Title Ergativity and so-called 'ergative of'

Author(s) Harimochi, Kazuro

Citation 沖縄短大論叢 = OKINAWA TANDAI RONSO, 2(1): 1-12

Issue Date 1986-03-31

URL http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12001/10609

Rights 沖縄短期大学

Ergativity and so-called 'ergative of'

Kai:uro Harimochi

'Ergative of' is a term introduced in Bolinger {1977), refering to the

preposition in such a construction as:

[0) It was foolish of Mary to go there.

This paper examines the validity of qualifying the preposition as ergative,

taking into account ergativity in general and in English.

1. Ergativity

What is characteristic of ergativity in general is that, morphologically

and/or syntactically, S (the subject of an intransitive verb) and P (the ob­

ject of a transitive verb) are treated in one way, whereas A (the subject of

a transitive verb) is treated in another. In languages that have ergativity

A is overtly marked as ergative but S and P are marked as absolutive, and

S and P are morphologically more siniple than A.

ergative

absolutive { ergative-absolutive

system

To quote some examples:

[1) a. Vas

boy-Abs.

A

) -- nominative

s

p accusative

nominative-accusative

system

v- ekerula.

Sg.Masc.Abs.- run

'The boy runs.'

- 1 -

b. Jas j- ekerula.

girl-Abs. Sg.Fem.Abs.- run

'The girl runs.'

c. Vas-as jas j- ec:ula.

boy-Erg. gilr-Abs. Sg.Fem.Abs.- praise

'The boys praises the girl.'

Sin [La] (Vas) and Sin [Lb] (Jas) and Pin [Lc] (Jas) are all absolutive

but A in [I.e] (Vasas) is ergative. The verbs in [La] and [Lb] agr~e in

gender with their S respectively, but the verb in [I.e] agrees in gender

with its P.

[2] a. Bayi yara bani-nYu.

Masc.-Abs. man-Abs. come-Tense

'The man came here.'

b. Balan dYugumbil baiJgul yara-IJgu balga-n.

Fem.-Abs. woman-Abs. Masc.-Eng. man- Erg. hit -Tense

'The man hit the woman.'

c. Balan dYugumbil bani-nYu.

Fem.-Abs. woman-Abs. come-Tense

'The woman came here.'

d. Bayi yara baiJgun dYugumbi-ru

Masc.-Abs. man-Abs. Fem.-Erg. woman -Erg.

'The woman hit the man.'

In the Dyirbal language, where sentences in [2] come from, there is no

conjunction used in co-ordination, and two sentences are just juxta­

posed with optional deletion of the appropriate noun from the second

clause. So the possible co-ordination is

-2-

balgan-n.

hit - Ten:

[2.a+d] Bayi yara baninYu, ba!Jgun dYugumbiru balgan.

'The man came here and the woman hit (him}.

[2.d+a] Bayi yara ba!Jgun dYugumbiru balgan, baninYu.

'The woman hit the man and (he) came here.

[2.c+b] Balan dYugumbil baninYu, balJgul yaralJgu balgan.

'The woman came here and the man hit (her).

[2.b+c] Balan dYugumbil balJgul yaralJgu balgan, baninYu.

'The man his the woman and (she} came here.'

[2.a+d], Pin [2.d] (Bai yara} is deleted as it is the same asS in [2.a].

[2.d+a], S in [2.a] is deleted for the same reason as for [2.a+d]. In

.c+b], Pin [2.b] (Balan dYugumbil} is deleted as it is the same asS in

.c]. In [2.b+c], Sin [2.c] is deleted for the same reason as for [2.c+b].

in [2.b] and [2.d] are not deleted for they are not the same asS or P.

ms the co-ordination in Dyirbal is based on the ergative-absolutive sys­

m.

Generally, English is not understood as an ergative language posseesing

ch ergative characteristics as we have seen, but is taken as an accusative

1guage where Sand A are treated alike but Pis treated differently. In the

llowing sentences;

[3] a. He mo'Ves.

b. He moves it/her.

[4] a. They move.

b. They move it/her.

subjects (S for [3.a] and [4.a], and A for [3.b] and [4.b]) are nomina­

•e, and both Ps are accusative. Besides, in respect to the agreement of

-3-

number between the noun and the verb, Sand A agree with the verb in the

same way, but P doesn't. Case agreement between S and A and the agree­

ment of number between S/A and the verb are morphological character­

istics of accusative languages. And also among the following sentences

(cf. (2] );

(5] a. The man came here.

b. The man hit the woman.

c. The woman came here.

d. The woman hit the man.

the possible couplings without any conjunction are;

(S.a+b] The man came here, hit the woman.

