Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-f9ccc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-14T23:25:52.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ergativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

R. M. W. Dixon
R. M. W. Dixon*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological marking, whether realized by nominal case inflections or cross-referencing on the verb, can be either (i) ergative, marking transitive subject [A] function, vs. absolutive, marking intransitive subject [S] and transitive object [O]; or (ii) nominative, marking A and S, vs. accusative, marking O function. Absolutive is always the unmarked term in an absolutive/ergative opposition. Nominative is most frequently the unmarked term in a nominative/accusative system, but there are some languages in which accusative is unmarked. A language whose morphology mixes accusative and ergative marking has the split determined by (a) the semantic content of verbs, (b) the semantic content of NP's, (c) aspect/tense choice, or (d) a combination of these.

A, S, and O are universal semantic-syntactic primitives. A universal category of ‘subject’ can be defined as the set {A,S}, and is valid only for the level of deep structure. Language-particular syntactic operations, such as coördination and subordination, work in terms of a (shallow-structure) ‘pivot’; this is most often S/A, but can be wholly or partly S/O (languages of the latter type are said to be ergative at the syntactic level). A major function of antipassive or passive derivations is to place A or O NP's (respectively) in derived pivot function, S. Many languages which have some morphological ergativity are entirely accusative (S/A pivot) at the syntactic level. All languages that show syntactic ergativity have some morphological ergativity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 59 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, W. S. 1951. A study in the analysis of Hindi sentence structure. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 6. 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, W. S. 1956. Structure and system in the Abaza verbal complex. Transactions of the Philological Society, 127–76.Google Scholar
Allen, W. S. 1960. Notes on the Rājasthānī verb. Indian Linguistics 21. 1–10.Google Scholar
Allen, W. S. 1964. Transitivity and possession. Lg. 40. 337–43.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li 1976:1–23.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Li 1977:317–63.Google Scholar
Austin, P. 1978. A grammar of the Diyari language of north-east South Australia. Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bell, S. J. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bender, M. L. 1976. The non-Semitic languages of Ethiopia. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 48. 52–62. [Translated in his Problems in general linguistics, 153–61. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1971.].Google Scholar
Blake, B. J. 1976. On ergativity and the notion of subject: some Australian cases. Lingua 39. 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, B. J. 1979. Pitta-Pitta. Handbook of Australian languages, I, ed. Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B. J., 183–242. Canberra: ANU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, F. 1911. Tsimshian. Handbook of American Indian languages 1. 283–422.Google Scholar
Boas, F., and Deloria, E. 1939. Dakota grammar. (Mem. Nat. Ac. Sci., 23.) Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Breen, J. G. 1976. Ergative, locative and instrumental case inflections: Wangkumara. In Dixon 1976:336–9.Google Scholar
Bricker, V. R. ms. Antipassive constructions in Yucatec Maya.Google Scholar
Byington, C. 1870. Grammar of the Choctaw language. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 11. 317–67.Google Scholar
Capell, A. 1962. Some linguistic types in Australia. (Oceania linguistic monographs, 7.) Sydney.Google Scholar
Capell, A. 1969. A survey of New Guinea languages. Sydney: University Press.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1975. Ergativity in Caucasian languages. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
Černý, V. 1971. Some remarks on syntax and morphology of verb in Avar. Archiv Orientální 39. 46–56.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1970. A semantically based sketch of Onondaga. (Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, Memoir 25). Bloomington.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S. 1976. Case-marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chung, S. 1977. On the gradual nature of syntactic change. In Li 1977:3–55.Google Scholar
Churchward, C. M. 1953. Tongan grammar. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1973. Transitivity and case in eastern Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12. 559–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. 1976. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. (Te Reo monographs.) Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Cole, P., and Sadock, J. M. (eds.) 1977. Grammatical relations. (Syntax and semantics, 8.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collinder, B. 1965. An introduction to the Uralic languages. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1973. The ergative: variations on a theme. Lingua 32. 239–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1975. The antiergative: Finland's answer to Basque. CLS 11. 112–21.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976a. Aspect. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976b. Review of Klimov 1973. Lingua 39. 252–60.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. ms a. Ergativity. To appear in a volume of lectures given at the Linguistic Institute, Oswego, 1976, ed. by Lehmann, W. P..Google Scholar
Comrie, B. ms b. Degrees of ergativity: some Chukchee evidence. To appear in Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, F..Google Scholar
Comrie, B. ms c ‘Definite’ and ‘animate’: a natural class? To appear in Linguistica Silensiana 3.Google Scholar
Craig, C. 1975. Jacaltec syntax: a study of complex sentences. Harvard University dissertation. [Now published as The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977.].Google Scholar
