Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 4:2 (1977) ► pp.191–206

An Ergative Historiography

| University of Colorado
The most widely accepted definition of ‘ergative’ is in terms of a grammatical case, namely, the subject of a transitive verb, wherein that case is opposed to a second case, the ‘absolutive’ (‘nominative’), which includes both the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive. Languages which have been referred to as ‘ergative’ or as containing ‘ergative constructions’ include Basque, Eskimo, most languages from the Caucasus and from Australia, some Polynesian languages, Burushaski, the Paleosiberian languages, Sumerian, Hittite, some Papuan languages, Tibetan, most members of the Indic branch of Indo-European, and many American Indian languages.
Insight into speculation on the nature of the ergative leads to a study of the terminology applied before the coinage of the term ‘ergative’ in 1912 (by Adolf Dirr). The term itself has been given varied definitions. Fillmore pictured the ergative as a causative construction; John Anderson suggested ‘ergative’ as a semantic marker; John Lyons describes an ‘ideal ergative’ which is agentive in nature. The bizarre conjecture surrounding the study of ergative languages has included a long debate as to the active or passive nature of the ergative construction and, secondly, the fantasy that an ergative language was a ‘primitive’ one whose speakers had a ‘Weltanschauung’ opposed to that possessed by speakers of a nominative-accusative language.
Rather than either active or passive it has also been postulated that the verb is bidirectional and that verb and nouns in some ergative constructions are in a kind of apposition with each other; in addition, these often occur in sets of relationships which are determined by the semantic nature of the nouns and verb. The term ‘semantic ergative’ is suggested here to describe the presence of the ergative marker due to semantic features as +movement, +voluntary, or + emphasis. Although found most commonly as subject of a transitive verb, this semantic ergative may nevertheless also be found as subject of an intransitive.
Published online: 1 January 1977
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.4.2.04see
References (69)
References
Anderson, John. 1968. “Ergative and Nominative in English”. JL 41.1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bokarev, Evgenij Alekseevič, ed. 1950. Ergativnajakonstrukcija predlozenija [ The ergative construction of the sentence ]. Moscow: Izd-vo Inostran-noj Lit-ri.Google Scholar
Brandenstein, C. G. von. 1967. “The Language Situation in the Pilbara, Past and Present”. Pacific Linguistics, Series A, Occasional Papers. 111.1–20. Canberra.Google Scholar
Brosse, Marij Ivanovič (name originally: Marie Félicité Brosset, 1802–80). 1837. Eléments de la langue géorgienne. Paris: Impr. royale.Google Scholar
Cazeneuve, Jean. 1972. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. Transl, by Peter Rivière. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970a. A Semantically Based Sketch of Onondaga (= Supplement to IJAL 36:2/1970.) Baltimore, Md.: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
1970b. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Čikobava, Arnold Stepanovič. 1967. “Problema ergativnoj konstrukcii v iberijsko-kavkazskich jazykach” [“Problems of the Ergative Construction in Ibero-Caucasian Languages”]. Žirmunskij 1967.10–32.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1973. “The Ergative: Variations on a Theme”. Lingua 321.239–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirr, Adolf (1867–1930). 1912. “Rutulskij jazyk” [“The Rutul Language”]. Sbornik Materialov dlya Opisaniya y Piemen Kavkaza (Tbilisi). 42:3.1–204.Google Scholar
(1867–1930). 1928. Einführung in das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major.Google Scholar
Dumézil, Georges. 1931. La langue des Oubykhs. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Entwistle, William J. 1953. Aspects of Language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Erichsen, Michella. 1944. “Désinences casuelles et personnelles en eskimo”. ALH 4:2.67–88.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Otho (or Otto, 1744–1822). 1801. Forsøg til en forbedret grønlandsk Grammatika. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: E. F. Sehnsart. (1st ed., 1791.)Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1966a. Toward a Modern Theory of Case. (= The Ohio State University project “on linguistic analysis; Report No. 13.1–24). (Repr. in Modern Studies in English ed. by David Reibel and Sanford Schane. 361–75. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.)Google Scholar
