• Images
• Videos
• Documents
• Books
• Articles

Tripartite, Ergative and Accusative systems

A tripartite language does not maintain any syntactic or morphological equivalence (such as word order or grammatical case) between the core argument of intransitive verbs and either core argument of transitive verbs. In full tripartite alignment systems, this entails the agent argument of intransitive verbs always being treated differently from each of the core arguments of transitive verbs, whereas for mixed system intransitive alignment systems this may only entail that certain classes of noun are treated differently between these syntactic positions.⁸

The arguments of a verb are usually symbolized as follows:

• A = 'agent' argument of a transitive verb (traditional transitive subject)
• O = 'patient' argument of a transitive verb (traditional transitive object)
• S = argument of an intransitive verb (traditional intransitive subject)

The relationship between accusative, ergative, and tripartite alignments can be schematically represented as follows:

See morphosyntactic alignment for a more technical explanation.

The term 'subject' has been found to be problematic when applied to languages which have any morphosyntactic alignment other than nominative-accusative, and hence, reference to the 'agent' argument of transitive sentences is preferred to the term 'subject'.⁹

Types of tripartite systems

Languages may be designated as tripartite languages in virtue of having either a full tripartite morphosyntactic alignment, or in virtue of having a mixed system which results in tripartite treatment of one or more specific classes of nouns.¹⁰

Full tripartite systems

A full tripartite system distinguishes between S, A and O arguments in all classes of nominals.¹¹ It has been claimed that Wangkumara has the only recorded full tripartite alignment system.¹²¹³¹⁴

Example

Wangkumara consistently differentiates marking on S, A, and O arguments in the morphology, as demonstrated in example (1) below:¹⁵

karn-ia

man-NOM

yanthagaria

walk.PRES

makurr-anrru

stick-INSTR

karn-ia yanthagaria makurr-anrru

man-NOM walk.PRES stick-INSTR

'The man walks with a stick.'

karna-ulu

man-ERG

kalkanga

hit.PAST

thithi-nhanha

dog-ACC.NONM.SG

karna-ulu kalkanga thithi-nhanha

man-ERG hit.PAST dog-ACC.NONM.SG

'The man hit the (female) dog.'

In the above example, the intransitive case in (a) is glossed NOM, in accordance with Breen's original transcription. Across (1), we see differential case suffixes for each of intransitive (NOM), ergative (ERG), and accusative (ACC) case.¹⁶

The same tripartite distinction is clear in the pronominal system:¹⁷

Palu-nga

die-PAST

nganyi

1sg.NOM

Palu-nga nganyi

die-PAST 1sg.NOM

"I died."

Ngkatu

1sg.ERG

nhanha

3sg.ABS

kalka-nga

hit-PAST

Ngkatu nhanha kalka-nga

1sg.ERG 3sg.ABS hit-PAST

"I hit him/her."

Nulu

3sg.ERG

nganha

1sg.ABS

kalka-ng

hit-PAST

Nulu nganha kalka-ng

3sg.ERG 1sg.ABS hit-PAST

"S/he hit me."

In the above examples, we see the first person singular pronoun taking different forms for each of the S, A, and O arguments (marked NOM, ERG and ABS respectively), indicating the tripartite alignment in pronominal morphology.

Syntactic surveys of Wangkumara suggest this is generally true of the language as a whole.¹⁸ Hence, Wangkumara represents a case of a full tripartite alignment.

Mixed systems

More common than full tripartite systems, mixed system tripartite alignments either demonstrate tripartite alignment in some subsection of the grammar, or else lacks the ergative, the accusative, or both in some classes of nominals.¹⁹ An example of the former kind of mixed system may be Yazghulami, which exhibits tripartite alignment but only in the past tense;²⁰ Classical Armenian shows a similar distribution, with synthetic tenses following nominative-accusative alignment and analytic tenses exhibiting tripartite alignment.²¹ An example of the latter would be Nez Perce, which lacks ergative marking in the first and second person.²²

The following examples from Nez Perce illustrate the intransitive-ergative-accusative opposition that holds in the third person:²³

Hi-páay-na

3SG-arrive-PERF

háama-Ø

man.NOM

Hi-páay-na háama-Ø

3SG-arrive-PERF man.NOM

'The man arrived.'