Craig, C. 1976. Properties of basic and derived subjects in Jacaltec. In Li 1976:99–123.Google Scholar
Desheriev, Ju. D. 1953. Batsbijskij jazyk. Moscow: Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1970. Proto-Australian laminals. Oceanic Linguistics 9. 78–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1971. A method of semantic description. Semantics, an inter-disciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A., 436–71. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1973. The semantics of giving. The formal analysis of natural languages, ed. by Gross, M. et al., 205–23. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.) 1976. Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977a. A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977b. Some phonological rules in Yidiny. LI 8. 1–34.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977c. The syntactic development of Australian languages. In Li 1977:365–415.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977d. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1. 19–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. ms a. Grammatical re-analysis: an example of linguistic change in Wargamay, North Queensland.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. ms b. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eades, D. 1979. Gumbaynggir. Handbook of Australian languages, I, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B. J., 245–361. Canberra: ANU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. Universals of linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. & Harms, R. T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. LI 1. 429–38.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. 1976. Comparative syntax in Austronesian. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Goddard, I. 1967. The Algonquian independent indicative. Contributions to anthropology: Linguistics 1, 66–106. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.Google Scholar
Gregores, E. and Suárez, J. A. 1967. A description of colloquial Guaraní. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, M. 1940. Tunica. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. M. ms. Hua: a Papuan language of New Guinea. Languages and their status, ed. by Shopen, T. A. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. L. 1967. Case and voice in some Australian languages. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. 1968a. Preliminary remarks on Walbiri grammar, II. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. 1968b. Review of A profile-generative grammar of Maori, by Hohepa, P. W. Journal of the Polynesian Society 77. 83–99.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. 1970. The passive and ergative in language change: the Australian case. Pacific linguistics studies in honour of Arthur Capell, ed. by Wurm, S. A. & Laycock, D. C., 757–81. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. 1973. Person marking in Walbiri. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., 308–44. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 1976a. Ergative/accusative typologies in morphology and syntax. In Dixon 1976: 599–611.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 1976b. Antipassivization: a functional typology. Berkeley Linguistics Society 2. 202–11.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 1977. Choctaw cases. Berkeley Linguistics Society 3. 204–13.Google Scholar
Hershberger, H. 1964. Case-marking affixes in Gugu-Yalanji. In Pittman & Kerr, 73–82.Google Scholar
Hershberger, R. 1964. Personal pronouns in Gugu-Yalanji. In Pittman & Kerr, 55–68.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. 1976. The Agaw languages. (Afroasiatic Linguistics, 3:3.) Malibu: Undena.Google Scholar
Hill, J. H. 1969. Volitional and non-volitional verbs in Cupeño. CLS 5. 348–56.Google Scholar
Hinton, L., and Langdon, M. 1976. Object-subject pronominal prefixes in La Huerta Diegueño. Hokan studies, ed. by Langdon, M. & Silver, S., 113–28. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hohepa, P. W. 1969. The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 78. 297–329.Google Scholar
Hudson, J. 1976a. Walmatjari: nominative-ergative or nominative-accusative? Papers in Australian Linguistics 9. 1–30. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hudson, J. 1976b. Simple and compound verbs: conjugation by auxiliaries in Australian verbal systems—Walmatjari. In Dixon 1976:653–67.Google Scholar
Hudson, J. 1978. The core grammar of Walmatjari. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1975. From space to time in tenses in Kiksht. UAL 41. 313–29.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, W. H. 1967. Switch-reference in Hokan-Coahuiltecan. Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics, ed. by Hymes, Dell & Bittle, W., 238–63. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1974. On the role of grammatical relations in linguistic theory. CLS 10. 269–83.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1976. Ergativity in relational grammars. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
Kachru, Y. 1965. A transformational treatment of Hindi verbal syntax. University of London doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Kalmár, I. 1976. The antipassive in Inuktitut. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
Kaschube, D. V. 1967. Structural elements in the language of the Crow Indians of Montana. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar
Keen, S. 1972. A description of the Yukulta language. Monash University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li 1976:303–33.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. LI 8. 63–100.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Keenan, E. O. ms. Becoming a competent speaker of Malagasy. Languages and their speakers, ed. by Shopen, T. A. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Kennard, E. 1936. Mandan grammar. UAL 9. 1–43.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1973. Očerk obščej teorii èrgativnosti. [Outline of a general theory of ergativity.] Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Klokeid, T. J. 1976. Topics in Lardil grammar. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuipers, A. H. 1968. The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua 21. 610–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurylowicz, J. 1960. Ergativnost' i stadial'nost' v jazyke. [Ergativity and the stadial theory of language.] In his Esquisses linguistiques, 95–103. Wroclaw.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Ross, J. R. 1976. Is deep structure necessary? Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, J. D. (Syntax and semantics, 7), 159–64. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W., and Munro, P. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Lg. 51. 789–830.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. 1953. Teach yourself Turkish. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, C., and Thompson, S. A. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Li 1976:457–89.Google Scholar
Li, C., Thompson, S. A.; and Sawyer, J. O. 1977. Subject and word order in Wappo. IJAL 43. 85–100.Google Scholar
Lister-Turner, R., and Clark, J. B. 1930. Revised Motu grammar and vocabulary. Port Moresby.Google Scholar
Loogman, A. 1965. Swahili grammar and syntax. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Lorimer, D. L. R. 1935. The Burushaski language, I: introduction and grammar. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConvell, P. 1977. How Lardil became accusative. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
McDonald, M. A., and Wurm, S. A. ms. Basic materials in Galali: grammar, sentences and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
McKay, G. R. 1975. Rembarnga: a language of central Arnhem Land. Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
McLendon, S. 1978. Ergativity, case and transitivity in Eastern Pomo. IJAL 44. 1–9.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1917. Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. Paris: Hachette. [Translation: General characteristics of the Germanic languages. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1970.].Google Scholar
Mejlanova, U. A. 1960. Morfologičeskaja i sintaksičeskaja xarakteristika padežej lezginskogo jazyka [Morphological and syntactic characteristics of Lesghian cases.] Maxačkala: Dagestanskij Filial Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Merrifield, W. R., et al. 1965. Laboratory manual for morphology and syntax. Santa Ana: SIL.Google Scholar
Milner, G. 1973. It is aspect (not voice) which is marked in Samoan. Oceanic Linguistics 12. 621–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, J.-L. 1972. La corrélation du sujet et de l'objet en finnois. Etudes Finno-Ougriennes 8. 193–202.Google Scholar
Nash, D. ms. Is Ngarluma split-ergative? To appear in Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, F..Google Scholar
N'Diaye, G. 1970. Structure du dialecte basque de Maya. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
O'Grady, G. N., Voegelin, C. F.; and Voegelin, F. M. 1966. Languages of the world: Indo-Pacific fascicle Six. Anthropological Linguistics 8:2.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M., and Postal, P. M. 1977. Towards a universal characterization of passivization. Berkeley Linguistics Society 3. 394–417.Google Scholar
Pittman, R., and Kerr, H. (eds.) 1964. Papers on the languages of the Australian Aborigines. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1974. Report of work done as part of MSSB Workshop on Constraints on Grammars. [Mimeo.].Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1977. Antipassive in French. NELS 7. 273–313.Google Scholar
Regamey, C. 1954. A propos de la ‘construction ergative’ en indo-aryen moderne. Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung: Festschrift Albert Debrunner, 363–84. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Rigsby, B. 1975. Nass-Gitksan: an analytic ergative syntax. IJAL 41. 346–54.Google Scholar
Robinett, F. M. 1955. Hidatsa. IJAL 21. 1–7, 160–77, 210–6.Google Scholar
Rood, D. S. 1971. Agent and object in Wichita. Lingua 28. 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, A. ms. Prolegomena to a theory of Australian grammatical case systems. To appear in Papers in linguistics from the 1976 AIAS Biennial meeting, ed. by Rigsby, B. J. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1917. Review of ‘Het passieve karakter ...‘, by Uhlenbeck, C. C. IJAL 1. 82–6.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1930. Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. (Proc. Am. Acad. Arts & Sci., 65:1.) Boston.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li 1976:491–518.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Cole & Sadock, 279–306.Google Scholar
Shipley, W. F. 1964. Maidu grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon 1976:112–71.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. J. 1970. Syntax and phonology of Motu (Papua): a transformational approach. ANU dissertation.Google Scholar
Thalbitzer, W. 1911. Eskimo. Handbook of American Indian languages 1. 967–1069.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1974. The nominative object in North Russian. Slavic transformational syntax, ed. by Brecht, R. & Chvany, C., 219–43. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota syntax. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Vogt, H. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. 1976a. Ergative, locative and instrumental case inflections: Murinjpata. In Dixon 1976: 405–8.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. 1976b. The Murinjpata language of north-west Australia. ANU dissertation.Google Scholar
Whitman, W. 1947. Descriptive grammar of Ioway-Oto. IJAL 13. 233–48.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. C. 1975. Ergativity of grammatical processes: a study of Greenlandic Eskimo. University of Chicago master's essay.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. C. 1977. Greenlandic Eskimo, ergativity and relational grammar. In Cole & Sadock, 307–36.Google Scholar
Wurm, S. 1976. Accusative marking in Duungidjawu (Waga-Waga). In Dixon 1976: 106–11.Google Scholar