|
ERGATIVE
CONSTRUCTION.
The
most
generally
accepted
definition
of
an
ergative
construction
(Dixon)
begins
with
the
notion
that
languages
utilize
three
primitive
syntactic
relations,
referred
to
as
S,
A,
and
O:
S:
subject
of
an
intransitive
clause
(e.g.
"I"
in
"I
have
arrived")
A:subject
of
a
transitive
clause
(e.g.
"you"
in
"You
saw
me")
O:object
of
a
transitive
clause
(e.g.
"me"
in
"You
saw
me").
All
languages
have
intransitive
clauses
containing
a
verb
and
one
core
noun
phrase;
this
noun
phrase
will
by
definition
be
associated
with
the
syntactic
relation
S.
All
languages
also
have
transitive
clauses
containing
a
verb
and
two
noun
phrases;
in
this
case
the
noun
phrase
which
"could
initiate
or
control
the
activity"
is
associated
with
the
syntactic
relation
A,
while
the
second
noun
phrase
is
associated
with
the
syntactic
relation
O.
The
actual
semantic
role
associated
with
the
syntactic
relation
A
varies
from
verb
to
verb,
but
is
for
example
the
agent
for
"affect"
verbs
like
hit,
the
donor
for
"giving"
verbs
like
give,
the
speaker
for
"speaking"
verbs
like
tell,
and
the
perceiver
for
"attention"
verbs
like
see.
An
ergative
construction
is
then
one
in
which
S
has
grammatical
properties
identical
to
those
of
O,
and
distinct
from
those
of
A.
It
is
estimated
that
approximately
one
quarter
of
the
world's
languages
possess
ergative
constructions.
In
Iranian,
the
grammatical
properties
which
may
be
relevant
are
case
and
verb-agreement.
If
the
grammatical
property
involved
is
case,
then
S
and
O
are
typically
described
as
being
in
an
"absolute
(Abs.)"
or
"direct"
case,
while
A
is
in
an
"oblique
(Obl.)"
case.
By
contrast,
the
more
common
accusative
construction
is
one
in
which
S
has
grammatical
properties
identical
to
those
of
A,
and
distinct
from
those
of
O.
If
the
grammatical
property
involved
is
case,
then
S
and
A
are
typically
described
as
being
in
the
"nominative
(Nom.)"
case,
and
O
is
in
the
"accusative
(Acc.)"
case.
To
put
it
differently,
in
a
full
ergative
construction
involving
both
verb-agreement
and
case-marking,
called
by
some
Iranists
also
"passive"
construction,
and
used
with
the
past
tenses
of
transitive
verbs,
the
verb
accords
not
with
its
"agent"
or
"logical
subject"
(A),
which
is
put
in
the
oblique
case,
but
with
its
object
(O).
This
may
be
illustrated
(Table
1)
from
some
Ta@t^
dialects
(q.v),
where
the
verb
accords
in
gender
and
number
with
the
object,
when
singular
in
number,
and
in
number,
when
plural
(gender
is
not
distinguished
in
the
plural).
The
construction
becomes
more
understandable
when
we
consider
the
fact
that
the
verb
derives
from
a
passive
past
participle
with
adjectival
morphology;
see
Yarshater
1962,
p.
245
n.
2;
1969,
pp.
235
ff.).
E.
Benveniste
(BSL
48,
1952,
p.
19)
argued
that
this
type
of
construction
was
in
fact
"possessive"
and
the
agent
stands
in
genitive
relationship
with
the
verb.
It
is
estimated
that
approximately
one
quarter
of
the
world's
languages
possess
ergative
constructions.
In
Iranian,
the
above
notions
can
be
further
illustrated
from
Pashto
(ergative)
and
standard
Persian
(accusative);
see
Table
2.
Pashto
is
ergative
with
respect
to
case-marking,
since
S
and
O
(z™)
are
both
in
the
absolute
case,
while
A
(ta@)
is
in
the
oblique
case.
Pashto
is
also
ergative
with
respect
to
verb-agreement,
since
the
verb
agrees
with
S
and
with
O
(the
inflection
being
first-person
singular
-™m
in
both
examples),
but
does
not
show
any
agreement
with
A.
