|
An active-stative language, or active language for short, is one in which the sole argument of an intransitive verb is sometimes marked in the same way as the agent of a transitive verb (that is, like a subject in English), and sometimes in the same way as the direct object of a transitive verb. That is, the case of the intransitive argument (often symbolized as S) varies according to criteria particular to each language. These criteria tend to be based on the degree of volition or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant.
For most languages of this type, the case of the intransitive argument is lexically fixed for each verb, regardless of the actual degree of volition of the subject, but often corresponding to the most typical situation. For example, the argument of swim is always treated like the transitive subject (agent-like), and the argument of sleep is always treated like the transitive direct object (patient-like). In a language like this, if the subject of a verb like swallow is defined as agentive, it will be always marked so, even if the action of swallowing is involuntary. This subtype is sometimes known as split-S.
In other languages, the marking of the intransitive argument is decided by the speaker based on semantic considerations. That is, for any given intransitive verb the speaker may choose whether to mark the subject as agentive or patientive, with agentive marking implying a degree of volition or control, and patientive implying lack of volition or control, suffering, or sympathy on the part of the speaker. This subtype is sometimes known as fluid-S.
If the language has morphological case, then the arguments of a transitive verb are marked using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object, while the argument of an intransitive verb may be marked as either.
Languages lacking case inflections may indicate case with different word orders, using adpositions, etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede the verb, while the agentive argument might follow.
Cross-linguistically, the agentive argument tends to be marked, and the patientive argument tends to be unmarked. That is, if one case is indicated by zero-inflection, it is often the patientive.
Terminology
Active languages are a relatively new field of study; in other times active alignment was not recognized as such, and was mostly treated as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive). Besides, active languages are few, and they often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal). Therefore, the terminology used to describe them is rather flexible. Active languages are also termed active-stative or even nominative-absolutive. The terms agentive case and patientive case used above are descriptive but not standard.
The names of the subtypes, split-S and fluid-S, come from the designation of the single argument of intransitive verbs as S. They were first used by R. M. W. Dixon in 1979. Since the other ubiquitous core arguments are termed A (agent of a transitive verb) and O (object, or patient of a transitive verb), active languages can be described as languages which align S = O or S = A according to the criteria explained above, and contrasting to accusative languages that align S = A in the vast majority of cases, and to ergative languages that align S = O in the vast majority of cases.
Examples of active languages
Active Languages of the Americas (or Amerindian languages ): (†) - Extinct language
South American languages:
In Brazil, Bolivia, French Guiana, Paraguay, Peru: Tupì-Guaranì languages - Tupinambà (fluid-S, †) , Tupi (†), Classical and Modern Guarani (Split-S type with few verbs of Fluid-S; spoken in Paraguay, northern Argentina, eastern Bolivia and southwestern Brazil by 7 million people) , Siriono (eastern Bolivia), Camaiura or Kamayura (Split-S, Brazil) ; In Argentina (Upper Rio Negro, located at the northern edge of Patagonia): Arawak language Baniwa do Içana (fluid-S) In South America and the Caribbean: many Arawakan languages (also Arahuacan, Arawakanas, Arahuacano, Maipurean, Maipuran, Maipureano, Maipúrean) are active languages of Split-S type, such as Waurá (Split-S, spoken in Brazil)
Central America / Mesoamerican languages:
In Mexico: Popolocan branch of the Oto-Manguean languages - Chocho (also said Chocholtec, Chocholteco Chochotec, Chochon, or Ngigua, Split-S) and Amuzgo
In Panama & Colombia: Chibchan language Ikan (split-S)
North American languages:
In USA: South & South-East - Gulf languages: Muskigee or Creek, Hichiti, Coasati, Choctaw (fluid-S on verbs and accusative marking on nouns) , among them a subgroup of Muskogean languages such as Chickasaw (In South Central Oklahoma) Central region of the US - Siouan languages - Guaranì (Andean), Omaha , Biloxi(†) , Ofo(†) , Osage , Winnebago , Crow (fluid-S) , Ioway (split-S) , Hidatsa , Dakota (split-S) , Ponca , Tutelo , Assiboine , Mandan (split-S) ; among a Sioux language Lakhota (split-S) ,
In Great Plains (east of the Rocky Mountains in the United States and Canada): Caddoan languages - Caddo , Wichita (ergative, accusative and S-split mixed type) , Kitsai (also known as Kichai) (†) , Arikara (Split-S; also known as Ree) , Pawnee ;
In Eastern North America: Iroquoian languages - Mohawk (Ontario, Quebec and northern New York ) , Seneca (Split-S; Western New York and the Six Nations Reserve, Ontario) , Huron (called also as Wyandot, spoken in northeastern Oklahoma, Quebec), Oneida (spoken in Six Nations Reserve, Ontario; central New York and around Green Bay, Wisconsin), Onondaga (Split-S type, spoken in Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, and western New York ) , Susquehannock (†), Cayuga (spoken on Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, Ontario, by around 100 people) , Tuscarora (southern Ontario, Tuscarora Reservation in northwestern New York, and eastern North Carolina) , Nottoway (Virginia), Cherokee (Oklahoma, North Carolina ) ;
In Louisiana: Tunica (or Tonica, or less common form Yuron), an extinct language isolate
In California: Pamoan languages - Eastern Pomo (fluid-S, Northern California) , Central Pomo and Northern Pomo , Southeastern Pomo , Kashaya ;
Western North America (In Canada, Alaska, Southern Rocky Mountains, Pacific shore of the US) – Na-dene languages - Haida, Tlingit, Eyak- extinct in 2008, Athapaskan , Slave
Chiracahua Apache and many other languages also show active alignment.
