Explanation
Morphosyntactic alignment describes how a language grammatically groups core argument roles across different predicates. Analysis commonly compares the sole argument of an intransitive verb with the agent and patient of a transitive verb: case, agreement, or syntactic behaviour may align the intransitive argument with the agent, the patient, or with either under particular conditions. Nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive are important but not exhaustive patterns; split systems vary by tense, aspect, person, or construction. The conceptual movement detaches familiar categories from individual languages and asks comparatively which roles are treated alike by which diagnostics.
Movement of thought
1. Arguments of transitive and intransitive predicates are first identified as distinct functional roles. 2. Case, agreement, and syntactic tests reveal which roles receive formally parallel treatment. 3. These groupings yield an alignment pattern for a precisely named construction or domain. 4. A counter-test searches for splits, conflicting diagnostics, and semantically conditioned alternations. 5. The result is understood as a bundle of constructional patterns rather than a rigid whole-language label.
Scientific use case
Linguistic typology and syntax compare alignment through several independent diagnostics. Corpus and elicitation data must record tense, aspect, person, animacy, and construction so that split systems remain visible.
Example
In a past-tense construction, the agent of transitive verbs receives special marking while the patient and intransitive argument pattern alike. In the present, the same language follows another pattern.
Counterexample
One case ending cannot classify an entire language. If agreement, coordination, and case produce different groupings, analysis must report several alignments rather than impose one global type.
Distinction
Distinguish morphosyntactic alignment from semantic roles, word order alone, and discourse prominence. It concerns systematic parallel treatment of arguments under explicit grammatical diagnostics.
Effect on thought and perception
The concept shows that basic grammatical roles are organised differently across languages. It relativises familiar models of subjecthood without erasing genuine structural differences.
Resonance
Roles form no immutable row but changing alliances. Grammar lets some participants vibrate together while holding others apart through special marking.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Morphosyntactic alignment“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-119-014. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-119-014The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Siewierska’s WALS chapter operationalizes alignment by comparing S, the sole intransitive argument, with the more agent-like A and patient-like P of a transitive verb. Its domain is verbal person marking. This documents a comparative research practice rather than the origin of alignment terminology. Separate marking domains may require separate analyses, and the English chapter does not establish German lexical reception.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Name the domain and the actual S/A/P pattern. A label based on verbal marking should not be transferred without evidence to case marking or clause linkage.
References for the historical section
- A-SIEWIERSKA-WALS100 · §1 defining values, accusative and ergative alignment