Active PDF

Active languages
Daniel Andréasson
Department of Linguistics
Stockholm University
2001
Thesis for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in General Linguistics
Supervisor: Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
1
Abstract
This thesis deals with active languages. Active languages can mark the single argument of
intransitive verbs as either Agent or Patient, which has an effect on meaning. The main
question, which this thesis tries to answer, is what the difference between Agent and
Patient marking means, and how the active alignment is marked in the morphology.
Another question is how the exceptions to the otherwise regular semantic basis of the active
marking can be explained. The results show that the difference between Agent and Patient
marking is mainly a question of event vs. state or control vs. non-control, but sometimes
more intricate morphological features can occur. The active alignment is most often marked
on the predicate (head-marking), but dependent-marking is also possible, although more
rare. The exceptions to the semantics behind the active alignment can be explained by
lexicalization, borrowing, syntactic rules and analogy.
2
0 INTRODUCTION 5
0.1 PURPOSE AND MOTIVATION 5

0.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH 6
0.3 METHOD AND DATA SOURCES 6
0.4 DISPOSITION 8
1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 8
1.1 GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS, SYNTACTIC ALIGNMENT, AND A DEFINITION OF THE

TERM “ACTIVE” 8
1.2 SOME TERMS USED FOR DESCRIBING ACTIVE LANGUAGES 11
1.3 SEMANTIC ROLES 13
1.4 ACTIVE ALIGNMENT AND HEAD VS. DEPENDENT MARKING 15
2 ANALYSIS 16
2.1 GUARANÍ 17
2.1.1 BACKGROUND 17
2.1.2 ALIGNMENT 17
2.1.3 ACTIVE ALIGNMENT 17
2.1.4 EXPLAINING THE EXCEPTIONS 19
2.1.5 SUMMARY 19
2.2 GEORGIAN 20
2.2.1 BACKGROUND 20
2.2.2 ALIGNMENT 20
2.2.3 ACTIVE ALIGNMENT AND AN EXPLANATION OF ITS EXCEPTIONS 21
2.2.4 OTHER ASPECTS RELATED TO ACTIVE ALIGNMENT 25
2.2.5 SUMMARY 25
2.3 CHICKASAW 25
2.3.1 BACKGROUND 25
2.3.2 ALIGNMENT 26
2.3.5 OTHER ASPECTS RELATED TO ACTIVE ALIGNMENT 30
2.3.6 SUMMARY 31
2.4 MIDDLE WELSH 32
2.4.1 MIDDLE WELSH ALIGNMENT – A BACKGROUND 32
2.4.3 SUMMARY 34
2.5 ACEHNESE 34
2.5.1 BACKGROUND 34
2.5.2 ALIGNMENT 35
3
2.5.4 SUMMARY 36
2.6 CENTRAL POMO 36
2.6.1 BACKGROUND 36
2.6.2 ALIGNMENT 36
2.6.4 SUMMARY 38
2.7 EASTERN POMO 38
2.7.2 SUMMARY 40
2.8 LAKHOTA 40
2.8.1 BACKGROUND 40
2.8.4 SUMMARY 41
3 RESULTS 41
3.1 DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETWEEN AGT- AND PAT-MARKING 41

3.1.1 EVENT VS. STATE 41
3.1.2 PERFORMANCE, EFFECT AND INSTIGATION 41
3.1.3 CONTROL 42
3.2 WHERE AND HOW THE ACTIVE ALIGNMENT IS MARKED 43
3.3 EXCEPTIONS TO THE SEMANTICS BEHIND THE ACTIVE MARKING 43
3.3.1 LEXICALIZATION 44
3.3.2 BORROWING 44
3.3.3 SYNTAX 44
3.3.4 ANALOGY 45
4 SUMMARIZING DISCUSSION 45
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 46
6 REFERENCES 46
4
0 INTRODUCTION
0.1 Purpose and motivation

