some other TB languages; namely, the rigid PAV corresponds to the ergative alignment, and the rigid APV corresponds to the accusative alignment. The study will deepen Nuosu Yi’s morpho-syntax study and show the word order diversity to the studies of linguistic typology. Additionally, the study sheds light on the possibility of extending the definition of ergativity and its potential counterpart.

Morphosyntactic features of progressive in the K’iche’an languages of the Mayan family

The article deals with the morphosyntactic features of the aspectual category of progressive in K’iche’an languages. The analysis is carried out using methods of intragenetic typology. It is proposed to clarify Vinogradov’s classification of progressive in the Mayan languages in relation to the K’iche’an group. Three types of K’iche’an progressive as well as three strategies for the distribution of ergative–absolutive markers in the progressive are proposed. The boundary between the uniclausal and biclausal analyses of complex aspect constructions in Mayan languages is proposed. The application to K’iche’an languages Robert Dixon’s generalization for aspectually based split ergativity is also described. Three strategies of verb argument marking in the progressive constructions are determined. It was found out that all aspectually conditioned splits in the ergative–absolutive strategy of argument marking in K’iche’an languages are observed in progressive (or historically progressive) constructions.

Tense Driven Asymmetries and Clitic Placement in Compound Verbs of Pashto Language

The tense driven asymmetry of the Pashto clause is analyzed from the perspective of the minimalist framework The study proves that the split ergativity in Pashto is tense based and does not have the aspect driven features proposed by Roberts 2000 The study argues that the object is assigned a theta role by the V and the subject is assigned a theta role by the little v The accusative case is assigned by the little v but the nominative and ergative cases are assigned by T It claims that the T head assigns multiple cases as the split ergativity is tense driven It highlights the syntactic effects of the possible phonological processes in combining some of the closely adjacent words and making a single phonological word The study also discusses clitic placement and prosodic inversion to refute the assumption that perfective feature is a strong feature in Pashto

An Analysis on Syntactic Derivation of “Patient + Agent + Ergative Verb”

“Patient + Agent + Ergative verb”, in fact, it is a kind of absolutive structure, in which word order and case marking contribute to its formation. It assumes that “Patient + Ergative verb” is the basis syntactic structure, which generates “Patient + Agent + Ergative verb”. And it verifies the hypothesis by checking of light verbs, the characteristics of split-ergativity and Case Hierarchy.

Some notes on split ergativity in Hittite

The Hittite grammar is characterized by a morphosyntactic split that affects the behaviour of the inflectional classes of Noun phrases (DPs). While a singular neuter transitive subject is marked by /-anza/suffix, commons DPs end with an /-š/mark. In addition, intransitive neuter subjects and neuter objects pattern in the same way, marked by /-ø/, while in commons the object role is marked by an /-n/ ending, which distinguishes it from the subjects. The aim of this paper is to investigate over a possible definition of split ergativity in the Hittite grammar.

Reference tracking in Tima and its interplay with split ergative marking

Tima, a Niger-Congo language of the Sudan, shows signs of split ergativity. If its constituent order deviates from the basic AVO order to OVA order, the postverbal agent is formally marked, unlike preverbal agents. A direct object, regardless of its position relative to the verb, is never marked. Research so far has shown that ergative constructions are triggered by certain participant constellations in discourse. In particular, when the speaker keeps a non-agentive participant, more specifically a direct object, as the centre of attention in sentence-initial position, a newly introduced agent occurs postverbally and receives ergative marking. In addition, AOV and OAV constructions are attested, both involving focus marking.

Object and Subject Case Marking in Behdini

Behdini, a variety of Kurdish, is known to be a morphologically rich language demonstrating both subject and object case marking in an unusual typological distribution. This paper reviews differential object marking (DOM) and differential subject marking (DSM) exemplified by a number of allocated languages, and then DOM and DSM are tested whether they apply on Behdini. This study is designed to answer whether Behdini shows DOM or DSM or whether the way Behdini argument structures are encoded in split ergativity completely governs the case marking of objects and subjects in Behdini. Therefore, ergativity in Behdini is tackled in this study. Data to be applied on Behdini in the process of analysing DOM and DSM are inspired from various studies, and my own linguistic knowledge of Behdini is used for the analysis. The results of the study show that the way split ergativity operates in Behdini entirely accounts for object and subject case marking, concluding that Beddini does not demonstrate DOM and DSM.

Split Ergativity in Syntax and at Morphological Spellout

In a split ergative case pattern, not all subjects that could be marked with ergative case are. A language with a split ergative case pattern is called a split ergative language, but linguists disagree as to what other properties qualify a language as split ergative: an ergative case pattern in combination with a nominative-accusative agreement pattern, or an ergative case and agreement pattern in a language where no syntactic rules make reference to ergative case, or a language with two classes of verbs, only one of which takes an ergative subject. This chapter illustrates the well-known types of ergative splits involving person and aspect, and a range of less well-known types involving stage versus individual level predicates, proximate versus obviate subjects, and different social contexts. Most ergative splits appear to be present in syntax, with the clear exception of person splits which are argued to be purely morphological.