(5.b+a] The man hit the woman, came here.

(S.c+d] The woman came here, hit the man.

(S.d+c] The woman hit the man, came here.

because in English co-ordination, the subject of the latter half can be de­

leted only if it denotes the same as the subject of the preceding half. If

not, some conjunction must be employed and the subject of the latter half

usually cannot be deleted. Thus English is morphologically and syntactical­

ly based on a nominative-accusative system.

But there seems to be some reason for us to be prudent in defining all

English subjects as nominative. Although Indo-European languages are

understood to be based on a nominative-accusative system, there is an as­

pect of this language family where the distinction between nominative and

accusative cases is not made; i.e. the nominative form and the accusative

form of a neuter noun are always the same, never being morphologically -4-

distinguished from each othel English has been in the process of losing the

tripartite declension of gender except that of the third person singular pro­

noun. And the declension is less based on grammatical gender than on the

distinction of sex and the distinction between animacy and inanimacy. In

Indo-European languages it is comparatively rare for animate nouns to be

neuter; they tend to be either masculine or feminine. And the English pro­

noun it represents neutrality in gender less than it represents inami­

macy. So we may assume that the concept of neuter gender is app­

roximately identifiable with the concept of inanimacy.

In conformity with this assumption the following sentences are sugges­

tive in a way that entitles them to a further look.

[6] It moved.

[7] He moved.

[8] She moved it.

[9] She moved him.

To present the features of animacy and agentivity of the noun and pro­

noun in these sentences:

Sentences Subject

AN AG Verb

Object

AN AG

[6] It moved. Vi

( ) moved. + ·······················-·-············-·········· ---··········-··· ---·-------······

[7] a. He moved. + Vi

b. He moved. + + [8] She moved it. + + Vt

[9] She moved him. + + Vt +

- 5·-

[6) and [8) are correspondent to each other in the same way as [7) and

[9) are. As for the pair of [6] and [8), S in [6) and Pin [8) have com­

mon features of animacy and agentivity, and we may say that S and P are

treated in the same way because the nominative form and the accusative

form of a neuter, or inanimate (on our assumption), noun are never distin­

guished morphologically from each other.

As for [7) , it permits two interpretations according to the agentivity of

S. One interpretation is that he moved of his own free will; +agentive. The

other is that he was forced or obliged to move against his will, or that he

moved as the result of being carried on a wheelchair or a stretcher;-agen­

tive.

According to the defmition of cases in Case Grammar by Fillmore

(1968); 4

Agentive: the case for the typically animate perceived instigator of the

action identified by the verb.

Instrumental: the case of the inanimate force or object causally in­

volved in the action or state identified by the verb.

Dative: the case of the animate being affected by the state or action

identified by the verb.

Factitive: the case of the object or being resulting from the action or

state identified by the verb, or understood as a part of the verb.

Locative: the case which identifies the location or spatial orientation of

the state or action identified by the verb.

Objective: the semantically most neutral case, the case of anything re­

presentable by a noun whose role in the action or state identified by

the verb is identified by the semantic interpretation of the verb it­

self; conceivably the concept should be limited to things which are

- 6-

affected by the action or state identified by the verb. The term is

not to be confused with the notion of direct object, nor with the

name of the surface case synonymous with accusative.

S. in [7.a] is Dative, Sin [7.b] is Agentive, and Pin [9], as no case ap­

pears more than twice in a clause, is Dative. [6] and [8] are correspondent

to each other in the same way as [7.a] and [9] are. But [7.b] and [9] are

not correspondent because P of the causative transitive verb in [9] is not

agentive as Quirket al. (1972) say:

"thus we understand from They stood Joe against the wall that Joe

reached that position without the help of his own volition." 5

What (7.b] can be correspondent to is an analytic serttence with a causa­

tive auxiliary;

[10] She made him move.

which seems to be neutral as regards agentivity of P. As can be seen from

[9] and [10], the difference in the agentivity of P dose not take form

morphologically, nor does the difference in the agentivity of S in [7].

There is no language, in Indo-European languages nor in so-called ergative

languages, in which S is morphologically marked to present the feature of

its agentivity. 6

- 7-

But, being based firstly on the inanimate-neuter assumption, secondly

on the fact that the nominative form and the accusative form of a neuter

noun in any Indo-European language are never distinguished, thirdly on

the inclination of S in [7.a] and P in [9] to be Objective rather than

Dative or in between them, we may safely consider Pin [9] to be in the

S position of (7] without any morphological modification.

[11] *Him moved.