There is more than one purpose of this thesis. However, the main purpose is that I want to
make a guide and summary of some related and unrelated languages which all display
active alignment in order to show what it really is. Some languages, which have been
classified as active, are Lakhota, Guaraní, Georgian and Acehnese. I will try to see which
distinctions can be made, i.e. what difference in meaning can be expressed by the active
alignment.
One example of an active language is spoken Tibetan (Chang and Chang 1980, quoted in
Dixon 1994). In the sentence ‘I went to Lhasa’ the pronoun can be marked as Agent,
assuming that ‘I’ went there on purpose, while if ‘I’ is marked as Patient it might refer to
when ‘I’ was taken there as a child, i.e. without intention. The distinction often seems to be
one between control and lack of control or between activities and states.
I will also, to the extent possible, look at where and how it is expressed, i.e. where in the
grammar the active alignment occurs and how it is marked.
Thus, the questions I will try to answer in this thesis are:
Which distinctions can be made? That is, what difference in meaning can be expressed
by using different sets of pronouns, agreement marking or case, or what I will be calling
AGT and PAT marking, respectively?
In what morphological situations and contexts does the active alignment occur?
Is it used throughout the entire morphology, or is it only used with first and
second person pronouns, third person pronouns or lexical NP’s?
Does it occur only in certain tenses or aspects?
Where the active alignment is used counterintuitively or not in agreement with what
one might have expected, can the exceptions be explained, and if so, how?
My motivation for this thesis is basically my curiosity about the phenomenon of active
languages. I want to learn more about the notion of active alignment, and also grammatical
relations and argument structure in general.
Active languages have been an interest of mine almost since I first became more seriously
interested in linguistics, which was about three years ago, but I have never really taken the
time to take a closer look at them. So when it was time to write my BA-thesis it seemed
natural to take the opportunity to actually do something about my lack of knowledge in this
area. And if I could come up with some new information along the way, then all the better.
5
0.2 Previous research
This thesis is based primarily on Marianne Mithun’s article Active/Agentive Case Marking
and its Motivations (Language 67 (3), 1991), although it is structured in a slightly different
way. Mithun has tried to find the semantic basis of the active marking of some North and
South American languages, both synchronically and diachronically, and looked at
grammaticalization and lexicalization where the semantics have become obscured. Mithun
deals primarily with Guaraní, Lakhota, Central Pomo, Caddo and Mohawk. This article has
been a crucial source. Research on other active languages has been done by Harris (1990),
Hillery (1999), and Van Valin (1990) on Georgian; Manning (1995) on Middle Welsh; Durie
(1988) on Acehnese; and Munro and Gordon (1982), and Smith (2000a,b) on Chickasaw.
Regarding active alignment and syntactic alignment in general, Dixon (1994), Kibrik
(1997), Nichols (1992), and Comrie (1989) have been of great value. Klimov was one of the
first people who took active languages seriously. Outside Russia his work is unfortunately
known mostly thanks to Nichols.
0.3 Method and data sources

