Editing Ergative–absolutive alignment

{{Short description|Pattern relating to the subject and object of verbs}}
{{Technical|date=March 2025}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2023}} 
{{Linguistic typology topics}}
In [[linguistic typology]], '''ergative–absolutive alignment''' is a type of [[morphosyntactic alignment]] in which the [[subject (grammar)|subject]] of an [[intransitive verb]] behaves like the [[object (grammar)|object]] of a [[transitive verb]], and differently from the subject of a transitive verb.<ref>Comrie (1989), p. 110ff.</ref> Examples include [[Basque language|Basque]], [[Georgian language|Georgian]], [[Mayan languages|Mayan]], [[Standard Tibetan|Tibetan]], [[Sumerian language|Sumerian]], and certain [[Indo-European languages]] (such as [[Pashto]] and the [[Kurdish languages]] and many [[Indo-Aryan languages]] like [[Hindustani language|Hindustani]]). It has also been attributed to the [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[modern Aramaic]] (also called Neo-Aramaic) languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as [[Nominative–accusative alignment|accusative]] (for instance, Basque, Pashto and [[Urdu]]) and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter.{{efn|[[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]] is said to be the only representative of syntactic ergativity, yet it displays accusative alignment with certain pronouns.{{Clarify|date=June 2024|reason=The previous sentence implies that there are multiple languages with syntactic ergativity.}}}}

The ergative-absolutive alignment is in contrast to [[nominative–accusative alignment]], which is observed in [[English language|English]] and most other Indo-European languages, where the single argument of an intransitive verb ("She" in the sentence "She walks") behaves grammatically like the agent ([[subject (grammar)|subject]]) of a transitive verb ("She" in the sentence "She finds it") but different from the object of a transitive verb ("her" in the sentence "He likes her"). When ergative–absolutive alignment is coded by [[grammatical case]], the case used for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb is the [[absolutive case|absolutive]], and the case used for the agent of a transitive verb is the [[ergative case|ergative]]. In nominative-accusative languages, the case for the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb is the [[nominative case|nominative]], while the case for the direct object of a transitive verb is the [[accusative case|accusative]].

Many languages have ergative–absolutive alignment only in some parts of their grammar (e.g., in the case marking of nouns), but nominative-accusative alignment in other parts (e.g., in the case marking of pronouns, or in [[person agreement]]). This is known as [[split ergativity]].

==Ergative vs. accusative languages==

An ergative language maintains a [[syntax|syntactic]] or [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] equivalence (such as the same [[word order]] or [[grammatical case]]) for the object of a transitive verb and the single core argument of an intransitive verb, while treating the agent of a transitive verb differently. Such languages are said to operate with S/O [[syntactic pivot]].

This contrasts with [[Nominative–accusative language|nominative–accusative]] languages such as [[English language|English]], where the single [[Argument (linguistics)|argument]] of an intransitive verb and the [[Agent (grammar)|agent]] of a transitive verb (both called the [[subject (grammar)|subject]]) are treated alike and kept distinct from the object of a transitive verb. Such languages are said to operate with S/A (syntactic) pivot.

{{multiple image
|align=left
|image1=Ergative alignment.svg
|caption1=Ergative alignment (intransitive '''S'''ubject and transitive '''O'''bject treated the same way) displaying S/O [[syntactic pivot|pivot]]
|image2=Accusative alignment.svg |caption2=Accusative alignment (intransitive '''S'''ubject and transitive '''A'''gent treated the same way) displaying S/A pivot}}
{{Clear|left}}

(reference for figure:<ref name="auto">Friend, Some Syntactic and Morphological Features of Suleimaniye Kurdish, UCLA, 1985</ref>)

These different arguments are usually symbolized as follows:
* '''A''' = agent of transitive verb
* '''O''' = object of transitive verb (also symbolized as '''P''' for "patient")
* '''S''' = core argument (i.e. [[Subject (grammar)|subject]]) of intransitive verb

The relationship between ergative and accusative systems can be schematically represented as the following:

{| class="wikitable"
!
! Ergative–absolutive
! Nominative–accusative
|-
| '''A'''
| <span style="color:#800000">ERG</span>
| <span style="color:#008000">NOM</span>
|-
| '''O'''
| <span style="color:#008000">ABS</span>
| <span style="color:#800000">ACC</span>
|-
| '''S'''
| <span style="color:#008000">ABS</span>
| <span style="color:#008000">NOM</span>
|}

''See [[morphosyntactic alignment]] for a more technical explanation and a comparison with [[nominative–accusative language]]s.''

The word ''subject'', as it is typically defined in grammars of nominative–accusative languages, has a different application when referring to ergative–absolutive languages, or when discussing [[morphosyntactic alignment]] in general.

Ergative languages tend to be either verb-final or verb-initial; there are few, if any, ergative [[Subject–verb–object word order|SVO]] languages.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~asw/lab/lab87/LAB87_lahne.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-10-29 |archive-date=2011-06-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110613112247/http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~asw/lab/lab87/LAB87_lahne.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

==Realization of ergativity==
Ergativity can be found in both [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] and [[syntactic]] behavior.<ref>For a kind of "phonological" ergativity, see Rude (1983), also Vydrin (2011) for a detailed critique.</ref>

===Morphological ergativity===
If the language has morphological [[grammatical case|case]], then the [[verb argument]]s are marked thus:
* The agent of a transitive verb ('''A''') is marked as [[ergative case]], or as a similar case such as [[oblique case|oblique]].
* The core argument of an intransitive verb ('''S''') and the object of a transitive verb ('''O''') are both marked with [[absolutive case]].<ref name="auto"/>

