A distinction is commonly made between morphological or surface ergativity, and syntactic or deep ergativity, based on what Dixon has termed the "pivot" behavior (S/A vs. S/O) of a language. Since marked constructions enable an S/A pivot to function even in some deep ergative languages, deep or syntactic ergativity might be interpreted as gradational, depending on the degree to which ergative morphology interferes with the grammar of clause integration and referent coherence. For spoken Kurmanji, a northwest Iranian language with surface ergativity, tentative restrictions on zero-anaphora in conjoined clauses are identified which relate to ergative agreement patterns. These are compared to the distribution of zero-anaphora in other complex constructions involving clause combining. Surface ergativity is found to be one of a variety of factors which may promote re-location of the subject referent in a language in which non-finite structures play a peripheral role, and multi-clause constructions are under pressure to replicate the structure of single proposition clauses.
2022. The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions in Kurdish Dialects. In Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, ► pp. 379 ff.
Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
2019. Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:3
BABAYİĞİT, Çev: M.Veysi & İsmail DİLBAZ
2015. KÜRT DİLBİLİMİNE KISA BİR BAKIŞ. International Journal of Kurdish Studies 1:1 ► pp. 125 ff.
Sugawara, Toshihiro
2005. Desideratives and Person: Constructing a Semantic Map. Journal of Universal Language 6:2 ► pp. 117 ff.
Haig, Geoffrey
1998. On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity: Lessons from Kurdish. Lingua 105:3-4 ► pp. 149 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.