The purpose of this thesis has been to make a guide and summary of active languages, as
mentioned in section 0.1. Questions raised have been which distinctions can be made, i.e.
what difference in meaning can be expressed by active alignment. In what syntactic
situations and contexts does the activity occur? Is it used throughout the entire
morphology, or is it only used with first and second person pronouns, third person pronouns
or lexical NP’s? Does it occur only in certain tenses or aspects? Can the exceptions to the
semantics be explained, and how?
In order to answer these questions I started out from wordlists, grammars and papers
about languages that have been described as ‘active’. I categorized every relevant predicate
and compared that to the case or agreement marking of the same predicate. By doing that I
was able to determine the semantics of the active alignment marking of the language in
question.
In many cases an analysis of the language had already been done. Most of the material
which have been the sources of the current thesis (namely the papers, rather than the
books and grammars) deal directly with the languages as being active languages, i.e. they
were written from an ‘active’ point of view. However, a great deal of them do not make use
of the most up-to-date explanations, terminology, conceptions, or even theoretical frames
about the notion of active languages (most notably for Eastern Pomo in McLendon (1978),
Chickasaw in Munro and Gordon (1982), and Smith (2000a,b), and Middle Welsh in
Manning (1995)). In these cases, I have had to totally reanalyze the data presented in these
articles. In most cases I have also had to alter the terminology used or make other minor or
major modifications. In all cases I have had to restructure the information and data for the
purpose of making a homogeneous presentation in the thesis.
6
Here are the languages I have analyzed and the sources I have used for each language.
Language Source
Acehnese Durie (1988), Dixon (1994), Kibrik (1985), Van Valin (1990)
Central Pomo Mithun (1991)
Chickasaw Smith (2000a,b, p.c.), Munro and Gordon (1982)
Eastern Pomo McLendon (1978), Blake (1994)
Georgian Harris (1990), Hillery (1999), Van Valin (1990)
Guaraní Mithun (1991), Penayo (1990)
Lakhota Mithun (1991)
Middle Welsh Manning (1995), Higley (p.c.), Gaughan (p.c.)
As regards Guaraní, Georgian and Chickasaw, I have had access to a lot of data, which has
resulted in fairly thorough analyses. For other languages, the data has been more scarce,
but nonetheless those languages have proven to possess interesting features of active
alignment, and so I have chosen to include those. These analyses deal in most cases more
directly with the ‘active’ part of the grammar. Thus I have put them last in this thesis, to
make it easier to the reader to understand the text, since most of what is discussed there
and most of the terminology has already been mentioned in earlier language analyses.
Mithun (1991) has been a major source, as can be seen above. I have summarized the active
languages she deals with in her article, but with the addition of other sources as well,
where found. I have analyzed the other active languages the same way she has.
The question regarding what differences in meaning can be expressed in active languages,
can quite neatly be summarized in a table, as we will see further on. Mithun has made such
a table (Mithun 1991: 524). One aim of this essay has been to see if it it possible to put
other languages into that same table in order to see if the terms used throughout this thesis
are applicable to more active languages than Mithun treats. In a way this makes the
present thesis a kind of replication study. However, my focus lies not only on the semantics,
but I have also tried to find more examples of where and when the active marking and the
semantic basis of the agreement do not match up. I have looked both for more instances of
lexicalization, but also for other reasons such as syntactic explanations.
I have also looked more at where in the grammar the active alignment occurs. Mithun
centers on Native American languages, to which I have added a few in this thesis. To break
the North American dominance, I have in addition looked at one Caucasian language
(Georgian), one Austronesian language (Acehnese) and even a European language, namely
Middle Welsh.
7
0.4 Disposition
Section 0 contains – besides this disposition – the purpose and motivation for this thesis,
previous research, data sources and method.
Section 1 includes a theoretical background in which I give a general summary of semantic

roles, syntactic alignment, and active alignment. I also go through some terms used when
describing active languages.
The analysis in section 2 contains detailed descriptions of the active alignment of a number
of languages around the globe and for each language, I try to answer the questions asked in
section 0.1.
Section 3 consists of the results of the analyses, the motivations behind active marking, and
exceptions to the semantic basis. A summary of the answers to the questions asked in
previous sections can also be found here. I have put the available data – to the extent that
it was possible – in a table similar to that of Mithun (1991: 524), where the different
features and peculiarities of the languages of my survey are summarized. Finally, I have
drawn conclusions as to the extent active alignment can be explained by semantics, and
how lexicalization, borrowing and other features are involved in the explanation.
1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this section I will go through some important properties of grammatical relations,
syntactic alignment and argument structure, and I will also say a few words about
semantic roles. This will be needed in order to fully understand the rest of this thesis. A
reader who feels at ease with terms such as ergativity, activity, split-S, the distinction
between S, A and P, and terms like performance, instigation, effect and control may skip
this part and move directly to chapter 2.
1.1 Grammatical relations, syntactic alignment, and a definition of the

term “active”
Grammatical relations are relations between arguments – such as “subject” and “object” –
and predicates, which in most European languages consist of only verbs, but in other
languages include what speakers of European languages would classify as adjectives and
sometimes even numerals.
There are three main ways to identify grammatical relations: i) case marking, ii) cross-
reference marking on verbs and iii) word order (or a combination of some of these three
ways). It is mainly the first two ways which are of importance in active languages and thus
in this thesis.
All languages distinguish between clauses that involve a verb and one core NP (intransitive
clauses) and those that involve a predicate and two or more core NPs (transitive clauses)
8
(Dixon 1994: 6). There are three main arguments used to describe grammatical relations: S,
A and P1. S is the subject of an intransitive clause (‘John:S runs’). A is the subject of a
transitive clause, and P is the object of a transitive clause (‘The dog:A chased the cat:P’).
These three main arguments can be aligned in a number of logically possible ways. One
must remember, however, that there is a tendency for contrastive marking (including word
order) for A and P (otherwise a transitive sentence will be ambiguous). There are pressures
to identify S with A, or S with P (Dixon 1994). If S and A are grouped together – i.e. having
the same marking – distinguishing them from P, that language is a so-called nominative-
accusative language. If S and P group together against A, you have an ergative-absolutive
language. If all three arguments are marked differently, such a language is called a
tripartite language. Figure 1 summarizes these three alignment types graphically.
nominative-accusative ergative-absolutive tripartite
S S S
A P A P A P
Figure 1. Alignment of some different language types
In nominative-accusative languages the case marker marking S/A is called nominative. If