If there is no case marking, ergativity can be marked through other means, such as in verbal morphology. For instance, [[Abkhaz language|Abkhaz]] and most [[Mayan languages]] have no morphological ergative case, but they have a verbal agreement structure that is ergative. In languages with ergative–absolutive agreement systems, the absolutive form is usually the most [[markedness|unmarked]] form of a word (exceptions include [[Nias language|Nias]] and [[Tlapanec language|Tlapanec]]).<ref>Donohue, Mark (2008). "Semantic alignment systems: what's what, and what's not". In Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann, eds. (2008). ''The Typology of Semantic Alignment''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>

The following examples from [[Basque language|Basque]] demonstrate an ergative–absolutive case marking system:

{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="7" align="center" | Ergative language
|-
! Sentence:
| colspan="2" | ''Martin etorri da.''
|     
| colspan="3" | ''Martinek Diego ikusi du.''
|-
! Word:
| Martin<span style="color:#008000">'''-Ø'''</span>
| etorri da
|     
| Martin<span style="color:#800000">'''-ek'''</span>
| Diego<span style="color:#008000">'''-Ø'''</span>
| ikusi du
|-
! Gloss:
| Martin<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| has arrived
|     
| Martin<span style="color:#800000">'''-<small>ERG</small>'''</span>
| Diego<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| has seen
|-
! Function:
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
|     
| <span style="color:#800000">'''A'''</span>
| <span style="color:#008000">'''O'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
! Translation:
| colspan="2" | "Martin has arrived."
|     
| colspan="3" | "Martin has seen Diego."
|}

Here ''-Ø'' represents a [[Null morpheme|zero morpheme]], as the absolutive case is unmarked in Basque with proper nouns (i.e., Martin, Diego, Berlin...). The forms for the ergative are ''-k'' after a vowel, and ''-ek'' after a consonant. It is a further rule in Basque grammar that in most cases a noun phrase must be closed by a [[determiner]]. The default determiner (commonly called the [[Article (grammar)|article]], which is suffixed to [[Noun|common nouns]] and usually translatable by "the" in English) is ''-a'' in the singular and ''-ak'' in the plural, the plural being marked only on the determiner and never the noun. For common nouns, this default determiner is fused with the ergative case marker. Thus one obtains the following forms for ''gizon'' ("man"): ''gizon-a'' (man-the.sing.abs), ''gizon-ak'' (man-the.pl.abs), ''gizon-ak'' (man-the.sing.erg), ''gizon-ek'' (man-the.pl.erg). When fused with the article, the absolutive plural is [[Homophony (linguistics)|homophonous]] with the ergative singular. See [[Basque grammar]] for details.<ref>King, Alan R. ''The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction.'' Reno: University of Nevada Press.</ref>

Another example from [[Circassian language]] that demonstrates an ergative–absolutive case marking system while using the same verb "break" in both intransitive and transitive forms:
{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="7" align="center" | Ergative language
|-
! Sentence:
| colspan="2" | ''ӏанэр мэкъутэ.''<br />''ʔaːnar maqʷəta.''
|     
| colspan="3" | ''Лӏым ӏанэр екъутэ.''<br />''ɬʼəm ʔaːnar jaqʷəta.''
|-
! Word:
| ӏанэ<span style="color:#008000">'''-р'''</span><br />ʔaːna<span style="color:#008000">'''-r'''</span>
| мэкъутэ<br />maqʷəta
|     
| Лӏы<span style="color:#800000">'''м'''</span><br />ɬʼə<span style="color:#800000">'''m'''</span>
| ӏанэ<span style="color:#008000">'''р'''</span><br />ʔaːna<span style="color:#008000">'''r'''</span>
| екъутэ<br />jaqʷəta
|-
! Gloss:
| The table<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| breaks
|     
| The man<span style="color:#800000">'''-<small>ERG</small>'''</span>
| the table<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| breaks
|-
! Function:
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
|     
| <span style="color:#800000">'''A'''</span>
| <span style="color:#008000">'''O'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
! Translation:
| colspan="2" | "The table breaks."
|     
| colspan="3" | "The man breaks the table."
|}
Here, "table" has the absolutive case mark -р /-r/ while "man" has the ergative case mark -м /-m/. We also have the verb "break" in intransitive form "мэкъутэ" and transitive form "екъутэ". In the example above, we specifically used SOV order, but Circassian allows any order.

In contrast, [[Japanese language|Japanese]] is a nominative–accusative language:

{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="7" align="center" | Accusative language
|-
! Sentence:
| colspan="2" |{{lang|ja|男の人が着いた。}} ''Otokonohito ga tsuita.''
|     
| colspan="3" |{{lang|ja|男の人が子供を見た。}} ''Otokonohito ga kodomo o mita.''
|-
! Words:
| otokonohito <span style="color:#008000">'''ga'''</span>
| tsuita
|     
| otokonohito <span style="color:#008000">'''ga'''</span>
| kodomo <span style="color:#800000">'''o'''</span>
| mita
|-
! Gloss:
| man <span style="color:#008000">'''<small>NOM</small>'''</span>
| arrived
|     
| man <span style="color:#008000">'''<small>NOM</small>'''</span>
| child <span style="color:#800000">'''<small>ACC</small>'''</span>
| saw
|-
! Function:
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
|     
| <span style="color:#008000">'''A'''</span>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''O'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
! Translation:
| colspan="2" | "The man arrived."
|     
| colspan="3" | "The man saw the child."
|}

In this language, the argument of the intransitive and agent of the transitive sentence are marked with the same [[nominative case]] particle ''ga'', while the object of the transitive sentence is marked with the [[accusative case]] ''o''.

