What are S, A, and O?
Marianne Mithun | University of California, Santa Barbara
Wallace Chafe | University of California, Santa Barbara
The letters S, A, and O have been used heuristically for distinguishing ergative-absolutive languages from nominative-accusative languages. This schema, however, has serious disadvantages for the understanding of individual grammars and even more for broad typological work, because it obscures the incommensurable ways in which participants may be related to events or states. Three of these ways are described here and their incommensurability demonstrated. One is the starting point function, reflected in grammatical subjects; another consists of the semantic roles that are reflected in grammaticized agent-patient marking; the third is immediacy of involvement, reflected in absolutive marking. These relations may be cognitively available to speakers of all languages, and are often grammaticized in different parts of the grammar of a single language. Now that more is known about ways in which languages vary, it is time to sharpen our tools so that we may move on to understanding the forces that shape the grammatical structures we find.
Published online: 13 March 2000
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
Cited by
Cited by 20 other publications
No author info given
2021. References and Abbreviations.
International Journal of American Linguistics 87:S1 ► pp. S189 ff. 
Backus, Ad
2003. Units in code switching: evidence for multimorphemic elements in the lexicon.
Linguistics 41:1
Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
2015. Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old Norse-Icelandic.
Linguistics 53:4
Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
2019. Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony.
Language and Linguistics Compass 13:3 ► pp. e12311 ff.
Creissels, Denis
2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typopological regularities: The case of alignment variations.
Folia Linguistica 42:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff.
Creissels, Denis
2009. Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case terminology.
Lingua 119:3 ► pp. 445 ff.
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
2018.
In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121],
► pp. 4 ff.
Croft, William
2007. The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience.
Cognitive Linguistics 18:3
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2021.
In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132],
► pp. 101 ff.
Halevy, Rivka
2016.
In Atypical predicate-argument relations [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 33],
► pp. 27 ff.
Hieber, Daniel W.
2019. Semantic Alignment in Chitimacha.
International Journal of American Linguistics 85:3 ► pp. 313 ff.
Kumagai, Yoshiharu
2006. Information management in intransitive subjects: Some implications for the Preferred Argument Structure theory.
Journal of Pragmatics 38:5 ► pp. 670 ff.
MAGNE, CYRILLE, MIREILLE BESSON & STÉPHANE ROBERT
2014. Context influences the processing of verb transitivity in French sentences: more evidence for semantic−syntax interactions.
Language and Cognition 6:2 ► pp. 181 ff.
McGregor, William B.
2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective.
Lingua 120:7 ► pp. 1610 ff.
Riesberg, Sonja & Beatrice Primus
2015. Agent prominence in symmetrical voice languages.
STUF - Language Typology and Universals 68:4 ► pp. 551 ff.
Shenk, Petra Scott
2006. The interactional and syntactic importance of prosody in Spanish-English bilingual discourse.
International Journal of Bilingualism 10:2 ► pp. 179 ff.
SHIBASAKI, REIJIROU
2006. THE EVOLUTION OF PREFERRED ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN ENGLISH.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 23:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Teffeteller, Annette
2015.
In Perspectives on Historical Syntax [Studies in Language Companion Series, 169],
► pp. 155 ff.
Tersis, Nicole & Shirley Carter‐Thomas
2005. Integrating Syntax and Pragmatics: Word Order and Transitivity Variations in Tunumiisut.
International Journal of American Linguistics 71:4 ► pp. 445 ff.
Zúñiga, Fernando
2018. The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment.
Language and Linguistics Compass 12:9 ► pp. e12300 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2022. 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.