Editing Active–stative alignment

{{Short description|Type of morphosyntactic alignment in linguistic typology}}
{{nf|date=June 2019}}

{{Linguistic typology topics}}

In [[linguistic typology]], '''active–stative alignment''' (also '''split intransitive alignment''' or '''semantic alignment''') is a type of [[morphosyntactic alignment]] in which the sole [[verb argument|argument]] ("subject") of an [[intransitive verb|intransitive]] clause (often symbolized as ''S'') is sometimes marked in the same way as an [[Agent (grammar)|agent]] of a [[transitive verb]] (that is, like a [[subject (grammar)|subject]] such as "I" or "she" in [[English language|English]]) 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 [[grammatical case|case]] or [[grammatical agreement|agreement]] 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 [[Volition (linguistics)|volition]], 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'' ([[Agent (grammar)|agent]] of a transitive verb) and ''P'' ([[Patient (grammar)|patient]] 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 [[accusative language]]s such as English that generally align ''S'' as ''S = A'', and with [[ergative language]]s 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.

==Types==

For most such languages, 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'' may always be treated like the transitive subject ([[agent (grammar)|agent]]-like), and the argument of ''sleep'' like the transitive direct object ([[patient (grammar)|patient]]-like). In [[Dakota language|Dakota]], arguments of active verbs such as ''to run'' are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, and arguments of inactive verbs such as ''to stand'' are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. In such language, if the subject of a verb like ''run'' or ''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. For any given intransitive verb, the speaker may choose whether to mark the argument as agentive or patientive. In some of these languages, agentive marking encodes a degree of [[volition (linguistics)|volition]] or control over the action, with the [[patient (grammar)|patientive]] used as the default case; in others, patientive marking encodes a lack of volition or control, suffering from or being otherwise affected by the action, or sympathy on the part of the speaker, with the agentive used as the default case. These two subtypes (''patientive-default'' and ''agentive-default'') are sometimes known as '''fluid-S'''.

==Argument marking==
If the language has [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] [[grammatical case|case]], the arguments of a [[transitive verb]] are marked by using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object. The argument of an [[intransitive verb]] may be marked as either.<ref>Legate, J. A. (2008). Morphological and abstract case. ''Linguistic Inquiry, 39''(1), 55-101. {{doi|10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55}}</ref>

Languages lacking case [[inflection]]s may indicate case by different [[word order]]s, [[Agreement (linguistics)|verb agreement]], using [[adposition]]s, etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede the [[verb]], and the agentive argument might follow the verb.

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.

Additionally, active languages differ from ergative languages in how split case marking intersects with Silverstein's (1976) nominal hierarchy:
:pronouns (1st>2nd>3rd person) > proper nouns > common nouns (human > animate > inanimate)
Specifically, ergative languages with split case marking are more likely to use ergative rather than accusative marking for NPs lower down the hierarchy (to the right), whereas active languages are more likely to use active marking for NPs higher up the hierarchy (to the left), like first and second person pronouns.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yanagida |first1=Yuko |last2=Whitman |first2=John |title=Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40345246 |journal=Journal of East Asian Linguistics |pages=101–144 |date=2009|volume=18 |issue=2 |doi=10.1007/s10831-009-9043-2 |jstor=40345246 |s2cid=121032669 }}</ref> Dixon states that "In active languages, if active marking applies to an NP type a, it applies to every NP type to the left of a on the nominal hierarchy."

==Terminology==
Active languages are a relatively new field of study. Active [[morphosyntactic alignment]] used to be not recognized as such, and it was treated mostly as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive). Also, active languages are few and often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal).<ref>Nichols, J. (1993). Ergativity and linguistic geography. ''Australian Journal of Linguistics, 13''(1), 39-89. {{doi|10.1080/07268609308599489}}</ref>

Thus, the terminology used is rather flexible. The morphosyntactic alignment of active languages is also termed ''active–stative alignment'' or ''semantic alignment''. The terms [[agent (grammar)|''agentive case'']] and [[patient (grammar)|''patientive case'']] used above are sometimes replaced by the terms ''active'' and ''inactive''.

