Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:2 (2019) ► pp.222–261

Alignment change in Chukotkan

Further exploration of the pathways to ergativity

| University of Chicago
This paper examines current approaches to studying alignment change and the role of language contact in the spread of ergativity, using the Chukotkan languages as a case study. Chukotkan is exceptional in that there does not appear to be a single reanalysis pathway that can account for the development of ergative case. Rather, the system appears to be the product of several changes that operated in different domains. This paper provides an alternative to an earlier account that claims that Chukotkan ergativity developed due to Yupik substrate effects, which is not supported by the historical accounts of the contact between these groups. This explanation is consistent with a problematic tendency of treating ergativity as a special phenomenon, even though ergative alignment regularly arises via internal change. Instead, I propose that the loss of split ergative case marking occurred due to the reanalysis of a passive participle, which was motivated by the tendency to encode animacy distinctions in these languages.
Keywords: alignment change, ergativity, language contact, reanalysis, animacy, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Yupik
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages and ergativity
    • 2.1The status of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan family
    • 2.2Ergativity in Chukotkan vs. Kamchatkan
      • 2.2.1Ergative case marking in Chukotkan
      • 2.2.2Positional ergativity of verbal suffixes in Chukotko-Kamchatkan
    • 2.3Summary
  • 3.Cross-linguistic pathways for the development of ergative case marking
    • Ergative case via a passive construction
    • Ergative case via a possessive
    • Ergative case via instrumental + zero-marked subject
  • 4.The development of ergative case in the Chukotkan languages
    • 4.1The initial source of ergative case in Chukotkan
    • 4.2The Yupik substrate proposal
    • 4.3Historical Yupik-Chukotkan contact: Evaluating the likelihood of substrate effects
      • 4.3.1Linguistic limitations of a possessive reanalysis
      • 4.3.2Language contact and social dynamics in Chukotka
      • 4.3.3Timing of the substrate effects: Chukotkan vs. Chukchi
      • 4.3.4Other demonstrable contact-based effects in both languages
      • 4.3.5Scope of substrate effects
    • 4.4A language-internal explanation for the spread of ergative case in Chukotkan
      • 4.4.1The role of animacy encoding: Two sources of ergative case?
  • 5.“Ergativity” as a contact feature
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18016.kan
References (49)
References
Anderson, Steven R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Arrieta, Kutz, Brian D. Joseph & Jane Smirniotopoulos. 1986. How ergative is Basque? Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 31. 25–36.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark & Jonathan David Bobaljik. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 114–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1970. Definition d’un parfait en paleo-sibérien oriental. In Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds.), Studies in general and oriental linguistics ( American Anthropologist 73(6)), 6–9. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bergsland, Knut. 1989. Comparative aspects of Aleut syntax. Aikakauskirja/Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 821. 7–80.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2013. Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1998. Pseudo-ergativity in Chukotko-Kamchatkan agreement systems. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 271. 21–44.Google Scholar
Bogoras, Waldemar G. 1922. Chukchee. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, part 21 (BAE-Bulletin 40), 631–903. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Degrees of ergativity: Some Chukchee evidence. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 219–240. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica 1(1). 61–74.Google Scholar
. 1981. The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. Language contact in northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and Kamchatka). In Ernst Håkon Jahr & Ingvild Broch (eds.), Language contact in the Arctic, 33–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2019-04-03.)
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2015. On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dikov, N. N. 1979. Drevnie kultury severo-vostočnoj Azii. Moskow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael. 1994. A sketch grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University BA thesis.Google Scholar
. 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Forsyth, James. 1992. A history of the peoples of Siberia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1995. The historical source and typological position of ergativity in Eskimo languages. Ètudes/Inuit/Studies 19(2). 61–75.Google Scholar
. 1997. Eskimo influence on the formation of the Chukotkan ergative clause. Studies in Language 21(2). 369–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Language relations across the Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
. 2003. Diachronic typology and the genealogical unity of Chukotko-Kamchatkan. Linguistic Typology 7(1). 51–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Comparative Chukotko-Kamchatkan dictionary. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2). 261–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2001. Ergative to accusative: Comparing evidence from Inuktitut. In Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 205–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2013. Multiple sources and multiple cases multiply explored. Studies in Language 27(3). 675–691.Google Scholar
Krupnik, Igor & Michael Chlenov. 2013. Yupik transitions: Change and survival at Bering Strait, 1900–1960. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.Google Scholar
Levin, M. G. 1963. Ethnic origins of the peoples of northeastern Asia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1967. Multiple versus simple causation in linguistic change. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 1228–1246. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The emergence of agentive systems. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment systems, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1979. Degrees of ergativity in Chukchee. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 241–262. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reuse, Willem J. de. 1994. Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. Chukchi, English, and Eskimo: A survey of jargons in the Chukotka Peninsula area. In Ernst Håkon Jahr & Ingvild Broch (eds.), Language contact in the Arctic, 47–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Alignment of verbal person marking. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2019-04-03.)
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Skorik, Petr Ja. 1961/1977. Grammatika Chukotskogo jazyka [The grammar of Chukchi]. Moscow & Leningrad: Akademija Nauk USSR.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1979. On the origins of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 385–404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tuite, Kevin. 1999. The myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund: The case of ergativity. Lingua 1081. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vakhtin, Nikolai. 1998. Endangered languages in northeast Siberia: Siberian Yupik and other languages of Chukotka. In Erich Kasten (ed.), Bicultural education in the north: Ways of preserving and enhancing indigenous peoples’ languages and traditional knowledge, 159–173. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
Vdovin, I. S. 1961. Eskimosskie elementy v kul’ture čukčej i korjakov. Sibirskij Ètnografičeskij Sbornik 31. 27–63.Google Scholar
Volodin, Aleksandr P. 1976. Itel’menskyj jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
1992. Chukotsko-KamCatskie jazyki. In Aleksandr P. Volodin, Nikolai B. Vakhtin & Andrej A. Kibrik (eds.), Jazyki mira: Paleoaziatskie jazyki, 12–22. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk Institut Jazykoznanija.Google Scholar
Whitman, John & Yuko Yanagida. 2012. The formal syntax of alignment change. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change, 177–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhukova, Alevtina N. 1978. Dialektologicheskoe i lingvogeograficheskoe issledovanie chukotsko-kamchatskikh jazykov. In M. A. Borodina (ed.), Narody i jazyki Sibiri, 78–83. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka.Google Scholar