[11] is only a potential sentence in English ·and never really exists. In

other words, English S in nominative case is representative ofNominative-S

and Objective-S which stand for agentive S and non-agentive S respectively.

Erg. - A

,- Nominative-S

J Opbjective-S z Abs. l Objective-S

A }Nom.

>Nominativ..S

REPRESENTATION 7

2. So-called 'ergative-or

Bolinger argues that in the sentences like

[12] The departing of the guests was welcome.

[ 13] *The staying of the guests was welcome.

-8-

P - Ace.

the of-phrase names the agent rather than the subject, and that the same of

appears in the infinitive construction with adjectives like [ 0 ] ;

[0] It was foolish of Mary to go there.

(14] It was confusing of John to mix up the explanations.

[15] *It was confusing of the text to mix up the explanations.

Thus revealing the reasoning behind his naming the 'ergatiye-of:

We conclude that of is used for an action originating in or proceed­

ing FROM an agent - a kind of ergative case relationship. 8

The of-phrase bears two points of similarity to A (the subject of a transi·

tive verb) in ergative languages, and they seem to reinforce Bolinger's

background. One point is that the of-phrase is in the oblique, i.e. non­

absolutive, case. The other is that it presents the agent of the verb con­

cerned. The first point of similarity can be admitted readily, because the

eargative form of a noun in ergative languages is often identical with an­

other case, most often the genitive or instrumental: But the second point is

subject to some qualifying commentary.

For the reason that the adjective in [16] modifies both the person and

his/her action identified by the verb, while the adjective in [ 17] modifies

the action only, the syntax of [16] must be more complex than that of

[ 17] in the sense that the former is loaded with the latter.

(16] It is unpleasant of you to demand such close attention.

[ 17] It is unpleasant for you to demand such close attention.

- 9-

The syntax of [171 is:

[18]

----~------NP AUX VP .....___

~ tns I Pred

~I A~j You demand such close Pres be unpleasant

attention

The agent-action relation between the of-phrase and the infmitive in

[161 is mapped from the categories dominated by the lower S in [181,

while such a relation in the sentences in [ 11 and [ 21 is observed on the

surface level, Le. ·it is mapped from the caterogies immediately domi­

nated by the initial S.

Not to bypass this difference, I would like to refer to the preposition in

question only as 'agentive-_gf, for agentivity is the distinctive feature of

the deep-structure subject of the embedded S introduced with 'agentive..of'.

The deep-structure subject can be either agentive or non-agentive when

the embedded Sis introduceli: with the!complementizer for-to or Poss-ing; I

[191 It is hard for a surgeon to conduct five operations a day.

[201 It is silent for water to evapolate.

[211 I prefer his departing.

[221 I prefer his staying.

-10-

1 Comrie, B. (1978). p. 338.

2 ibid. p. 348.

3 Lyons, J. (1968). p. 293.

Notes

4 Fillmore, C. (1968). pp. 24-5.

5 Quirk, R.et al. (1972). p. 352.

6 Lyons, J. op.cit. p: 357.

7 A. Martinet (1979) refers to this representation as "shunting."

8 Bolinger, D. (1977). p. 141.

9 Trask, R. L. (1979). p; 385.

-11-

References

Back, E. & Harms, R. (eds.) (1968). Universale in Linguistic.

Theory: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bolinger, D. (1977), Meaning and Form:Longman.

Comrie, B. (1978). 'Ergativity'. In Lehmann (ed.) (1978: 329-394).

Curme, G. 0. (1931). Syntax: D. C. Heath & Company.

Fillmore, C. (1968). 'The Case for Case'. In Back & Harms (1968: 1-88).

Hiromi, Nakano. (1970). 'Eigo ni okeru Ergativity Kosatsu'.

In Eigogak:u 5. 34-50.

Lehman, W. P. (ed.) (1978). Syntactic Typology : University ofTexasPress.

Lynos, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics :

Cambridge University Press.

Martinet, A. (1979). 'Shunting on to Ergative or Accusative'.

In Plank (ed.) (1979: 39-43).

Plank, F. (ed.) (1979). Ergativity: Academic Press.

Plank, F. (1979). 'Ergativity, Syntactic Typology and Universal Grammar'.

In Plank (ed.) (1979: 3-36).

Quirk, R.et al .. (1972). A Grammar of ContemPorary English: Longman.

Silva, G & Thompson, S. (1977). "On the syntax and semantics of adjec­

tives with 'it' subjects and infinitival complements in English".

In Studies in Englishl. 109-126.

Trask, R. L. (1979). 'On the Origins ofErgativity'. In Plank

(ed.) (1979: 385-404).

-12-