Malayo-Polynesian languages:
Astronesian languages: Acehnese (said also Achinese, Achehnese) is of fluid-S type, North Sumatra, or Aceh (formerly Atjeh)) (spoken in Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia and Bota, Perak, Malaysia by 3 million people) ; many active languages of Central branch of this family are spoken in Eastern Indonesia;
In Papua New Guinea : Astronesian languages – Tolai, Yawa (Split-S)
In Tibet: Tibeto-Burman languages - spoken Tibetan (fluid-S)
Caucasian languages: South Caucasian languages, (also known as Ibero-Caucasian or Kartevelian languages) : Laz , Georgian .
North Caucasian languages: Tsova-Tush (Batsbi) – an active language of Fluid-S that has changed to Split-S, Tabassaran, or Tabasaran.
Siberia
Ket, isolate language (Split-S)
Georgian (spoken in the Caucasian nation of Georgia) is often termed an ergative language, but it shows many complications of this basic pattern, including active alignment in some verb paradigms.
Tsova-Tush, a Caucasian language is an active language. According to Holisky (1987), there are 31 intransitive verbs where the argument is always marked as patientive and which refer to uncontrollable states ("be hungry", "tremble", etc.), and 78 intransitve verbs with an agentive argument ("walk", "talk", "think"). These form a split-S subset of the verbs. The rest of the verbs form a fluid-S system; for instance, a single verb root can be interpreted as "slip" when used with a patientive argument, and as "slide" with an agentive argument.
Guaraní, a South American native language spoken mainly in Paraguay, has been analyzed as a close-to-ideal active language of the fluid-S type. In Mesoamerica the Oto-Manguean languages Chocho and Amuzgo are active languages of the split-S type, with some verbs showing fluid-S alignment. Among North American languages, Choctaw and Chickasaw (see: pronominal affixes), Lakhota and many others also show active alignment.
The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language shows many features known to correlate with active alignment, among them the animate vs. inanimate distinction, related to the distinction between active and inactive or stative verb arguments. Even in its descendant languages there are traces of a morphological split between volitional and nonvolitional verbs, such as a pattern in verbs of perception and cognition where the argument takes an oblique case, a relic of which can be seen in English methinks.
See also
References
- Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71.103-32.
- Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55.59-138.
Bauer Brigitte L.M. 2000 Archaic Syntax in Indo- European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin /New York: de Gruyter
Blake Barry J. 1994: Survey of Case Marking: Active system, in: Blake B., Case, Cambridge University Press, 125-126
Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjaceslav V. 1995 [1984]: Proto-Indo European as a Language of the Active Type, in Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjaceslav V.: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 233- 276
Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjaceslav V. 1995 [1984]: The grammatical syntagmatics of Proto-Indo European in typological perspective, in Gamkrelidze Thomas V. / Ivanov Vjaceslav V.: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 233- 276
Gante Christiane 2007: Objektkasus im Indogermanischen, Magisterarbeit an der Universitaet Hamburg, Grin Verlag 2008
Klimov, Georgij A. 1973: Ocerk obšcej teorii ergativnosti (Outline of a general theory of ergativity). Moscow: Nauka
Klimov, Georgij A. 1974: On the Character of Languages of Active Typology, in Linguistics 131: 11-25
Klimov, Georgij A. 1977: Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja. Moscow: Nauka
Klimov, Georgij A. 1983: On contentive Typology [Principy contensivnoj tipologii] Moscow: Nauka
Langemann, Katrin 2004 Morphologie und Syntax der Nominativ- und Akkusativkasus im Indogermanischen, Magisterarbeit an der Universitaet Hamburg
Lehmann Winfred P. 1995: Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects, Innsbruck
Benveniste Emile 1971: Origines de la Formations des Noms en Indoeuropéen. Paris: Adrien- Maissonneuve171-172 from Lehmann 1995: 17
Haas Mary R. 1946: A grammatical Sketch of Tunica, pp. 337-366 in Linguistic Structures of Native America, ed Harry Hoijer. New York: Viking, S.337-366, from Lehmann 1995
Hoijer Harry 1946: Charicahua Apache, Linguistic Structures of Native America, ed Harry Hoijer. New York: Viking, S. 55-84
Harris A. 1981: Georgian syntax: a study in relational grammar. Cambridge University Press, from Blake B. 1994
Harris, A. 1985: Diachronic syntax. Orlando: Academic Press, from Blake B. 1994
Mithun 1991 : Active / agentive case marking and its motivation, in Language 67: 510-546, p.513, 515-516, from Blake 1994 : 126
Seki, Lucy 1990. "Kamaiurá (Tupí-Guaraní) as an active-stative language."? In Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages, 367-91. Austin: University of Texas Press.
External links
- Active languages, by Daniel Andréason, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University
| |