If one sets: A = agent of a transitive verb; S = argument of an intransitive verb; O = object of a transitive verb, then we can contrast normal nominative–accusative English with a hypothetical ergative English:

{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="3" align="center" | accusative English<br>(S form = A form)
| colspan="6" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | hypothetical ergative English<br>(S form = O form)
|-
! colspan="1" align="center" | word order
| colspan="3" align="center" | SVO
| colspan="3" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | SOV
| colspan="3" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | VOS
|- style="border-top: 2px solid darkgray;" 
! colspan="1" align="center" | transitive
| colspan="1" align="center" | nominative A
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | accusative O
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | ergative A
| colspan="1" align="center" | absolutive O
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | absolutive O
| colspan="1" align="center" | ergative A
|-
! colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | He
| colspan="1" align="center" | kisses
| colspan="1" align="center" | her.
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | He
| colspan="1" align="center" | her
| colspan="1" align="center" | kisses.
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | Kisses
| colspan="1" align="center" | her
| colspan="1" align="center" | he.
|-
! colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | She
| colspan="1" align="center" | kisses
| colspan="1" align="center" | him.
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | She
| colspan="1" align="center" | him
| colspan="1" align="center" | kisses.
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | Kisses
| colspan="1" align="center" | him
| colspan="1" align="center" | she.
|- style="border-top: 2px solid darkgray;" 
! colspan="1" align="center" | intransitive
| colspan="1" align="center" | nominative S
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | absolutive S
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | absolutive S
|-
! colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | He
| colspan="1" align="center" | smiles.
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | Him
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | smiles.
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | Smiles
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | him.
|-
! colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | She
| colspan="1" align="center" | smiles.
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | Her
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | smiles.
| colspan="1" align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid darkgray;" | Smiles
| colspan="1" align="center" | 
| colspan="1" align="center" | her.
|}

A number of languages have both ergative and accusative morphology. A typical example is a language that has nominative-accusative marking on verbs and ergative–absolutive case marking on nouns.

[[Georgian language|Georgian]] has an ergative alignment, but the agent is only marked with the ergative case in the [[perfective]] aspect (also known as the "aorist [[screeve]]"). Compare:

:{{Transliteration|ka|K'aci vašls č'ams.}} ({{lang|ka|კაცი ვაშლს ჭამს}}) "The man is eating an apple."
:{{Transliteration|ka|K'ac'''ma''' vašli č'ama.}} ({{lang|ka|კაცმა ვაშლი ჭამა}}) "The man ate an apple."

{{Transliteration|ka|K'ac-}} is the root of the word "man". In the first sentence (present continuous tense) the agent is in the nominative case ({{Transliteration|ka|k'aci}}&thinsp;). In the second sentence, which shows ergative alignment, the root is marked with the ergative suffix {{Transliteration|ka|-ma}}.

However, there are some intransitive verbs in Georgian that behave like transitive verbs, and therefore employ the ergative case in the past tense. Consider:

:{{Transliteration|ka|K'ac'''ma''' daacemina.}} ({{lang|ka|კაცმა დააცემინა}}) "The man sneezed."

Although the verb "sneeze" is clearly intransitive, it is conjugated like a transitive verb. In Georgian there are a few verbs like these, and there has not been a clear-cut explanation as to why these verbs have evolved this way. One explanation is that verbs such as "sneeze" used to have a direct object (the object being "nose" in the case of "sneeze") and over time lost these objects, yet kept their transitive behavior.

==== Differing noun-pronoun alignment ====
In rare cases, such as the [[Australian Aboriginal languages|Australian Aboriginal language]] [[Nhanda language|Nhanda]], different nominal elements may follow a different case-alignment template. In Nhanda, common nouns have ergative-absolutive alignment—like in most Australian languages—but most pronouns instead follow a [[Nominative–accusative alignment|nominative-accusative]] template. In Nhanda, the [[absolutive case]] has a null suffix while [[ergative case]] is marked with some [[allomorph]] of the suffixes ''-nggu'' or ''-lu.'' See the common noun paradigm at play below:<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Laughren|first1=Mary|last2=Blevins|first2=Juliette|date=June 2003|title=Nhanda: An Aboriginal Language of Western Australia|journal=Oceanic Linguistics|volume=42|issue=1|pages=259|doi=10.2307/3623460|jstor=3623460}}</ref>

'''Intransitive Subject (ABS)'''
{{Interlinear|pundu yatka-yu|rain.ABS go-ABL.NFUT|Rain is coming.}}
'''Transitive Subject-Object (ERG-ABS)'''
{{Interlinear|nyarlu-nggu yawarda nha-'i|woman-ERG kangaroo.ABS see-PAST|The woman saw the kangaroo}}
Compare the above examples with the case marking of pronouns in Nhanda below, wherein all subjects (regardless of verb transitivity) are marked (in this case with a null suffix) the same for case while transitive objects take the [[Accusative case|accusative]] suffix ''-nha''.

'''Intransitive Pronoun Subject (NOM)'''
{{Interlinear|wandha-ra-nyja yatka-ndha?|Where-3.OBL-2SG.NOM go-NPAST|Where are you going?}}
'''Transitive Pronoun Subject-Object (NOM-ACC)'''
{{Interlinear|nyini nha-'i ngayi-nha|2.NOM see-PST 1-ACC|You saw me}}

===Syntactic ergativity===
Ergativity may be manifested through syntax, such as saying "Arrived I" for "I arrived", in addition to morphology. Syntactic ergativity is quite rare, and while all languages that exhibit it also feature morphological ergativity, few morphologically ergative languages have ergative syntax. As with morphology, syntactic ergativity can be placed on a continuum, whereby certain syntactic operations may pattern accusatively and others ergatively. The degree of syntactic ergativity is then dependent on the number of syntactic operations that treat the subject like the object. Syntactic ergativity is also referred to as inter-clausal ergativity, as it typically appears in the relation of two clauses.