==Occurrence==

(†) = extinct language

===South American languages===

* [[Jê languages|Northern Jê languages]] (split-S in finite clauses, central and north-eastern Brazil), including:
** [[Apinayé language|Apinayé]] (Oliveira 2003)
** [[Timbira language]] continuum (Castro Alves 2010)
* [[Tupi–Guarani languages]] (Brazil, Bolivia, French Guiana, Paraguay, Peru), including:
** †[[Tupi language|Old Tupi]] and †Tupinambá (fluid-S)
** [[Sirionó language|Sirionó]] (eastern Bolivia)
** [[Kamayurá language|Kamayurá]] (split-S, Brazil)
** [[Guaraní language|Guaraní]] (split-S, with a few verbs allowing fluid-S marking,<ref>{{cite journal |first=Marianne |last=Mithun |title=Active/agentive Case Marking and Its Motivations |journal=Language  |year=1991 |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=510–546|doi=10.1353/lan.1991.0015 |s2cid=144965886 }}</ref> Paraguay)
* Many [[Arawakan languages]], including:
** [[Waurá language|Waurá]] (split-S, spoken in Brazil)
** [[Baniwa of Içana|Baniwa]] do Içana (fluid-S; upper Rio Negro, Brazil)
** Lokono

===Central America/Mesoamerican languages===

* In Mexico: [[Chocho language|Chocho]] and [[Amuzgo]] are active languages of the split-S type, with some verbs showing fluid-S alignment; Chol (Mayan) is Split-S
* In Panama & Colombia: [[Chibchan languages|Chibchan]] language Ikan (split-S)

===North American languages===

* In the south and south-east US
**[[Gulf languages]]
***[[Muscogee language|Muskogee]] (also known as Creek)
***[[Hichiti language|Hichiti]]
***[[Koasati language|Koasati]]
***[[Choctaw language|Choctaw]] (fluid-S on verbs and accusative marking on nouns)
***A subgroup of Muskogean languages such as [[Chickasaw language|Chickasaw]] (In South Central Oklahoma)
**[[Yuchi|Euchee]] (Yuchi) (in northeastern Oklahoma, historically in Tennessee)
**[[Tunica language|Tunica]] (†) (or Tonica) a [[language isolate]]
* In the central US
**[[Siouan languages]]
***[[Omaha language|Omaha]]
***[[Biloxi language|Biloxi]] (†)
***[[Ofo language|Ofo]] (†)
***[[Osage language|Osage]]
***[[Winnebago language|Winnebago]]
***[[Crow language|Crow]] (fluid-S)
***[[Ioway language|Ioway]] (split-S)
***[[Hidatsa language|Hidatsa]]
***[[Dakota language|Dakota]] (split-S)
***[[Ponca language|Ponca]]
***[[Tutelo language|Tutelo]]
***[[Assiniboine language|Assiniboine]]
***[[Mandan language|Mandan]] (split-S)
***[[Lakota language|Lakhota]] (split-S)
* In the Great Plains (east of the Rocky Mountains in the United States and Canada)
**[[Caddoan languages]]
***[[Caddo language|Caddo]]
***[[Wichita language|Wichita]] (ergative, accusative and S-split mixed type) (†)
***[[Kitsai language|Kitsai]] (also known as Kichai) (†)
***[[Arikara language|Arikara]] (Split-S; also known as Ree)
***[[Pawnee language|Pawnee]]
* In Eastern North America
**Iroquoian languages
***[[Mohawk language|Mohawk]] (Ontario, Quebec and northern New York)
***[[Seneca language|Seneca]] (Split-S; Western New York and the Six Nations Reserve, Ontario)
***[[Huron language|Huron]] (called also as Wyandot, spoken in northeastern Oklahoma, Quebec)
***[[Oneida language|Oneida]] (spoken in Six Nations Reserve, Ontario; central New York and around Green Bay, Wisconsin)
***[[Onondaga language|Onondaga]] (Split-S type, spoken in Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, and western New York)
***[[Susquehannock language|Susquehannock]] (†)
***[[Cayuga language|Cayuga]] (spoken on Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, Ontario, by around 100 people)
***[[Tuscarora language|Tuscarora]] (southern Ontario, Tuscarora Reservation in northwestern New York, and eastern North Carolina)
***[[Nottoway language|Nottoway]] (Virginia) (†)
***[[Cherokee language|Cherokee]] (Oklahoma, North Carolina)
* Western North America (in Canada, Alaska, Southern Rocky Mountains, Pacific shore of the US including California)
**[[Na-Dene languages|Na-dene languages]]
***[[Haida language|Haida]]
***[[Tlingit language|Tlingit]]
***[[Eyak language|Eyak]] († since 2008)
***[[Slavey language|Slave]]
***[[Chiricahua Apache language|Chiracahua Apache]] 
**[[Pomoan languages]]
***[[Eastern Pomo language|Eastern Pomo]] (fluid-S, Northern California)
***[[Central Pomo language|Central Pomo]]
***[[Northern Pomo language|Northern Pomo]]
***[[Southeastern Pomo language|Southeastern Pomo]]
***[[Kashaya language|Kashaya]]

