Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T07:36:42.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Origins and Elimination of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Vit Bubenik
Vit Bubenik*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ergativity is a term used in traditional descriptive and typological linguistics to refer to a system of nominal case-marking where the subject of an intransitive verb has the same morphological marker as a direct object, and a different morphological marker from the subject of a transitive verb. Languages in which this system is found are divided into two main types, A and B (following Trask 1979:388). In Type A the ergative construction is used equally in all tenses and aspects. Furthermore, if there is verbal agreement, the verb agrees with the direct object in person and number in exactly the same way it agrees with the subject of an intransitive verb. The verb agrees with the transitive subject in a different way. Well-known representatives of this type are Basque, Australian ergative languages, certain North American languages, Tibeto-Burman and Chukchee. In type B there is most often a tense/aspect split, in which case the ergative construction is confined to the perfective aspect (or the past tense), and the nominative-accusative configuration is used elsewhere. Furthermore, if there is verbal agreement, the verb may agree with the direct object in number and gender but not in person.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 377 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1989

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.)

References

Andersen, Paul K. 1986 Die ta-Partizipialkonstruktion bei Aśoka: Passiv oder Ergativ? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99:75–95.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977 On Mechanisms by Which Languages Become Ergative. Pp. 317–363 in Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Li, Charles N., ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beames, John 1872 A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. Delhi: Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Bloch, Jules 1933 Indo Aryan from the Vedas to Modern Times. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Cardona, George 1970 The Indo-Iranian Construction mana (mama) kṛtam. Language 46:1–12.Google Scholar
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar 1926 The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978 Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1980 Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grierson, George A. 1919 Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. VIII, pt. 1: Indo-Aryan family, north-western group: Specimens of Sindhī and Lahndā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Grierson, George A. 1916 Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. IX, pt. 1: Indo-Aryan family, central group: Western Hindi and Panjabi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Hoernle, A.F.R. 1880 A Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages, with Special Reference to Eastern Hindi. London.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich 1986 P-Oriented Constructions in Sanskrit. Pp. 15–26 in South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia. Krishnamurti, Bh. et al., eds. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1981 The Case of the Agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 25:129–143.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna, Kachru, Braj B., and Bhatia, Tej K. 1976 The Notion ‘Subject’. A Note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri, and Panjabi. Pp. 79–108 in South Asian Studies. Publication Series 2. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Myriam H. 1978 Arguments Against a Passive Origin of the Ergative. Chicago Linguistic Society 14:204–216.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Myriam H. 1987 Mechanisms of Ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71:61–102.Google Scholar
Pischel, Rudolf 1900 Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. [English translation by S. Jha.]Google Scholar
Pořízka, Vincenc 1963 Hindi Language Course. Prague: Pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Pray, Bruce 1976 From Passive to Ergative in Indo-Aryan. The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages. Pp. 195–211 in South Asian Studies. Publication Series 2. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Saksena, Baburam 1937 Evolution of Avadhi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William R. 1980 Indo-European Linguistics. A New Synthesis. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schokker, G.H. 1969 The jānā-Passive in the NIA Languages. Indo-Iranian Journal 12:1–23.Google Scholar
Sen, Sukumar 1953 Historical Syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan. Indian Linguistics 13:355–473.Google Scholar
Shafeev, D.A. 1964 A Short Grammatical Outline of Pashto. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Singh, Ram Adhar 1980 Syntax of Apabhraṃsa. Calcutta: Simant Publications.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1983 The Elimination of Ergative Patterns of Case-Marking and Verbal Agreement in Modern Indic Languages. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 27:140–164.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1979 On the Origins of Ergativity. Pp. 385–404 in Ergativity. Plank, Frans, ed. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, William D. 1982 The Evolution of Ergative Syntax in Nepali. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12:147–211.Google Scholar
Warder, A.K. 1984 Introduction to Pali. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar