A language is said to show ergative characteristics if intransitive subject is treated in the same manner as transitive object, and differently from transitive subject. (Dixon 1979:2)

Ergativity is a linguistic term, used by a wide variety of linguists, with a whole range of different meanings. As a result, much confusion exists about what an ergative language is, and about the morphological-syntatic-semantic consequences of such a characterization.

The term itself is used normally in 3 different meanings:

Ergative case Languages that use the ergative case are: Georgian, Chechen (and

other Caucasian languages), some Mayan languages (like Yucateco or Quich), Mixe-Zoque languages, the Kalaallisut (Greenlandic Eskimo) language, many Australian Aboriginal languages, Basque (Euskera), Burushaski, Yaghnobi, Tibetan. Among Indo-European languages, only Zazaki, Kurdish varieties, Hindi/Urdu and some other New Indo-Aryan languages are ergative. In such languages, the ergative case is typically marked, while the absolutive case is unmarked.

Some constructed languages also: Navi

Ergative-absolutive language A language in which the single argument (subject) of an

intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent (subject) of a transitive verb.

Ergative verb

In terms of realization, ergativity can be found in morphological and syntactical variations.

1. Morphological ergativity If the language has morphological case, the verb arguments are marked

like this: The agent of a transitive verb (A) is marked as ergative case, or as a similar case such as oblique (like some Indo-Aryan languages). The core argument of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) are both marked with absolutive case.

It can happen that some languages, that use ergativity, do not have morphological cases. E.g. most Mayan languages; they have verbal agreement structure which is the ergative.

Basque, which is an ergative-absolutive language, works like this: Basque Gizon-a etorri da. man-ABS arrive:PST.SG3 is:PRS.SG3 Gizon-ak mutil-a ikusi du. man-ERG boy-ABS see:PST is:PST.SG3

2. Syntactic ergativity Ergativity can manifest itself through syntax also. Its very rare, and

while all languages that has this kind, will also exhibit morphological ergativity features, it wont work the other way around; only some morphologically ergative languages have ergative syntax.

Syntactic ergativity can appear as:

word order

relative clauses

subordination

switch reference

Examples in English, which is an SVO language:

My brother came home.

My brother came home and saw the dog.

3. Split ergativity Many languages, especially in Indo-Aryan context, show

split ergativity, which means that syntactic and/or morphological ergative patterns are restricted by grammatical context, like person or the tense/aspect of the verb. Hindi and Urdu are typically like this. Basque is an unusual case, because it has an almost fully ergative system, therefore not considered as a system showing split ergativity.

Urdu/Hindi: ergative is marked on the agents in those tenses which exhibit the past participle (therefore in the perfective aspect), and is obligatory in this context.

Hindi lak=n kitb khard. boy-OBL=ERG book-NOM.F buy-PERF.F

Panjabi ustd=n ku=n pucchi

teacher=ERG girl=DAT ask:PST.3SG.M

(Masica 1991:342)

Masica argues that this kind of quasi-ergativity is inherited from a Sanskrit so-called passive construction employing the past participle instead of a finite verb, with the passive agent (the erstwhile subject) in the instrumental and the participle, as the adjective it is, agreeing with the promoted passive subject (the erstwhile object) (Masica: 1991:341) Masica also says that most of the ergative markers are

descended from the Sanskrit instrumental ending na (Masica 1991:344)

-na > (e.g. in Gujarati) the Hindi version is called the reinforced version

Although this ergative construction is though to be accidental, regarding its coming into existence, several non-Indo-Aryan languages show split ergativity, like Georgian (Masica 1991:343)

Although in Hindi we agree the verb with the Object, some languages (e.g. Assamese, Nepali, Shina, Gawarbati) have further strengthened the Subjecthood of the ergative Agent by making the verb agree with it rather than the Object/Patient.

K. m hli-m palav gari

I-ERG wash:PST-Mpl.-m cloth-PL.M house-LOC

In our Kashmiri sentence, hli (washed) agrees with both the Object palav, while the m represents the Agent m. (Hook and Koul 1984b:128)

The total loss of the ergative construction, like in Bengali, Oriya and Sinhalese, may have come about from these kinds of double agreement constructions, with the dying out of the grammatical gender and the merger of the nominative case marking, but the picture is not a clear one (Chatterji 1926:970-2)

Assamese, Bishnupriya Manipuri and the Shina language have extended what they preserve of the ergative, namely distinctive case marking of the transitive Agent, to all tenses of transitive verbs (and some intransitives), thus evolving a more consistent marking of the category of transitive agent as such. (Masica 1991:345)

Assamese bubul-e prhi se Bubul-ERG read is:PRS But: A. bubul sow ni Bubul sleep:PST.M not

In Assamese and Bishnupriya the distinction is absent with pronoun subjects, for all of which (A. mi, ti, mi, tumi, i, ti) there is a single form, derived from the old Instrumental (Kakati 1962:311-16)

Thank you for your attention