===South and Southeast Asia===
* Austronesian languages
**[[Acehnese language|Acehnese]] (spoken in [[Aceh]], Indonesia and [[Perak]], Malaysia) is of fluid-S type
**[[Kuanua]] (spoken by the [[Tolai people|Tolai]] on the island of [[New Britain]]) is of a split-S type
**many active languages of Central branch of this family are spoken in Eastern Indonesia
* [[Papuan languages]]: [[Yawa languages|Yawa]] (Split-S)
* [[Tibeto-Burman languages]]: spoken Tibetan (fluid-S)

===Caucasus===
* [[Georgian language|Georgian]] (spoken in the Caucasian nation of [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]): generally considered a [[split ergativity|split ergative language]],<ref>Nash, L. (2017). The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in georgian. In L. D. Travis, D. Massam & J. Coon (Eds.), (1st ed., ) Oxford University Press. {{doi|10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.8}} </ref> but [[Alice Harris (linguist)|Alice Harris]] has claimed that it shows active alignment in some verb paradigms (namely, that the ergative marker appears to apply to active-intransitive verbs; also stative experiencers take a different case marking and agreement pattern). However, even that is complicated by the existence of apparently-inactive intransitive verbs taking such marking, such as the verb meaning 'to boil'.  Other [[Kartvelian languages]] such [[Laz language|Laz]], [[Svan language|Svan]], and [[Old Georgian]] show similar systems, while the position of [[Mingrelian language|Mingrelian]] is more controversial.
* [[Northeast Caucasian languages]]: [[Bats language|Tsova-Tush]]: according to Holisky (1987), there are 31 intransitive verbs for which the argument is always marked as patientive and refer to uncontrollable states ("be hungry", "tremble", etc.), and 78 intransitive verbs with an agentive argument ("walk", "talk", "think"). They 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 it is used with a patientive argument and as "slide" with an agentive argument.
* [[Tabasaran language|Tabasaran]]

===Siberia===
* [[Ket language|Ket]], a [[Yeniseian languages|Yeniseian]] language (split-S)
* [[Yukaghir languages]] (fluid-S, based on [[Focus (linguistics)|focus]] and discourse-pragmatic factors)<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zamaraeva |first=Olga |last2=Bender |first2=Emily M. |title=Focus Case outside of Austronesian: An Analysis of Yukaghir |url=http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rchaves/hpsg21/abstracts/ZamaraevaBenderYukaghirRevisedAbstract.pdf |access-date=4 January 2025 |website=acsu.buffalo.edu}}</ref>

===Reconstructed proto-languages===
According to Castro Alves (2010), a split-S alignment can be safely reconstructed for Proto-Northern Jê finite clauses. Clauses headed by a non-finite verb, on the contrary, would have been aligned [[Ergative–absolutive language|ergatively]] in this reconstructed language.

The reconstructed [[Pre-Proto-Indo-European]] language,<ref>{{cite book|last=Lehmann|first=Winfred P.|date=2002|title=Pre-Indo-European/Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 41|location=Washington, D.C.|publisher=Institute for the Study of Man|url=https://archive.org/details/lehmannpreindoeuropean2002/}}</ref> not to be confused with the [[Proto-Indo-European language]], its direct descendant, shows many features known to correlate with active alignment like 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 (called [[quirky subject]]), a relic of which can be seen in [[Middle English language|Middle English]] ''methinks'' or in the distinction between ''see'' vs. ''look'' or ''hear'' vs. ''listen''. Other possible relics from a structure, in descendant languages of Indo-European, include conceptualization of possession and extensive use of particles.

==See also==
* [[Ambitransitive verb]]
* [[Grammatical case|Case]] 
* [[Diathesis alternation]] 
* [[Ergative-absolutive language]]
* [[Labile verb]]
* [[Morphosyntactic alignment]]
* [[Marked nominative|Nominative-absolutive language]] (Marked nominative alignment)
* [[Nominative-accusative language]]
* [[Unaccusative verb]]
* [[Unergative verb]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}
* {{cite thesis |last=Andréasson |first=Daniel |title=Active languages |publisher=Stockholm University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131251/http://www.ling.su.se/gu/kursmaterial/311_4/active.pdf |archive-date=2008-03-02 |url=http://www.ling.su.se/gu/kursmaterial/311_4/active.pdf |degree=BA}}
* {{cite book |last=Bauer |first=Brigitte |year=2000 |title=Archaic Syntax in Indo- European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French |publisher=de Gruyter |doi=10.1515/9783110825992 |volume=125 |series=Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs |isbn=978-3-11-016723-8}}
* {{cite book |last=Blake |first=Barry J. |year=1994 |chapter=Survey of Case Marking |title=Case |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=118–160 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139164894.007|isbn=978-0-521-80761-6 }}
* {{cite book |last=Benveniste |first=Emile |year=1971 |title=Origines de la Formations des Noms en Indoeuropéen |location=Paris |publisher=Adrien- Maissonneuve |pages=171–172}}
* {{cite journal |last=Cunha de Oliveira |first=Christiane |year=2003 |title=Lexical categories and descriptives in Apinajé |journal=International Journal of American Linguistics |volume=69 |pages=243–274|doi=10.1086/381336 |s2cid=224805397 }}
* {{cite journal |last=de Castro Alves |first=Flávia |year=2010 |title=Evolution of Alignment in Timbira |journal=International Journal of American Linguistics |volume=76 |issue=4 |pages=439–475|doi=10.1086/658054 |s2cid=224806935 }}
* {{cite journal |author-first=R. M. W. |author-last=Dixon| year=1979 |title=Ergativity|journal=Language|volume=55|issue=1 |pages=59–138 |doi=10.2307/412519|jstor=412519 }}
* {{cite book |author-last=Dixon |author-first=R. M. W. |year=1994|title=Ergativity|url=https://archive.org/details/ergativity0000dixo |url-access=registration |publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0-521-44898-0}}
* {{cite book|title=The Typology of Semantic Alignment|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn= 9780199238385 |editor-first=Mark |editor-last=Donohue |editor2-first=Søren |editor2-last=Wichmann }}
* {{cite book |last1=Gamkrelidze |first1=Thomas V. |last2=Ivanov |first2=Vjačeslav V. |year=1995 |orig-year=1984 |chapter=Proto-Indo European as a Language of the Active Type |title=Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans |publisher=Mouton de Gruyter |translator-last=Nichols |translator-first=Johanna |pages=233–276 |doi=10.1515/9783110815030.1.233}}
* {{cite book |last1=Gamkrelidze |first1=Thomas V. |last2=Ivanov |first2=Vjačeslav V. |year=1995 |orig-year=1984 |chapter=The grammatical syntagmatics of Proto-Indo European in typological perspective |title=Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans |publisher=Mouton de Gruyter |translator-last=Nichols |translator-first=Johanna |pages=277–324 |doi=10.1515/9783110815030.1.277}}
*{{cite thesis |last=Gante |first=Christiane |year=2007 |title=Objektkasus im Indogermanischen |degree=Magisterarbeit |publisher=Universität Hamburg}}