Syntactic ergativity may appear in:
* [[Word order]] (for example, the absolutive argument comes before the verb and the ergative argument comes after it)
* [[Syntactic pivot]]s
* [[Relative clause]]s – determining which arguments are available for relativization
* [[Subordination (linguistics)|Subordination]]
* [[Switch reference]]

{{Expand section|date=June 2008}}

====Example====

Example of syntactic ergativity in the "[[conjunction reduction]]" construction ([[coordinated clause]]s) in [[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]] in contrast with English conjunction reduction. (The subscript (i) indicates coreference.)

[[English language|English]] ([[Agent–verb–object|SVO]] word order):
# Father returned.
# Father saw mother.
# Mother saw father.
# Father<sub>(i)</sub> returned and father<sub>(i)</sub> saw mother.
# Father<sub>(i)</sub> returned and ____<sub>(i)</sub> saw mother.
# Father<sub>(i)</sub> returned and mother saw father<sub>(i)</sub>.
#<nowiki>*</nowiki> Father<sub>(i)</sub> returned and mother saw ____<sub>(i)</sub>. (ill-formed, because S and deleted O cannot be [[coreference|coreferential]].)

[[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]] ([[Object–subject–verb|OSV]] word order):
# Ŋuma banagan<sup>y</sup>u. (''Father returned.'')
# Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Mother father-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Father saw mother.'')
# Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Father mother-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Mother saw father.'')
# Ŋuma<sub>(i)</sub> banagan<sup>y</sup>u, yabu ŋumaŋgu<sub>(i)</sub> buṛan. (lit. ''Father''<sub>(i)</sub>'' returned, mother father-''ŋgu<sub>(i)</sub>'' saw'', i.e. ''Father returned, father saw mother.'')
#<nowiki>*</nowiki> Ŋuma<sub>(i)</sub> banagan<sup>y</sup>u, yabu ____<sub>(i)</sub> buṛan. (lit. *''Father''<sub>(i)</sub>'' returned, mother ____''<sub>(i)</sub>'' saw''; ill-formed, because S and deleted A cannot be coreferential.)
# Ŋuma<sub>(i)</sub> banagan<sup>y</sup>u, ŋuma<sub>(i)</sub> yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Father''<sub>(i)</sub>'' returned, father''<sub>(i)</sub>'' mother-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Father returned, mother saw father.'')
# Ŋuma<sub>(i)</sub> banagan<sup>y</sup>u, ____<sub>(i)</sub> yabuŋgu buṛan. (lit. ''Father''<sub>(i)</sub>'' returned, ____''<sub>(i)</sub>'' mother-''ŋgu'' saw'', i.e. ''Father returned, mother saw father.'')

Crucially, the fifth sentence has an S/A pivot and thus is ill-formed in Dyirbal (syntactically ergative); on the other hand, the seventh sentence has an S/O pivot and thus is ill-formed in English (syntactically accusative).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="2" | ''Father returned.''
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">father</span>
| returned
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="6" | ''Father returned, and father saw mother.''
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">father</span>
| returned
| and
| <span style="color:#008000">father</span>
| saw
| <span style="color:#800000">mother</span>
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
| <small>CONJ</small>
| <span style="color:#008000">'''A'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''O'''</span>
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="6" | ''Father returned and saw mother.''
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">father</span>
| returned
| and
| <small><span style="color:#008000">____</span></small>
| saw
| <span style="color:#800000">mother</span>
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
| <small>CONJ</small>
| <span style="color:#008000">'''A'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''O'''</span>
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="2" | ''Ŋuma banagan<sup>y</sup>u.''
|-
| ŋuma<span style="color:#008000">'''-∅'''</span>
| banagan<sup>y</sup>u
|-
| father<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| returned
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
|-
| colspan="2" | "Father returned."
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="3" | ''Yabu ŋumaŋgu buṛan.''
|-
| yabu<span style="color:#008000">'''-∅'''</span>
| ŋuma<span style="color:#800000">'''-ŋgu'''</span>
| buṛan
|-
| mother<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| father<span style="color:#800000">'''-<small>ERG</small>'''</span>
| saw
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''O'''</span>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''A'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
| colspan="3" | "Father saw mother."
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="3" | ''Ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan.''
|-
| ŋuma<span style="color:#008000">'''-∅'''</span>
| yabu<span style="color:#800000">'''-ŋgu'''</span>
| buṛan
|-
| father<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| mother<span style="color:#800000">'''-<small>ERG</small>'''</span>
| saw
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''O'''</span>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''A'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
| colspan="3" | "Mother saw father."
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="5" | ''Ŋuma banagan<sup>y</sup>u, ŋuma yabuŋgu buṛan.''
|-
| ŋuma<span style="color:#008000">'''-∅'''</span>
| banagan<sup>y</sup>u
| ŋuma<span style="color:#008000">'''-∅'''</span>
| yabu<span style="color:#800000">'''-ŋgu'''</span>
| buṛan
|-
| father<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| returned
| father<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| mother<span style="color:#800000">'''-<small>ERG</small>'''</span>
| saw
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
| <span style="color:#008000">'''O'''</span>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''A'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
| colspan="5" | "Father returned and mother saw father."
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="5" | ''Ŋuma banagan<sup>y</sup>u, yabuŋgu buṛan.''
|-
| ŋuma<span style="color:#008000">'''-∅'''</span>
| banagan<sup>y</sup>u
| <span style="color:#008000">____</span>
| yabu<span style="color:#800000">'''-ŋgu'''</span>
| buṛan
|-
| father<span style="color:#008000">'''-<small>ABS</small>'''</span>
| returned
| <span style="color:#008000"><small>(deleted)</small></span>
| mother<span style="color:#800000">'''-<small>ERG</small>'''</span>
| saw
|-
| <span style="color:#008000">'''S'''</span>
| VERB<sub>intrans</sub>
| <span style="color:#008000">'''O'''</span>
| <span style="color:#800000">'''A'''</span>
| VERB<sub>trans</sub>
|-
| colspan="5" | "Father returned and was seen by mother."
|}