By
contrast,
Persian
is
accusative
with
respect
to
case-marking,
since
S
and
A
(man
and
to
respectively)
are
both
in
the
nominative
case,
while
O
has
the
accusative
marking
-ra@.
Persian
is
also
accusative
with
respect
to
verb-agreement,
since
the
verb
agrees
with
S
and
with
A
(the
inflection
being
first-person
singular
-am
for
S
and
second-person
singular
-^
for
A),
but
does
not
agree
with
O.
The
ergativity
of
Iranian
languages
is
restricted
to
case-marking
and
verb-agreement,
and
does
not
(as
far
as
is
known)
extend
to
any
other
syntactic
properties
of
S,
A
and
O.
It
should
be
noted
that
Pashto,
and
ergative
Iranian
languages
generally,
exhibit
what
is
known
as
split
ergativity,
since
the
ergative
construction
is
found
only
in
clauses
using
tenses
based
on
the
past
stem
of
the
verb.
Clauses
using
tenses
based
on
the
present
stem
are
straightforwardly
accusative
with
respect
both
to
case-marking
and
verb-agreement
(the
case
terms
"nominative"
and
"accusative"
case
seem
inappropriate,
however,
since
the
case-forms
used
are
simply
the
absolute
and
oblique
with
reversed
roles);
see
Table
3.
The
historical
origin
of
split
ergativity
in
Iranian
is
well-attested.
Whilst
the
accusative
constructions
of
the
present
tenses
derive
straightforwardly
from
the
accusative
constructions
of
Old
Iranian,
the
ergative
constructions
of
the
past
tenses
derive
from
constructions
based
on
the
Old
Iranian
perfect
participle
in-ta.
As
shown
in
Table
4,
this
principle
had
a
passive
orientation
in
the
case
of
transitive
verbs,
with
the
agent
expressed
either
by
a
genitive
noun
phrase
(4.i),
or
a
genitive
clitic
pronoun
(4.ii).
The
participle
could
also
be
accompanied
by
a
form
of
the
copula
verb
'ba'
agreeing
with
the
passive
subject
(4.iii).
The
reinterpretation
of
these
constructions
as
active
rather
than
passive,
and
the
collapse
of
the
genitive
and
dative
into
a
single
oblique
case,
gave
rise
to
ergative
constructions
in
which
the
original
passive
agent
was
reinterpreted
as
an
A
in
the
oblique
case,
while
the
original
passive
subject
was
reinterpreted
as
an
O
in
the
absolute
case.
The
verb
agreement
was
then
also
oriented
towards
O.
Relatively
few
of
the
middle
or
modern
Iranian
languages,
however,
display
pure
past-tense
ergative
constructions
as
defined
above
and
as
exhibited
in
Pashto.
Yag@no@b^
and
Korma@nj@^
dialects
of
Kurdish
are
ergative
with
respect
to
both
case-marking
and
verb-agreement.
T®a@leæ^
has
ergative
case-marking,
but
has
lost
ergative
verb-agreement,
while
Middle
Persian
and
Parthian
have
largely
lost
ergative
case-marking,
but
preserve
ergative
verb-agreement.
Other
languages
have
typically
lost
both
ergative
case-marking
and
ergative
verb-agreement,
and
display
various
stages
in
the
decay
of
the
originally
ergative
past-tense
construction
into
an
accusative
one.
The
potential
influence
of
the
accusative
construction
in
the
present
tenses
is
evident.
Standard
developments
are:
(a)
The
conversion
of
the
absolute
case-marking
of
O
into
oblique.
If
this
happens
at
the
same
time
as
oblique
case-marking
is
preserved
for
A,
we
get
the
same
marking
for
A
and
O
(e.g.
in
Ro@æa@n^),
and
a
distinct
marking
for
S.
This
has
been
called
the
"double-oblique"
case-marking
system,
and
is
an
extremely
rare
phenomenon.
Other
possible
developments
include
the
further
grammaticalization
of
prepositions
or
postpositions
as
object-markers
for
O
(e.g.
Persian
-ra@
<
Middle
Persian
ra@y
<
Old
Persian
ra@diy
"for
the
sake
of").