1966b. “A Proposal Concerning English Prepositions”. Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies ed. by Francis Dinneen, 19–33. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1968. “The Case for Case”. Universals in Linguistic Theory ed. by Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Finck, Franz Nikolaus (1867–1910). 1905. “Die Grundbedeutung des grönländischen Subjektivs”. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 91.280–87.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg von der (1840–93). 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft; ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. (2nd enl. ed., Leipzig: C. H. Tauchnitz, 1901.)Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Hans Conon von der (1807–74). 1861. Über das Passivum: Eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Ginneken, Jacques van (= Jacobus Joannes Antonius, 1877–1945). 1939. “Avoir et être du point de vue de la linguistique générale”. Mélanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally, 83–92. Geneva: Georg.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1970. “Passive and Ergative in Language Change”. Pacific Linguistic Studies in Honor of Arthur Capell, 757–83. Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Grammar, Society, and the Noun. (Inaugural lecture for University College, London). London: H. K. Lewis.Google Scholar
Hohepa, Patrick. 1969. “The Accusative-to-ergative Drift in Polynesian Languages”. JPS 781.295–329.Google Scholar
Holmer, Nils M. 1963. On the History and Structure of the Australian Languages. Australian Essays and Studies 31. Lund: Bloms.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. (Repr., New York: Norton, 1965.)Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, Samuel Petrus (1814–86). 1851. Grammatik der grönländischen Sprache. Berlin: G. Reimer. (Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1968.)Google Scholar
Lafitte, Pierre. 1931. “Pour ou contre la passivité du verbe basque?”. Gure Herria (Bayonne) May-June, pp. 263-.Google Scholar
. 1962. Grammaire basque. Bayonne: Des “Amis du Musée Basque” et “Ikas”.Google Scholar
Lafon, René. 1930. “Sur les pronoms personnels de 1re et de 2e personnes dans les langues kartvèles”. BSL 301.153–69.Google Scholar
Lorimer, D. L. R. 1935–36. The Burushaski Language. Vols. I–III1. Preface by G. Morgenstierne. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marouzeau, Jean. 1943. Lexique de la terminologie linguistique. 2nd ed. Paris: Geuthner.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1958. “L’ergatif et les structures de base de l’énoncé”. JPsych 551.377–92.Google Scholar
. 1962. A Functional View of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, William Kleesman (d.1958). 1953. “The Ergative Construction in Modem Indo-Aryan”. Lingua 31.391–406.Google Scholar
Mauthner, Fritz (1849–1923). 1913. Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache. Vol. 31 (“Zur Grammatik und Logik”). 2nd ed. Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta.Google Scholar
Meščaninov, Ivan Ivanovič (1883–1967). 1967. “Osnovnye grammaticeskie formy ergativnogo stroja predlozenija” [“The Principal Grammatical Forms of the Ergative Construction of the Sentence”]. Žirmunskij 1967. 7–9.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich (1834–98). 1887. Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft. Vol.31, part 21. (“Die Sprachen der mittelländischen Rasse”). Vienna: A. Hölder.Google Scholar
Naert, Pierre. 1956. “Le verbe basque est-il passif?”. SL 101.45–49.Google Scholar
Palmatier, Robert A. 1972. A Glossary for English Transformational Grammar. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Pott, August Friedrich (1802–87). 1873. “Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven Nominativs”. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 71.71–94.Google Scholar
Rijk, Rudolf P. G. de. 1966. “Redefining the Ergative”. Unpubl. paper, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan L. 1975. “Proto-Indo-European from the Standpoint of the (Other?) Ergative Languages”. Unpubl. M. A. Thesis, Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1917. “Review of Uhlenbeck 1916”. IJAL 11.82–86.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo (1842–1927). 1896. “Ueber den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen”. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien 133:1.1–91.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity”. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 112–71. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Smythe, W. E. 1948. “Elementary Grammar of the Gumbáiηar Language”. Oceania 19:2.130–91; 31.254–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerfeit, Alf (1892–1965). 1937. “Sur la notion du sujet en géorgien”. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie offerts à Jacques van Ginneken, 183–85. Paris: C. Klinrksieck.Google Scholar