===Split ergativity===
{{main|Split ergativity}}
The term ''ergative–absolutive'' is considered unsatisfactory by some, since there are very few languages without any patterns that exhibit [[nominative–accusative language|nominative–accusative alignment]]. Instead they posit that one should only speak of ''ergative–absolutive systems'', which languages employ to different degrees.

Many languages classified as ergative in fact show '''split ergativity''', whereby syntactic and/or morphological ergative patterns are conditioned by the grammatical context, typically person or the tense/aspect of the verb. [[Basque language|Basque]] is unusual in having an almost fully ergative system in case-marking and verbal [[Agreement (linguistics)|agreement]], though it shows thoroughly nominative–accusative [[Morphosyntactic alignment|syntactic alignment]].<ref>{{Citation|title=The syntax and morphology of Basque|url=https://iker.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/agreementbasque1.pdf|access-date=5 December 2015|archive-date=8 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208113953/https://iker.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/agreementbasque1.pdf|url-status=bot: unknown}}</ref>

In [[Hindustani grammar|Hindustani]] ([[Hindi]] and [[Urdu]]), the [[ergative case]] is marked on [[Agent (grammar)|agents]] in the [[perfective aspect]] for [[Transitive verb|transitive]] and [[ditransitive verb]]s (also for [[intransitive verb]]s when they are [[Volitional verbs|volitional]]),<ref>Witzlack-Makarevich, A. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations Leipzig: University of Leipzig doctoral dissertation (2011).</ref> while in other situations agents appear in the [[nominative case]].
{{interlinear|laṛkā kitāb xarīdtā hai.|boy:MASC.SG.NOM book:FEM.SG-NOM buy:HAB.MASC.SG be:3P.SG.PRS|'The boy buys a book'|abbreviations=PRF:perfective; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense}}
{{interlinear|laṛke-ne kitāb xarīdī hai.|boy:MASC.SG.ERG book:FEM.SG-NOM buy:PRF.FEM.SG be:3P.SG.PRS|'The boy has bought a book'|abbreviations=PRF:perfective participle; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense}}
{{interlinear|laṛkā khā̃sā.|boy:MASC.SG.NOM cough:PRF.MASC.SG|'The boy coughed.'|abbreviations=PRF:perfective; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense}}
{{interlinear|laṛke-ne khā̃sā.|boy:MASC.SG.ERG cough:PRF.MASC.SG|'The boy coughed (intentionally).'|abbreviations=PRF:perfective; ERG:ergative case; SG:singular; MASC:masculine; FEM:feminine; DIR:direct case; ACC:accusative case; 3P:third person; HAB:habitual aspect participle; PRS:present tense}}

In the Northern Kurdish language [[Kurmanji]], the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs of transitive verbs in past tenses, for the events actually occurred in the past. Present, future and "future in the past" tenses show no ergative mark neither for agents nor the verbs. For example:
:(1) Ez diçim. (I go)
:(2) Ez wî dibînim. (I see him.)
:(3) Ew diçe. (He goes)
:(4) Ew min dibîne. (He sees me.)

but:
:(5) Ez çûm. (I went)
:(6) Min ew dît. (I saw him.)
:(7) Ew çû. (He went.)
:(8) Wî ez dîtim. (He saw me.)

In sentences (1) to (4), there is no ergativity (transitive and intransitive verbs alike). In sentences (6) and (8), the ergative case is marked on agents and verbs.

In [[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]], pronouns are morphologically nominative–accusative when the agent is first or second person, but ergative when the agent is a third person.

===Optional ergativity===

Many languages with ergative marking display what is known as ''optional ergativity'', where the ergative marking is not always expressed in all situations. McGregor (2010) gives a range of contexts when we often see optional ergativity, and argues that the choice is often not truly ''optional'' but is affected by [[semantics]] and [[pragmatics]]. Unlike [[split ergativity]], which occurs regularly but in limited locations, optional ergativity can occur in a range of environments, but may not be used in a way that appears regular or consistent.

Optional ergativity may be motivated by:
* The [[animacy]] of the subject, with more ''animate'' subjects more likely to be marked ergative
* The [[semantics]] of the verb, with more ''active'' or ''transitive'' verbs more likely to be marked ergative
* The [[grammatical structure]] or [tense-aspect-mood]

Languages from Australia, New Guinea and Tibet have been shown to have optional ergativity.<ref>[[William B. McGregor|McGregor]] (2010) Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. ''Lingua'' 120: 1610–1636</ref>

==Distribution of ergative languages==
Prototypical ergative languages are, for the most part, restricted to specific regions of the world: [[Mesopotamia]] ([[Kurdish language|Kurdish]], and some extinct languages), [[Caucasus|the Caucasus]], [[Indigenous languages of the Americas|the Americas]], the [[Tibetan Plateau]], and [[Australia]] and parts of [[New Guinea]].

