Active–stative alignment

In <a href="/facts/Linguistic_typology/B72Bumgm">linguistic typology</a>, active–stative alignment (also split intransitive alignment or semantic alignment) is a type of <a href="/facts/Morphosyntactic_alignment/Ly8YuLY2">morphosyntactic alignment</a> in which the sole <a href="/facts/Verb_argument/U0y7yQXG">argument</a> ("subject") of an <a href="/facts/Intransitive_verb/W4TRD0n5">intransitive</a> clause (often symbolized as S) is sometimes marked in the same way as an <a href="/facts/Agent_(grammar)/EyraFmNd">agent</a> of a <a href="/facts/Transitive_verb/3TtAs9FH">transitive verb</a> (that is, like a <a href="/facts/Subject_(grammar)/h5M1cQJ2">subject</a> such as "I" or "she" in <a href="/facts/English_language/tpkxGt7b">English</a>) but other times in the same way as a direct object (such as "me" or "her" in English). Languages with active–stative alignment are often called active languages.
The <a href="/facts/Grammatical_case/5caTQalU">case</a> or <a href="/facts/Grammatical_agreement/MxF9ErBV">agreement</a> of the intransitive argument (S) depends on semantic or lexical criteria particular to each language. The criteria tend to be based on the degree of <a href="/facts/Volition_(linguistics)/QKUbE6Uc">volition</a>, or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant.
For example, if one tripped and fell, an active–stative language might require one to say the equivalent of "fell me." To say "I fell" would mean that the person had done it on purpose, such as taking a fall in boxing. Another possibility is empathy; for example, if someone's dog were run over by a car, one might say the equivalent of "died her." To say "she died" would imply that the person was not affected emotionally.
If the core arguments of a transitive clause are termed A (<a href="/facts/Agent_(grammar)/EyraFmNd">agent</a> of a transitive verb) and P (<a href="/facts/Patient_(grammar)/7dAvYBa4">patient</a> of a transitive verb), active–stative languages can be described as languages that align intransitive S as S = P/O∗∗ ("fell me") or S = A ("I fell"), depending on the criteria described above.
Active–stative languages contrast with <a href="/facts/Accusative_language/9lQVLE2s">accusative languages</a> such as English that generally align S as S = A, and with <a href="/facts/Ergative_language/fxGo9Ah2">ergative languages</a> that generally align S as S = P/O. From this we can deduce that there are two types of S in Active languages. On the other hand, in Ergative languages some types of O/P can be O/P=A, and in this respect, we have to consider that there are also two types of O in Ergative languages. Active languages can be said to be a phenomenon at the intersection of these complex issues.

Active–stative alignment open-in-new

Active–stative alignment