Háamap-im

man-ERG

'áayato-na

woman-ACC

pée-'nehne-ne

3SG-3SG-take-PERF

Háamap-im 'áayato-na pée-'nehne-ne

man-ERG woman-ACC 3SG-3SG-take-PERF

'The man took the woman away.'

In the above examples, (2a) demonstrates the intransitive case marking (here coded as NOM), while (2b) demonstrates differential ergative and accusative markings. Thus, Nez Perce demonstrates tripartite differentiations in its third person morphology.

In Ainu, only first person inclusive and fourth person (first person plural exclusive / logographical / indefinite / etc.) display tripartite alignment as shown in the table.²⁴

Realizations of tripartite alignment

Morphological tripartite alignment

Syntactic tripartite alignment

Passive and anti-passive constructions

Ainu also shows the passive voice formation typical of nominative-accusative languages and the antipassive of ergative-absolutive languages. Like Nez Perce, the use of both the passive and antipassive is a trait of a tripartite language.

Distribution of tripartite alignments

Full tripartite alignments

Mixed systems

See also

• Ergative–absolutive language
• Nominative–accusative language
• Split ergativity

Bibliography

• Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nicole Kruspe, 2004. A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge University Press.
• Nez Perce Verb Morphology
• Noel Rude, 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce. In Passive and Voice, ed. M. Shibatani, 547–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

References

1. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

2. Baker, Mark (2015). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-1107055223. 978-1107055223 ↩

3. Breen, J. G. (1976). 'Ergative, locative, and instrumental case inflections - Wangkumara', in Dixon, R.M. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 336-339. ↩

4. Rude, N. (1985). Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse. University of Oregon: doctoral dissertation. ↩

5. Watters, D. E. (2002). A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 69. /w/index.php?title=D.E._Watters&action=edit&redlink=1 ↩

6. Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 40. /wiki/R._M._W._Dixon ↩

7. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

8. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

9. Falk, Y. N. (2006). Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1139458566. 1139458566 ↩

10. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

11. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

12. Breen, J. G. (1976). 'Ergative, locative, and instrumental case inflections - Wangkumara', in Dixon, R.M. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 336-339. ↩

13. McDonald, M.; Wurm, S. A. (1979). Basic materials in Wankumara (Galali): Grammar, sentences, and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ↩

14. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

15. Wangkumara examples from Breen, 1976: 337-338. ↩

16. Siewierska, Anna. (1997). 'The formal realization of case and agreement marking: A functional perspective', in Simon-Vandenberg, A.M., Kristin Davidse, and Dirk Noel (eds.), Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, p.184 ↩

17. Siewierska, Anna (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 55. https://archive.org/details/personcambridget00siew_165 ↩

18. Breen, J. G. (1976). 'Ergative, locative, and instrumental case inflections - Wangkumara', in Dixon, R.M. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 336-339. ↩

19. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

20. Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 40. /wiki/R._M._W._Dixon ↩

21. Robin Meyer (2024). Iranian Syntax in Classical Armenian: The Armenian Perfect and Other Cases of Pattern Replication. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191885839. 9780191885839 ↩

22. Blake, Barry J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125. ISBN 9780521807616. 9780521807616 ↩

23. Nez Perce examples from Rude, 1985: 83, 228. ↩

24. Anna Bugaeva (2012). "Southern Hokkaido Ainu". In Nicolas Tranter (ed.). The languages of Japan and Korea. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge. pp. 461–509. There is no morphologically distinctive class of adjectives. The content expressed by adjectives in other languages is expressed by intransitive verbs in Ainu, cf. (14b). https://www.academia.edu/13243194 ↩

25. Anna Bugaeva (2012). "Southern Hokkaido Ainu". In Nicolas Tranter (ed.). The languages of Japan and Korea. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge. pp. 461–509. There is no morphologically distinctive class of adjectives. The content expressed by adjectives in other languages is expressed by intransitive verbs in Ainu, cf. (14b). https://www.academia.edu/13243194 ↩