Specific languages and language families include:

=== Americas ===
* [[Chibchan languages]]
* [[Chinookan languages]] (extinct)
* [[Coosan languages]]<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Doty |first=Christopher |year=2012 |title=A Reassessment of the Genetic Classification of Miluk Coos |type=Ph.D. dissertation |hdl=1794/12404 |hdl-access=free |publisher=University of Oregon}}</ref> (extinct)
* [[Eskimo–Aleut languages]]
* [[Guaicuruan languages]]
* [[Macro-Jê languages]]
* [[Mayan languages|Mayan]]
* [[Mixe–Zoque languages|Mixe–Zoque]]
* [[Panoan languages]]
* [[Salish languages]]
* [[Tsimshian languages|Tsimshian]]

=== Africa ===

* [[Teda language|Tedaga]], a [[Nilo-Saharan]] language of Southern Libya and Northern Chad.
* [[Majang language]], a [[Nilo-Saharan]] language of Ethiopia.
* [[Päri language|Päri]], although recent studies imply a nominative-accusative system.<ref>Ergativity, by R. M. W. Dixon, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, vol. 69, 1994.</ref>

=== Asia ===
* [[Assamese language|Assamese]]
* [[Burushaski]]
* [[Chukchi language|Chukchi]]<ref name="urlLanguage Policy in the Soviet Union - L.A. Grenoble - Google Książki">{{cite book|last1=Grenoble|first1=L. A.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WUeWBwAAQBAJ&q=itelmen+language+ergative-absolutive&pg=PA19|title=Language Policy in the Soviet Union|date=2006-04-11|publisher=Springer |isbn=9780306480836}}</ref> (endangered)
* [[Hawu language|Hawu]]<ref>{{Cite book |title=A Grammar of Sawu |last=Walker |first=Alan T. |publisher=Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa, Universitas Atma Jaya |year=1982 |series=NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia, Volume 13 |location=Jakarta |hdl=1885/111434 |issn=0126-2874  |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
* [[Standard Tibetan|Tibetan]]
* [[Sylheti language|Sylheti]]
* [[Yaghnobi language|Yaghnobi]]
* [[Pashto]]

=== Australian ===
* Most [[Australian Aboriginal languages]], such as [[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]]
Certain [[Australian Aboriginal languages]] (e.g., [[Wangkumara]]) possess an [[intransitive case]] and an [[accusative case]] along with an [[ergative case]], and lack an [[absolutive case]]; such languages are called [[tripartite language]]s or ergative–accusative languages.

=== Papua ===
* [[Eastern Trans-Fly languages]]
* various [[Trans–New Guinea languages]]

=== Europe ===
* [[Basque language|Basque]]

=== Caucasus and Near East ===
* [[Hurrian language|Hurrian]] (extinct)
* [[Urartian language|Urartian]] (extinct)
* [[Sumerian language|Sumerian]] (extinct)<ref>{{cite journal |last=Michalowski |first=P. |year=1980 |title=Sumerian as an Ergative Language I |journal=Journal of Cuneiform Studies |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=86–103 |doi=10.2307/1359671 |jstor=1359671|s2cid=164022054 }}</ref>
* [[South Caucasian languages|South Caucasian]]: [[Georgian language|Georgian]], [[Laz language|Laz]]
* [[Northeast Caucasian languages|Northeast Caucasian]]: [[Chechen language|Chechen]],  [[Lezgian language|Lezgian]], [[Tsez language|Tsez]], [[Archi language|Archi]] ([[endangered languages|endangered]])
* [[Northwest Caucasian languages|Northwest Caucasian]]: [[Abkhaz language|Abkhaz]], [[Circassian language|Circassian]], [[Ubykh language|Ubykh]] (extinct)
* [[Kurdish language|Kurdish]]: [[Gorani language (Zaza-Gorani)|Gorani]],<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQKCofxuhlMC&pg=PA166|title = Differential Subject Marking|isbn = 9781402064975|last1 = Hoop|first1 = Helen de|last2 = Swart|first2 = Peter de|date = 4 December 2007| publisher=Springer }}</ref> [[Zaza language|Zazaki]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.utah.edu/~u0587010/Papers_files/zazaki-lightverbs.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2012-11-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412222337/http://home.utah.edu/~u0587010/Papers_files/zazaki-lightverbs.pdf |archive-date=2013-04-12 }} (Aniko Csirmaz and Markéta Ceplová,  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Zazaki is an ergative language)</ref><ref>http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/744-0605/744-ARKADIEV-0-0.PDF (Zazaki is an ergative language, page 17-18)</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Hoop |first=Helen de |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQKCofxuhlMC&pg=PA166 |title=Differential Subject Marking |last2=Swart |first2=Peter de |date=2007-12-04 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-1-4020-6497-5 |language=en}}</ref> [[Sorani]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229004264|title=A Derivational Account for Sorani Kurdish Passives|author=Géraldine Walther|date=1 January 2011|work=ResearchGate|access-date=10 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=fa/node/426|title=What Sorani Kurdish Absolute Prepositions Tell Us about Cliticization - Kurdish Academy of Language|work=kurdishacademy.org|access-date=10 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Walther |first=Géraldine |date=2012 |title=Fitting into morphological structure: accounting for Sorani Kurdish endoclitics |url=https://pasithee.library.upatras.gr/mmm/article/view/2437/2696 |journal=Mediterranean Morphology Meetings |volume=8 |pages=299–321 |doi=10.26220/mmm.2437}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://linguistlist.org/deletedpage/|title=Ergativität im Sorani-Kurdischen?|first=Thomas|last=Jügel|date=September 17, 2007|via=linguistlist.org}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412222124/http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |url=http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |access-date=2012-11-14 |archive-date=2013-04-12 |url-status=dead |title=Chapter 5. Split ergativity}} (Sorani is ergative, page 255)</ref> and [[Kurmanji]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |title=Chapter 5. Split ergativity |access-date=2012-11-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412222124/http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001993/bookpart.pdf |archive-date=2013-04-12 }} (kurmanji is ergative)</ref><ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Mahalingappa |first=Laura Jahnavi |title=The acquisition of split-ergativity in Kurmanji Kurdish |date=2009 |degree=Ph.D. |publisher=The University of Texas at Austin |url=http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2009-12-448}}</ref><ref>[http://www.ling.upenn.edu/nwav/abstracts/nwav36_mahalingappa.pdf Abstract. Laura J. Mahalingappa - University of Texas at Austin] upenn.edu</ref>