If
this
happens
at
the
same
time
as
oblique
case-marking
is
preserved
for
A,
we
get
distinct
marking
for
A,
O
and
S
(e.g.
in
Yazg@ola@m^).
This
has
been
called
the
"tripartite"
case-marking
system,
and
is
likewise
very
rare.
(b)
The
leveling
of
the
case-forms
for
A
and
S
into
a
single
form.
In
this
event,
the
forms
chosen
may
correspond
either
to
the
absolute
(e.g.
Ossete
™e
"I")
or
the
oblique
(e.g.
Persian
man
"I").
Co-existence
of
absolute
and
oblique
subjects
is
also
possible,
in
which
case
it
has
been
claimed
that
the
choice
of
case
may
involve
semantic
and
discourse-related
functions
(e.g.,
in
the
upper
dialect
of
Wakò^;
see
Bashir).
(c)
The
development
of
clitic
pronouns
such
as
-æam
in
(ii)
above
into
agreement
markers
for
A
(e.g.,
La@r^).
This
typically
does
not
occur
simultaneously
with
preservation
of
the
original
agreement
with
O.
(d)
The
extension
of
the
function
of
S
agreement
markers,
typically
derived
from
the
copula
as
in
(iii)
above,
to
agreement
with
A.
Such
a
development
seems
to
have
taken
place
in
Persian,
where
the
forms
of
verb-agreement
with
S
and
A
are
identical.
In
complicated
cases
(e.g.
many
Pamir
languages),
we
see
the
contamination
of
agreement
markers
derived
from
clitic
pronouns
with
those
derived
from
the
copula
(with
the
further
possible
involvement
of
endings
belonging
to
the
present
tense).
As
an
illustration
of
the
complexity
which
can
arise
in
the
decay
of
the
original
ergative
construction,
reference
may
be
made
to
a
transitive
sentence
from
Bartang^
in
which
case-marking
is
tripartite,
with
the
object-marker
derived
from
the
preposition
az|as
"from,"
and
in
which
clitic
pronouns/copulas
have
been
converted
into
agreement
markers
of
A
(Table
5).
The
agreement
marker
-um
in
this
example
is
cliticized
not
to
the
verb,
but
to
the
fronted
and
object-marked
O.
Bibliography:
E.
Bashir,
"Beyond
Split-ergativity:
Subject
Marking
in
Wakhi,"
in
Chicago
Linguistic
Society,
Papers
from
the
General
Session
at
the
Twenty-Second
Regional
Meeting,
Chicago,
1986,
pp.
14-35.
E.
Benveniste,
BSL
48,
1952,
p.
19.
R.
M.
W.
Dixon,
Ergativity,
Cambridge,
1994.
Osnovy
Iranskogo
yazykoznaniya
(Fundamentals
of
Iranian
linguistics),
Moscow,
1979-
.
V.
Miltner,
"Ergative
Constructions
in
Indo-Aryan,"
Archiv
Orientalni
59,
1991,
pp.
225-33.
J.
R.
Payne,
"The
Decay
of
Ergativity
in
Pamir
Languages,"
Lingua
51/2-3,
1980,
pp.
147-86.
L.A.
Pireyko,
Osnovnye
voprosy
eàrgativnosti
na
materiale
indo-iranskikh
yazykov
(Fundamental
issues
of
ergativity
in
Indo-Iranian
languages),
Moscow,
1968.
R.
Schmitt,
Compendium
Lingusrum
Iranicarum,
Wiesbaden,
1989.
G.
Windfuhr,
"Typological
Notes
on
Pronominal
Cases
in
Iranian
Tati,"
Bulletin
of
the
Asia
Institute
4,
1990,
pp.
313-24.
E.
Yarshater,
"The
Ta@t^
Dialect
of
Ra@wand,"
in
idem
and
W.
B.
Henning,
eds.,
A
Locust's
Leg:
Papers
in
Honour
of
S.
H.
Taqizadeh,
London,
1962,
pp.
240-45.
Idem.,
A
Grammar
of
Southern
Tati
Dialects,
The
Hague
and
Paris,
1969.
(JOHN
R.
PAYNE)
|