Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 413–456

Pathways to split ergativity

The rise of ergative alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan

ORCID logo | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway | Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt a.M.

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.

Keywords: alignment change, case marking, agreement, Indo-European, Anatolian, Indo-Aryan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminological and theoretical preliminaries
  • 3.The development of split-ergativity in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan
    • 3.1Philological preliminaries
    • 3.2The rise of NP-based split-ergativity in Hittite
    • 3.3The development of aspect-based split ergativity in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan
  • 4.Emerging NP-based and aspect-based split-ergativity: The case of Anatolian and Indo-Aryan
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 11 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19046.dah
References
Benveniste, Émile
1962 Les substantifs en -ant du Hittite. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 571, 44–51.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2010 Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1977 Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit
2016 On the establishment of ergative alignment during the Late Middle Indo-Aryan period. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.) Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2017 Hindi/Urdu and related languages. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 808–832. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
2017 Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan diachrony. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagluca
1994 The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
2005 Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1), 1–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor
2016 The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger
2017 Split ergativity is not about ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 226–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2008 Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica 42(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 59–110. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein
2010 Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring inflectional semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Toward a formal model of semantic change: A neo-Reichenbachian approach to the development of the Vedic past tense system. Lingua Posnaniensis 57(1), 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.), Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena & Jóhanna Barðdal
2018 Case marking of predicative possession in Vedic. The genitive, the dative, the locative. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen Mark Carey (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, 181–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dardano, Paola
2010 Zur anatolischen Morphosyntax: das Suffix -(a)nt- und seine Bildungen. in: Aygul Süel (ed.), Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, 173–188. Ankara: T.C. Çorum Valiliği.Google Scholar
2013 L’allineamento sintattico delle lingue indoeuropee dell’Anatolia: vecchi problemi e nuove proposte alla luce di una recente pubblicazione. Orientalia 82(2), 29–67.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark
2008 Semantic alignment systems. What’s what, and what’s not. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.) The typology of semantic alignment, 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
(eds.) 2008 The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena
2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1), 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2), 261–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.) Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 85–133.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra
2018 The packagers -ant- and -a-, and the origin of split-ergativity in Hittite (and Lycian). In David M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison & Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2011 On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3), 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Transitivity prominence. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.) Valency classes in the world’s languages. Volume I. Introducing the framework and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. & H. Craig Melchert
2008 A grammar of the Hittite language. Part 1. Reference grammar. Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W.
1990 The tense of the predicated past participle in Vedic and beyond. Indo-Iranian Journal 331: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. & Joel P. Brereton
2014 The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India. Translated by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton. 31 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Josephson, Folke
2004 Semantics and typology of Hittite -ant. In James Clackson & Birgit Annette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 91–118.Google Scholar
Keith, Arthur B.
1914 The Veda of the Black Yajus School entitled Taittiriya Sanhita. (21 Volumes). Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2008 Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid
2013 Language vs. grammatical tradition in Ancient India: How real was Pāṇinian Sanskrit? Evidence from the history of late Sanskrit passives and pseudo-passives. In Folia Linguistica Historica 341, 59–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laroche, Emmanuel
1962 ‘Un ‘ergatif’ en indo-europeen d’Asie Mineure’ Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 571, 23–43.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
Forthcoming. The origin of ergative case markers: the case of Hittite revisited. In Eystein Dahl ed. Alignment and alignment change in the Indo-European family Oxford OUP
Manzini, Maria Rita, Leonardo M. Savoia & Ludovico Franco
2015 Ergative case, aspect and person splits: Two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 62(3), 297–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2017 Grammaticalization of ergative case marking. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 447–464. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig
2011 The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.) Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques Paris 2–4 April 2007, 161–167. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Moravcik, Edith A.
1978 On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45 (3–4): 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas
2001 Pāli. A grammar of the language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oettinger, Norbert
2001 Neue Gedanken über das nt-Suffix. In Onofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds.) Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Pavia, 22–25 September 1998. Innsbruck: IBS.Google Scholar
Payne, John R.
1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 511, 147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John
1998 Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Rieken, Elisabeth
2017 Agreement patterns of collective nouns in Hittite. In Alice Mouton (ed.) Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday. 5e Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFEA, Istanbul 21–22 novembre 2014, 7–18. Istanbul: Institut Français d’études anatoliennes. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut, Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp and Brigitte Schirmer
2001 Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichelt Verlag.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
(eds.) 2018 Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Larry
1979 On the origins of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.) Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 385–404. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
West, Martin L.
2011 Old Avestan syntax and stylistics. With an edition of the texts. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeilfelder, Suzanne
2014 Probleme des hethitischen Nominativs: split-ergativity und Casus Commemorativus. In Cyril Brosch & Annick Payne (eds.), Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag, 199–210. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar