ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-134-011 · ATLAS 260

Split ergativity

A system in which ergative and accusative case marking alternate depending on person, tense, aspect, or sentence type.

Part of the subject path Syntax and Grammar

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Split ergativity challenges the treatment of alignment as one fixed label for an entire language. Tracking case, agreement and syntactic behaviour separately gives the atlas a more precise comparative instrument.

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

Split ergativity is a grammatical system in which ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative alignment occur under different conditions. The alternation may depend on person or animacy, tense and aspect, clause type, verb class, or main versus subordinate status. “Split” does not mean that two complete grammars are randomly mixed. A language establishes systematic domains in which the sole argument of an intransitive verb is treated either like a transitive agent or like a transitive patient. Case marking, agreement, and syntactic behaviour may themselves show different alignments. One unusual case form is therefore insufficient for diagnosis. The movement follows the same participant roles through changing grammatical contexts and reveals that alignment need not be an invariant property of a whole language.

Movement of thought

1. Intransitive and transitive clauses first provide three roles for comparison: sole argument, transitive agent, and transitive patient. 2. Within one grammatical domain the sole argument aligns with the patient, while in another it aligns with the agent. 3. Person, aspect, tense, verb class, or clause status systematically determines where alignment changes. 4. A counter-test examines case, agreement, and syntax separately and distinguishes split ergativity from optional marking and lexical exception. 5. The language returns as a multidimensional order: participant relations are grammatically grouped from different perspectives according to context.

Scientific use case

Linguistic typology, morphosyntax, and fieldwork elicit full paradigms across person, TAM, clause type, and verb class. Separate tests of case, agreement, and syntactic pivots prevent false classification.

Example

A language marks completed past transitive events ergatively but uses nominative-accusative agreement in imperfective present forms; aspect conditions the alignment.

Counterexample

One verb exceptionally selects a different case for historical reasons while all others follow the same accusative pattern. An isolated exception does not constitute a systematic ergative split.

Distinction

Distinguish it from ergativity, accusativity, active-stative alignment, differential object marking, optional ergative marking, lexical exception, and syntactic pivot; state conditioning factor and affected subsystems.

Effect on thought and perception

Split ergativity reveals flexible grammatical perspectivisation of participants and challenges global language types; simplified labels can incorrectly collapse several independent systems.

Resonance

The same participants cross different grammatical thresholds; according to aspect or person, the sole argument resonates with another side of the event.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Split ergativity“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-134-011. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-134-011

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-134-011

The 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 documents an ergative/accusative split in Itzaj person marking conditioned by aspect and clause type. This witnesses a specific comparative use, rather than the concept’s origin or German adoption.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Establish both patterns and the condition governing their alternation. A rare exception does not by itself describe a split system.

References for the historical section

Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.