Several scholars have hypothesized that [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] was an ergative language, although this hypothesis is controversial.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bavant|first=Marc|year=2008|title=Proto-Indo-European Ergativity... Still To Be Discussed|journal=Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics|volume=44|issue=4|pages=433–447|doi=10.2478/v10010-008-0022-y|doi-access=free|hdl=10593/7433|s2cid=55922477}}</ref>

=== Languages with limited ergativity ===
*In [[Hindi]] ([[Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan]]), ergative alignment occurs only when the verb is in the [[perfective aspect]] for [[transitive verb]]s (also for intransitive verbs but only when they are [[Volitional verbs|volitional]]). 
*In [[Pashto language|Pashto]], ergative alignment occurs only in the past tense. 
*In [[Georgian language|Georgian]], ergativity only occurs in the [[perfective]]. 
*The [[Philippine languages]] (e.g., [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]]) are sometimes considered ergative (Schachter 1976, 1977; Kroeger 1993); however, they have also been considered to have their own unique morphosyntactic alignment. See [[symmetrical voice]].
*In the [[Neo-Aramaic languages]], which are generally classified into 4 groups, only [[Northeastern Neo-Aramaic|Northeastern (NENA)]] and [[Central Neo-Aramaic|Ṭuroyo]] groups exhibit [[split ergativity]], which is formed in the [[perfective]] aspect only, whereas the [[imperfective]] aspect is nominative-accusative. Some dialects would only mark [[unaccusative]] subjects as ergative. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in particular, has an ergative type of construction of the [[perfective past]] verbal base, where foregone actions are verbalized by a passive construction with the [[patient (grammar)|patient]] being conferred as the [[grammatical subject]] rather than by an active construction, e.g. ''baxta qtile'' ("the woman was killed by him"). The ergative type of inflection with an agentive phrase has been extended by analogy to intransitive verbs, e.g. ''qim-le'' ("he has risen").<ref>A. Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic and the So-called Decay of Ergativity in Kurdish, in: Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Florence, 18–20 April 2005), Dipartamento di Linguistica Università di Firenze 2005, pp. 239–256.</ref> [[Aramaic]] has historically been a nominative-accusative language.<ref>Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill.</ref>

===Sign languages===
Sign languages (for example, [[Nepalese Sign Language#NSL Morhosyntax|Nepali Sign Language]]) should also generally be considered ergative in the patterning of [[Actant#In linguistics|actant]] incorporation in verbs.<ref>MW Morgan (2009) Cross-Linguistic Typology of Argument Encoding in Sign Language Verbal Morphology. Paper presented at Association of Linguistic Typology, Berkeley</ref> In [[sign language]]s that have been studied, [[classifier handshape]]s are incorporated into verbs, indicating the [[Subject (grammar)|subject]] of [[intransitive verb]]s when incorporated, and the [[Object (grammar)|object]] of [[transitive verb]]s. (If we follow the "[[semantic phonology]]" model proposed by [[William Stokoe]] (1991)<ref>William Stokoe (1991) Semantic Phonology. Sign Language Studies, 71 ,107–114.</ref> this ergative-absolutive patterning also works at the level of the lexicon: thus in [[Nepali Sign Language]] the sign for TEA has the motion for the verb DRINK with a [[manual alphabet]] handshape च /ca/ (standing for the first letter of the [[Nepali language|Nepali]] word TEA चिया /chiya:/) being incorporated as the [[Object (grammar)|object]].)

==Approximations of ergativity in English==

English has derivational morphology that parallels ergativity in that it operates on intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. With certain intransitive verbs, adding the suffix "-ee" to the verb produces a label for the person performing the action:

:"John has retired" → "John is a retiree"
:"John has escaped" → "John is an escapee"

However, with a transitive verb, adding "-ee" does not produce a label for the person doing the action. Instead, it gives us a label for the person to whom the action is done:

:"Susie employs Mike" → "Mike is an employee"
:"Mike has appointed Susie" → "Susie is an appointee"

Etymologically, the sense in which "-ee" denotes the object of a transitive verb is the original one, arising from French [[past participle]]s in "-é". This is still the prevalent sense in [[British English]]: the intransitive uses are all 19th-century American [[neologism|coinage]]s and all except "escapee" are still marked as "chiefly U.S." by the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]''.

English also has a number of so-called [[ergative verb]]s, where the object of the verb when transitive is equivalent to the subject of the verb when intransitive.

When English nominalizes a clause, the underlying subject of an intransitive verb and the underlying object of a transitive verb are both marked with the possessive case or with the preposition "of" (the choice depends on the type and length of the noun: pronouns and short nouns are typically marked with the possessive, while long and complex NPs are marked with "of"). The underlying subject of a transitive is marked differently (typically with "by" as in a passive construction):

:"(a dentist) extracts a tooth" → "the extraction of a tooth (by a dentist)"
:"(I/The editor) revised the essay" → "(my/the editor's) revision of the essay"
:"(I was surprised that) the water boiled" → "(I was surprised at) the boiling of the water"
:"I departed on time (so I could catch the plane)" → "My timely departure (allowed me to catch the plane)"

==See also==
*[[Absolutive case]]
*[[Active–stative alignment|Active-stative language]]
*[[Ergative case]]
*[[Ergative verb]]
*[[Morphosyntactic alignment]]
*[[Split ergativity]]
*[[Symmetrical voice]] (aka Austronesian alignment)
*[[Transitivity (grammar)]]
*[[Unaccusative verb]]
*[[Unergative verb]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}
*{{Cite book| title = Searching for Aboriginal Languages: Memoirs of a Field Worker
 | last = Dixon | first = R. M. W.
 | author-link = Robert M. W. Dixon
 | year = 2011
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=tWHiDB9rJ5kC&pg=PA1
 | isbn = 978-1-108-02504-1
}}

==Bibliography==
*Aldridge, Edith. (2008). Generative Approaches to Ergativity. ''Language and Linguistics Compass, 2'', 966–995.
*Aldridge, Edith. (2008). Minimalist analysis of ergativity. ''Sophia Linguistica, 55'', 123–142.
*Aldridge, Edith. (2016). Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. ''Language and Linguistics, 17''(1), 27–62.
* Anderson, Stephen. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In C. Li. (Ed.), ''Subject and topic'' (pp.&nbsp;1–24). New York: Academic Press. {{ISBN|0-12-447350-4}}.
* Anderson, Stephen R. (1985). Inflectional morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), ''Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon'' (Vol. 3, pp.&nbsp;150–201). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. {{ISBN|0-521-58158-3}}.
* Comrie, Bernard. (1978). [https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/lrc/resources/books/typology/7-ergativity.php Ergativity] In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), ''Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language'' (pp.&nbsp;329–394). Austin: University of Texas Press. {{ISBN|0-292-77545-8}}.
* Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam and Lisa deMena Travis. (Eds.). (2017). ''The Oxford handbook of ergativity''. Oxford University Press.
* Comrie, Bernard (1989 [1981]). ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology'', 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press.
* Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. ''Language'', ''55'' (1), 59–138. (Revised as Dixon 1994).
* Dixon, R. M. W. (Ed.) (1987). ''Studies in ergativity''. Amsterdam: North-Holland. {{ISBN|0-444-70275-X}}.
* Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). ''Ergativity''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|0-521-44898-0}}.
* Foley, William; & Van Valin, Robert. (1984). ''Functional syntax and universal grammar''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|0-521-25956-8}}.
* Iliev, Ivan G. (2007) [https://www.scribd.com/doc/133271099/Ivan-G-Iliev-CASE-AND-VOCATIVENESS On the Nature of Grammatical Case ... (Case and Vocativeness)]
* Kroeger, Paul. (1993). ''Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog''. Stanford: CSLI.  {{ISBN|0-937073-86-5}}.
* Legate, Julie Anne. (2008). Morphological and Abstract Case. ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 39.1: 55–101.
* Mallinson, Graham; & Blake, Barry J. (1981). Agent and patient marking. ''Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax'' (Chap. 2, pp.&nbsp;39–120). North-Holland linguistic series. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
* [[William B. McGregor|McGregor, William B.]] (2010). Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. ''Lingua'' 120: 1610–1636.
*Paul, Ileana & Travis, Lisa. (2006). Ergativity in Austronesian languages: What it can do, what it can't, but not why. In A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), ''Ergativity: Emerging Issues'' (pp.&nbsp;315–335). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
* Plank, Frans. (Ed.). (1979). ''Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations''. London: Academic Press.
* Rude, Noel. (1983). Ergativity and the active-stative typology in Loma. ''Studies in African Linguistics'' 14 (3): 265–283.
* Schachter, Paul. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In C. Li. (Ed.), ''Subject and topic'' (pp.&nbsp;491–518). New York: Academic Press.
* Schachter, Paul. (1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.), ''Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations'' (Vol. 8, pp.&nbsp;279–306). New York: Academic Press. {{ISBN|0-12-613508-8}}.
* Silverstein, Michael. (1976). Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) ''Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages'' (pp.&nbsp;112–171). New Jersey: Humanities Press. {{ISBN|0-391-00694-0}}. Reprinted in  Pieter Muysken and [[Henk van Riemsdijk]] (eds.), ''Features and Projections'' (pp.&nbsp;163–232).  Dordrecht: Foris. {{ISBN|90-6765-144-3}}.
* 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.
* Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. ''Alignment and ergativity in new [[Indo-Aryan languages]].'' Berlin: de Gruyter.
*[[Valentin Vydrin|Vydrin, Valentin]]. (2011). Ergative/Absolutive and Active/Stative alignment in West Africa:The case of Southwestern Mande.  ''Studies in Language'' 35 (2): 409–443.

== External links ==
* [http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2005/05/quick-tutorial-on-ergativity-by-way-of.html "A quick tutorial on ergativity, by way of the Squid-headed one"], at Recycled Knowledge (blog), by John Cowan, 2005-05-05.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ergative-absolutive language}}
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Linguistic typology]]