Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 23:3 (1999) ► pp.569–596
What are S, A, and O?
Published online: 13 March 2000
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
The letters S, A, and O have been used heuristically for distinguishing ergative-absolutive languages from nominative-accusative languages. This schema, however, has serious disadvantages for the understanding of individual grammars and even more for broad typological work, because it obscures the incommensurable ways in which participants may be related to events or states. Three of these ways are described here and their incommensurability demonstrated. One is the starting point function, reflected in grammatical subjects; another consists of the semantic roles that are reflected in grammaticized agent-patient marking; the third is immediacy of involvement, reflected in absolutive marking. These relations may be cognitively available to speakers of all languages, and are often grammaticized in different parts of the grammar of a single language. Now that more is known about ways in which languages vary, it is time to sharpen our tools so that we may move on to understanding the forces that shape the grammatical structures we find.
Cited by (31)
Cited by 31 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.
Cristofaro, Sonia & Guglielmo Inglese
2024. The diachronic emergence of alignment cross‑linguistically. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 58 ff.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Natalia Gurian & Sergei Karpenko
2024. Minimal participant structure of the event and the emergence of the argument/adjunct distinction. Studies in Language 48:1 ► pp. 181 ff.
Cennamo, Michela, Francesco Maria Ciconte & Luigi Andriani
2023. Syntactic and semantic constraints on differential object marking in Old
Sardinian. In Differential Object Marking in Romance [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 280], ► pp. 105 ff.
Madrid, Rodrigo Lazaresko
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2021. Typology of functional domains. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 101 ff.
Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
Hieber, Daniel W.
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
2018. Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological
hierarchies. In Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 3 ff.
Zúñiga, Fernando
Cristofaro, Sonia & Paolo Ramat
Halevy, Rivka
2016. Non-canonical ‘existential-like‘ constructions in colloquial Modern Hebrew. In Atypical predicate-argument relations [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 33], ► pp. 27 ff.
Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
Riesberg, Sonja & Beatrice Primus
Teffeteller, Annette
2015. Anatolian morphosyntax. In Perspectives on Historical Syntax [Studies in Language Companion Series, 169], ► pp. 155 ff.
MAGNE, CYRILLE, MIREILLE BESSON & STÉPHANE ROBERT
Fleck, David
McGregor, William B.
McGregor, William B.
McGregor, William B.
2023. Zero-marking or nothing to mark?. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 237 ff.
Creissels, Denis
Creissels, Denis
Croft, William
Kumagai, Yoshiharu
Shenk, Petra Scott
SHIBASAKI, REIJIROU
Tersis, Nicole & Shirley Carter‐Thomas
Backus, Ad
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 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.
