Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 413–456

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Pathways to split ergativity

The rise of ergative alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan

ORCiD logo with link | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway | Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt a.M.
Published online: 11 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19046.dah
Abstract
This paper reassesses the rise of ergative alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan, two branches of the Indo-European linguistic family. Both of these branches acquire split-ergative morphosyntax in the course of their history but via different grammaticalization paths and with different results. In the Anatolian language Hittite, a denominative derivational suffix develops into an ergative case marker, which is restricted to so-called neuter nouns. In Indo-Aryan, on the other hand, a new ergative category with anterior aspectual semantics emerges in Middle Indo-Aryan originating from a P-oriented resultative construction in Old Indo-Aryan.
Résumé
Cet article passe en revue l’origine et l l’évolution de l’ergativité dans l’anatolien et l’indo-aryen, deux branches de la famille indo-européenne. Dans le cours de leur histoire atteste, tous les deux branches développent systèmes de ergativité scindée, mais de structure diverse et par parcours de grammaticalisation différents. Dans l’anatolien, on peut voir l’évolution d’un système dans lequel la fracture d’actance est organisée selon la caractère de la phrase nominale, ou noms et pronoms neutres ont un marquage casuel de type ergatif-absolutif, alors que tous les autres noms et pronoms ont un marquage casuel de type nominatif-accusatif. Dans ce cas, on voit un changement dans la phrase nominale, où une formation originellement dérivationnelle se transforme en un suffixe flexionnel (cf. aussi Goedegebuure, Petra. 2018. The packagers -ant- and -a-, and the origin of split-ergativity in Hittite (and Lycian). In David M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison & Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Dans l’indo-aryen, on observe l’évolution d’un système dans lequel la fracture d’actance est organisée selon l’aspect de la forme verbale, ou une catégorie originellement résultatif se transforme en une forme du parfait avec une structure d’actance de type ergatif-absolutif, tandis que les autres formes verbales ont un marquage casuel de type nominatif-accusatif. L’article montre que même si les systèmes de structure d’actance et la typologie morphosyntaxique des deux branches sont similaires, il y a des différences en détail, qui peuvent contribuer à expliquer les évolutions diverses dans l’anatolien et l’indo-aryen.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Artikel untersucht die Entwicklung der Ergativität im Anatolischen und Indoarischen, zwei Zweige der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. Im Laufe ihrer Geschichte erwerben diese beiden Zweige eine Morphosyntax mit gespaltener Ergativität, die sich aber hinsichtlich ihrer Grammatikalisierungspfade und Ergebnisse voneinander unterscheiden. In der anatolischen Sprache Hethitisch entwickelt sich ein denominatives Derivationssuffix in einen ergativen Kasusmarker, der auf sogenannte neutrale Nomen beschränkt ist. Im Indoarischen, auf der anderen Seite, entwickelt sich eine neue ergative Kategorie mit einer vorhergehenden aspektuellen Semantik im Mittel-Indoarischen, die wiederum aus einer P-orientierten resultativen Konstruktion im Alt-Indoarischen resultiert.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminological and theoretical preliminaries
  • 3.The development of split-ergativity in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan
    • 3.1Philological preliminaries
    • 3.2The rise of NP-based split-ergativity in Hittite
    • 3.3The development of aspect-based split ergativity in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan
  • 4.Emerging NP-based and aspect-based split-ergativity: The case of Anatolian and Indo-Aryan
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (53)
References
Benveniste, Émile. 1962. Les substantifs en -ant du Hittite. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 571, 44–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 2016. On the establishment of ergative alignment during the Late Middle Indo-Aryan period. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.) Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2017. Hindi/Urdu and related languages. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 808–832. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo. 2017. Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan diachrony. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagluca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1), 1–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2017. Split ergativity is not about ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 226–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica 42(1), 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 59–110. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2010. Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring inflectional semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Toward a formal model of semantic change: A neo-Reichenbachian approach to the development of the Vedic past tense system. Lingua Posnaniensis 57(1), 41–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.), Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2018. Case marking of predicative possession in Vedic. The genitive, the dative, the locative. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen Mark Carey (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, 181–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dardano, Paola. 2010. Zur anatolischen Morphosyntax: das Suffix -(a)nt- und seine Bildungen. in: Aygul Süel (ed.), Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, 173–188. Ankara: T.C. Çorum Valiliği.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. L’allineamento sintattico delle lingue indoeuropee dell’Anatolia: vecchi problemi e nuove proposte alla luce di una recente pubblicazione. Orientalia 82(2), 29–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2008. Semantic alignment systems. What’s what, and what’s not. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.) The typology of semantic alignment, 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.) 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1), 77–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2), 261–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.) Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 85–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra. 2018. The packagers -ant- and -a-, and the origin of split-ergativity in Hittite (and Lycian). In David M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison & Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3), 535–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.) Valency classes in the world’s languages. Volume I. Introducing the framework and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Part 1. Reference grammar. Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1990. The tense of the predicated past participle in Vedic and beyond. Indo-Iranian Journal 331: 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. & Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India. Translated by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton. 31 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Josephson, Folke. 2004. Semantics and typology of Hittite -ant. In James Clackson & Birgit Annette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 91–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keith, Arthur B. 1914. The Veda of the Black Yajus School entitled Taittiriya Sanhita. (21 Volumes). Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Language vs. grammatical tradition in Ancient India: How real was Pāṇinian Sanskrit? Evidence from the history of late Sanskrit passives and pseudo-passives. In Folia Linguistica Historica 341, 59–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laroche, Emmanuel. 1962. ‘Un ‘ergatif’ en indo-europeen d’Asie Mineure’ Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 571, 23–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese. Forthcoming. The origin of ergative case markers: the case of Hittite revisited. In Eystein Dahl (ed.) Alignment and alignment change in the Indo-European family. Oxford: OUP.
Manzini, Maria Rita, Leonardo M. Savoia & Ludovico Franco. 2015. Ergative case, aspect and person splits: Two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 62(3), 297–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2017. Grammaticalization of ergative case marking. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 447–464. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig. 2011. The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.) Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques Paris 2–4 April 2007, 161–167. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moravcik, Edith A. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45 (3–4): 233–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas. 2001. Pāli. A grammar of the language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oettinger, Norbert. 2001. Neue Gedanken über das nt-Suffix. In Onofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds.) Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Pavia, 22–25 September 1998. Innsbruck: IBS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1980. The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 511, 147–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rieken, Elisabeth. 2017. Agreement patterns of collective nouns in Hittite. In Alice Mouton (ed.) Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday. 5e Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFEA, Istanbul 21–22 novembre 2014, 7–18. Istanbul: Institut Français d’études anatoliennes. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rix, Helmut, Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp and Brigitte Schirmer. 2001. Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichelt Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.). 2018. Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Larry. 1979. On the origins of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.) Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 385–404. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
West, Martin L. 2011. Old Avestan syntax and stylistics. With an edition of the texts. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeilfelder, Suzanne. 2014. Probleme des hethitischen Nominativs: split-ergativity und Casus Commemorativus. In Cyril Brosch & Annick Payne (eds.), Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag, 199–210. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Cristofaro, Sonia
2024. Diachronic pathways to case marking alignment and what they mean for the explanation of synchronic cross-linguistic patterns. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Cristofaro, Sonia & Guglielmo Inglese
2024. The diachronic emergence of alignment cross‑linguistically. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2024. Remarks on the diachrony of verbal periphrasis in Vedic Sanskrit. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 11:1-2 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue