In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative-accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used varies from language to language.
Nominative-accusative vs. ergative-absolutive
s treat both the actor in a clause with a transitive verb and the experiencer in a clause with an intransitive verb in the same way grammatically. If the language uses case markers, they take the same case. If it uses word order, it is parallel. For example, consider these two English sentences:
Jane was chasing John.
Jane was sweating.
The grammatical role of "Jane" is identical. In both cases, "Jane" is the subject. In ergative-absolutive languages, there is a different pattern. The patient of a transitive verb and the experiencer of an intransitive verb are treated the same grammatically. If the two sentences above were expressed in an ergative language, "John" in the former and "Jane" in the latter would be parallel grammatically. Also, a different form would be used for "Jane" in the first sentence. In split ergative languages, some constructions pattern with nominative-accusative, and others with ergative-absolutive.
Split conditions
The split is usually conditioned by one of the following:
The presence of a discourse participant in the proposition. The Australian language Dyirbal behaves ergatively in all morphosyntactic contexts unless one of those is involved. When a first- or second-person pronoun appears, however, it is marked according to a nominative–accusative pattern. That can be explained in terms of the high animacy of a first- or second-person speaker in the animacy hierarchy.
The use of certain tenses and/or aspects in the verb. The Indo-Iranian family, for example, shows a split between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. A verb in the perfective aspect causes its arguments to be marked by an ergative pattern, and the imperfective aspect triggers accusative marking.
The type of marking involved. Some languages have an ergative–absolutive pattern with respect to the marking of case marking but a nominative–accusative pattern with respect to agreement.
The agentivity of the intransitive subject. In languages like Dakota, arguments of active verbs, such as to run, are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, but arguments of inactive verbs, such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. Languages with such a marking are known as split-S languages and are formally a subtype of active languages.
Pragmatic considerations or for emphasis, contrast, or clarity. In certain Tibeto-Burmese languages, elicited data has consistent ergative, aspectually split-ergative or active-stative case marking pattern, and in natural discourse the “ergative” marking is found only in some clauses, often a minority, usually with some pragmatic sense of emphasis or contrast.
Examples
Hindi–Urdu
An example of split ergativity, conditioned by tense and aspect, is found in Hindustani, which has an ergative case on subjects in the perfective aspect for transitive verbs in the active voice. However, in all other aspects, subjects appear in the direct case. In the following perfective sentence, the agent laṛke-ne is marked for ergative case, while the undergoer kitāb is in unmarked direct case. The verb kharīdī has the feminine ending-ī, showing gender agreement with the undergoer kitāb. In the corresponding imperfective sentence, the agent laṛkā is in unmarked direct case. The verb kharīdtā has the masculine ending-ā and thus agrees with the agent laṛkā.
The Mayan language Chol has split-ergative person marking. In transitive clauses, verbs are framed by a person marking prefix that expresses the subject, and a suffix that expresses the object. In intransitive clauses, the subject can either be represented by a set A-person marker, or a set B-person marker, depending on aspect. In perfective aspect, Chol has ergative–absolutive alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a suffixed person marker, thus in the same way as the object of transitive verbs. In imperfective aspect, Chol has nominative–accusative alignment: the subject of the intransitive verb is expressed by a prefixed person marker, thus in the same way as the subjct of transitive verbs.
In Columbia River Sahaptin, the split is determined by the person of both subject and object. The ergative suffix -nɨm occurs only for third-person subjects for which the direct object is in the first or the second person. Another ergative suffix, -in, marks the subject in the inverse. Both subject and object are then always in the third-person. Direct : Inverse:
