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
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