Stempf, Victor. 1890. Besitzt die baskische Sprache ein transitives Zeitwort, oder nicht?. Bordeaux: no pub.Google Scholar
Strehlow, T. G. H. 1942–44. “Aranda Grammar”. Oceania 131.71–103, 177–200, 310–61; 141.68–90, 159–81, 250–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliavini, Carlo. 1937. “Osservazioni sull’ergativo georgiano”. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie offerts à Jacques van Ginneken, 187–92. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tchekhoff, Claude. 1972. “Une langue à construction ergative: l’avar”. Linguistique 8:2.103–15.Google Scholar
. 1973. “Parataxe et construction ergative avec examples en avar et tongien”. BSL 681.255–68.Google Scholar
Thalbitzer, William (Carl, 1873–1958). 1911. “Eskimo”. Handbook of American Indian Languages (Bureau of American Ethnology, 40:1), 967–1069. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.Google Scholar
, 1873–1958). 1930. “The Absolute and the Relative in Eskimo”. A Grammatical Miscellany Offered to Otto Jespersen on his Seventieth Birthday, 319-to 329. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard; London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Trombetti, Alfredo (1866–1929). 1923. Elementi di glottologia. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj. 1929. “Notes sur les désinences du verbe dans les langues tchétchénolesghiennes”. BSL 29:3.153–71.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius (1866–1951). 1916. “Het Passieve Karakter van het Verbum Transitivum of van het Verbum Actionis in Taalen van Noord-Amerika”. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen; Afd. Letterkunde 5:2.187–216.Google Scholar
(1866–1951). 1948. “Le langage basque et la linguistique générale”. Lingua 11.59–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uslar, Baron Petr Karlovič von (1816–75). 1889. “Avarski jazyk” [“The Avar Language]. Etnografia kavkaza, Jazykoznaije 31 (Tbilisi).Google Scholar
Vinson, Julien (1843–1928) 1895. “Le verbe basque, M. H. Schuchardt et la théorie passive”. Revue de linguistique 281.73–86.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1938. “Esquisse d’une grammaire du géorgien moderne”. NTS 91.5–114; 101.5–188.Google Scholar
. 1950. “Un aspect du problème actif-passif dans le verbe. JPsych 431.130–138.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Terence H. 1970a. “The Ergative Case and the So-called Ergative-type Languages”. PCLS 61.416–424.Google Scholar
1970b. “Ergative and Pseudo-ergative in Basque”. Fontes Linguae Vasconum (Pamplona) 2:4.57–66.Google Scholar
Winkler, Heinrich (1848–1930). 1887. Zur Sprachgeschichte: Nomen, Verb und Satz. Antikritik. Berlin: F. Dümmler.Google Scholar
Žirmunskij, Vladimir Maksimovič (1891–1971), ed. 1967. Ergativnaja kon-strukcija predlozenija v jazykax razlicnyx tipov [ The Ergative Construction of the Sentence in Languages of Different Types ]. Leningrad: Izd. ‘Nauka’ Leningradskoe otdelenie.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Anduaga, Aitor
2022. Les études basques comme sujet d’enquête. Historiographia Linguistica 49:1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Fortis, Jean-Michel
2018. Anderson’s case grammar and the history of localism. In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series, 204], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Mendívil-Giró, José-Luis
2018. Why Don't Languages Adapt to Their Environment?. Frontiers in Communication 3 DOI logo
Stockigt, Clara
2015. Early Descriptions of Pama-Nyungan Ergativity. Historiographia Linguistica 42:2-3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Lindner, Thomas
2014. “Ergative Historiography” revisited. Historiographia Linguistica 41:1 ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Lindner, Thomas
2015. Historical Notes on the Term ‘absolutive’. Historiographia Linguistica 42:2-3 ► pp. 461 ff. DOI logo
McGregor, William B.
2009. Typology of Ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:1 ► pp. 480 ff. DOI logo
McGregor, William B.
2023. Chapter 9. Zero-marking or nothing to mark?. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Holisky, Dee Ann
1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71:1-4 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
KRIFKA, MANFRED
1985. Von der stilistischen zur grammatischen Ergativität. In Relational Typology, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
1985. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INDO‐EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS*. Transactions of the Philological Society 83:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Allen, W.S. & C.O. Brink
1980. The old order and the new: A case history. Lingua 50:1-2 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.