ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-103-011 · ATLAS 260

Ergativity

A grammatical pattern that treats the subject of an intransitive verb as the object of a transitive verb.

Part of the subject path Syntax and Grammar

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Ergativity examines a grouping of event participants different from familiar subject-object models. Alignment tests support comparison without claiming a wholesale reversal or lack of agency.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Ergativity is a grammatical alignment pattern in which the sole core argument of an intransitive verb is grouped with the patient-like argument of a transitive verb, while the agent-like transitive argument is treated differently. In case systems, the first two commonly appear in the absolutive and the transitive agent in the ergative. This organisation challenges the assumption, familiar from nominative–accusative languages, that “subjects” form the same natural class everywhere. Ergativity may involve case, agreement, syntax, or only particular persons, tenses, aspects, and constructions; many languages show split systems. The concept therefore opens not an exotic reversal but a comparative perspective on how languages group event participants and which analytical categories are actually supported within each language.

Movement of thought

1. Three roles are first compared: the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent and patient of a transitive verb. 2. An ergative pattern groups the intransitive argument with the transitive patient and treats the transitive agent separately. 3. Case, agreement, or syntactic behaviour makes this alignment visible, though not necessarily throughout every domain of a language. 4. A counter-test controls split conditions, valency, and concrete diagnostics and avoids importing European subject categories without examination. 5. The event returns as a language-specific order of participants in which acting and undergoing may be coupled differently.

Scientific use case

Linguistic typology and syntax compare case, agreement, coordination, and reference accessibility. Corpus and fieldwork document splits by person, aspect, or clause type rather than labelling an entire language uniformly.

Example

In a language with ergative case, “the child” in “the child fell” and “the ball” in “the child threw the ball” bear the same absolutive form, while only the thrower is ergative.

Counterexample

English I in “I sleep” and “I see him” has the same subject form, while the object is marked differently. This is a nominative–accusative pattern rather than an ergative–absolutive one.

Distinction

Distinguish ergativity from passive constructions, semantic agentivity, and a total “reversal” of subject and object. It is an alignment pattern with possible splits; morphological and syntactic ergativity require separate diagnostics.

Effect on thought and perception

Ergativity relativises familiar subject–object orders and reveals that grammatical systems group event participants along different axes.

Resonance

Languages draw different connecting lines among participants in an event; the same scene thereby receives a different grammatical distribution of prominence.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Ergativity“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-103-011. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-103-011

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-103-011

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Comrie’s typological treatment distinguishes S, the sole argument of an intransitive verb, from A and P in a transitive construction. Ergative alignment treats S together with P rather than A. This comparative framework documents the concept beyond a particular case ending, but the chapter does not establish the earliest English or German technical use.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Ergativity is an alignment pattern of arguments, of which overt case marking is one realization.

References for the historical section

  • HC-C-COMRIE · §1 Introduction and§2 definition of values, S/A/P comparison
Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.