An Ergative Historiography

Jonathan Seely
University of Colorado
Summary

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.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Anderson, John
1968 “Ergative and Nominative in English”. JL 4.1–32. 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. 11.1–20. 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 32.239–53. 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 9.280–87.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 78.295–329.Google Scholar
Holmer, Nils M.
1963 On the History and Structure of the Australian Languages. Australian Essays and Studies 3. 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 30.153–69.Google Scholar
Lorimer, D. L. R.
1935–36 The Burushaski Language. Vols. I–III. 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 55.377–92.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 3.391–406.Google Scholar
Mauthner, Fritz
(1849–1923). 1913 Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache. Vol. 3 (“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.3, part 2. (“Die Sprachen der mittelländischen Rasse”). Vienna: A. Hölder.Google Scholar
Naert, Pierre
1956 “Le verbe basque est-il passif?”. SL 10.45–49.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 7.71–94.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 1.82–86.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; 3.254–99. 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 13.71–103, 177–200, 310–61; 14.68–90, 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 68.255–68.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 1.59–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uslar, Baron Petr Karlovič von
(1816–75). 1889 “Avarski jazyk” [“The Avar Language]. Etnografia kavkaza, Jazykoznaije 3 (Tbilisi).Google Scholar
Vinson, Julien
(1843–1928) 1895 “Le verbe basque, M. H. Schuchardt et la théorie passive”. Revue de linguistique 28.73–86.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans
1938 “Esquisse d’une grammaire du géorgien moderne”. NTS 9.5–114; 10.5–188.Google Scholar
1950 “Un aspect du problème actif-passif dans le verbe. JPsych 43.130–138.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Terence H.
1970a “The Ergative Case and the So-called Ergative-type Languages”. PCLS 6.416–424.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