** {{cite book |last=Gante |first=Christiane |title=Objektkasus im Indogermanischen |isbn=978-3-640-18143-8 |publisher=Grin Verlag |year=2008}}
* {{cite book |last=Haas |first=Mary R. |year=1946 |chapter=A grammatical Sketch of Tunica |pages=337–366 |title=Linguistic Structures of Native America |editor-first=Harry |editor-last=Hoijer |location=New York |publisher=Viking}}
* {{cite book |last=Harris |first=Alice |year=1981 |title=Georgian syntax: a study in relational grammar |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-10971-0 |series=Cambridge Studies in Linguistics}}
* {{cite book |last=Harris |first=Alice C. |year=1985 |title=Diachronic syntax: the Kartvelian case |location=Orlando |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-613518-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Hoijer |first=Harry |year=1946 |chapter=Charicahua Apache |title=Linguistic Structures of Native America |editor-first=Harry |editor-last=Hoijer |editor-last2=Osgood |editor-first2=Cornelius |location=New York |publisher=Viking |pages=55–84 |lccn=46007600}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Holisky |first1=Dee Ann |year=1987 |title=The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi) |journal=[[Lingua (journal)|Lingua]] |volume=71 |issue=1–4 |pages=103–32 |doi=10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Iliev |first=Ivan G. |title=Case and Vocativeness |publisher=Pygmalion |location=Plovdiv |year=2007 |isbn=978-954-9402-19-3 |lang=ru, en |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348273522}}
* {{cite thesis |last=Ivanova |first=Natalia |year=2008 |title=Impersonal Constructions as a Residue of an Active Language |type=Magisterarbeit |publisher=University of Hamburg}}
* {{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Georgij A. |year=1973 |title=Očerk obščej teorii ergativnosti |script-title=ru:Очерк общей теории эргативности |trans-title=Outline of a general theory of ergativity |location=Moscow |publisher=Nauka}}
* {{cite journal |last=Klimov |first=Georgij A. |year=1974 |title=On the Character of Languages of Active Typology |journal=Linguistics |volume=12 |issue=131 |pages=11–25 |doi=10.1515/ling.1974.12.131.11|s2cid=144143087 }}
* {{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Georgij A. |year=1977 |title=Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja |script-title=ru:Типология Языков Активного Строя |trans-title=Typology of Active Languages |location=Moscow |publisher=Nauka}}
* {{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Georgij A. |year=1983 |trans-title=On Contentive Typology |script-title=ru:Принципы контенсивной типологии |title=Principy kontensivnoj tipologii |location=Moscow |publisher=Nauka}}
* {{cite thesis |last=Langemann |first=Katrin |year=2004 |title=Morphologie und Syntax der Nominativ- und Akkusativkasus im Indogermanischen |type=Magisterarbeit |publisher=Universität Hamburg}}
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann |first=Winfred P. |year=2002 |title=Pre-Indo-European |series=Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph |volume=41 |isbn=978-0-941694-82-7 |lccn=2002102266}}
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann |first=Winfred P. |year=1995 |title=Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects |location=Innsbruck}}
* {{cite book |last=Lehmann |first=Winfred P. |year=1993 |title=Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics |location=London |publisher=Routledge}}
* {{cite journal |last=Mithun |first=Marianne |year=1991 |title=Active/agentive case marking and its motivation |journal=Language |volume=67 |number=3 |pages=510–546 |doi=10.2307/415036 |jstor=415036}}
* {{cite book |last=Seki |first=Lucy |year=1990 |chapter=Kamaiurá (Tupí-Guaraní) as an active–stative language |editor-first=Doris L. |editor-last=Payne |title=Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages |pages=367–391 |location=Austin |publisher=University of Texas Press}}
* Suda, Junichi (2025). “''The'' ''Late-Klimov Model'' for Typological Classification of Active, Ergative, and Nominative Languages ― Re-evaluation of ''the Five Macroroles Model'', et al.”. ''Typological Studies'' 7: 83-109.

==Further reading==
*Bentley, D. (2011) ''Split intransitivity in Italian''. De Gruyter Mouton.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Active-stative language}}
[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Syntax–semantics interface]]