the language uses agreement rather than case, the agreement marker agrees with the
subject of both transitive and intransitive predicates, S and A. This is most often the
unmarked case or agreement marker. The case marker marking the sole P is called
accusative and the agreement marker agrees with P, the transitive object.
In ergative-absolutive languages, on the other hand, the case marker marking A is the sole
and marked morpheme, and is called ergative. If the language uses agreement rather than
case, the agreement marker agrees with the subject of intransitive predicates, S, and with
the object of transitive predicates, P, but not with the transitive subject, A. The unmarked
case marker is called absolutive and is marking S/P. The same goes for the agreement
marker, which agrees with both S and P. For the purpose of this thesis, the important thing
to remember is that in ergative languages, the A is the marked argument.
This leads us to the crucial question: What, then, is an active language? The usual
definition – and the definition I will go with in this thesis – is the following: An active
language is a language which organizes its core grammar so that the argument of some
one-place predicates is marked like the A of a two-place predicate, while the argument of
the other one-place predicates is marked like the P of a two-place predicate (Blake 1994).
Or put another way: Some one-place predicates get their arguments marked like A, and
others like P. And sometimes some one-place predicates can get their arguments marked
like either A or P. Yet another way of putting it is that one can think of an active language
1 Dixon (1994) uses O instead of P.
9
as pursuing a middle course compared to ergative and accusative languages: it marks some
S like A and some like P. Schematized, it looks like this:
active
A P
Figure 2. Alignment of active languages
Let me take some examples to clarify what distinctions can be made. In Georgian, the verb
icek’vebs ‘dance’ takes an Agent subject, while chavardeba ‘fall’ takes a Patient subject. This
is because ‘dancing’ is something you have control of, while ‘falling’ is something you cannot
control.
Another example is the Guaraní clause a-xá ‘I walk’ – an action – which takes the Agent
pronominal prefix a-. This can be contrasted with se-ras ‘I am sick’ – a state – which takes
the pronominal Patient prefix se. As the attentive reader can see, the distinction often
seems to be one between activities and states, or between control and lack of control. This is
what I will look closer at in the present thesis.
Traditionally, the names of the case or agreement markers, marking active alignment have
been ergative and absolutive/nominative. This, however, is misleading since it implies
ergative alignment which it is not. It should thus not be called that nor the names of the
cases, “ergative” and “absolutive”. Instead I have adopted the terms Agent (AGT) and
Patient (PAT), but more on that in section 1.3.
Many different terms have been proposed to describe the notion of ‘active alignment’. The
term split intransitivity is introduced by Van Valin, and other terms include variations of
the active theme: active, active-neutral, active-inactive (Sapir’s suggestion from 1917),
active-stative, active-static, agentive and agent-patient (all listed in Mithun 1991: 511),
agentive/patientive (Kibrik 1985), and active/non-active and unaccusative/unergative (listed
in Dixon 1994: 83). All of these are in one way or another misleading, since it can be shown
that in many active languages the distinction between activities and states is not the main
one, or even a distinction at all, and it may rather be a question of control of the situation,
or sometimes even more intricate features as we shall see. Hence, ‘active’ is not the best
choice of a term.
Dixon (1994) calls this phenomenon split-S, from the fact that the S of some intransitive
predicates is marked as A, while the S of other intransitive predicates is marked as P.
Languages which have intransitive predicates that can take both an A and a P as their only
argument are called fluid-S by Dixon, since the S-argument can in fact vary between A and
P. Examples of such predicates can be found in e.g. Guaraní. The predicate karú means ‘to
have lunch or dinner’ with the AGT pronominal prefix, while it means ‘to be a glutton’ with
the PAT pronominal prefix. This is not possible in split-S languages where every intransitive
predicate’s argument is either S or P, invariably. Dixon claims that there is a major
difference between split-S and fluid-S languages. Split-S languages are just like ergative
and accusative languages, having syntactically based marking of core constituents. The
10
case marking or agreement marking of a predicate is always done in the same way, no
matter what the semantics is in a particular instance.
Thus, in a split-S language, if one for instance wanted to use a predicate which deals with a
prototypically non-controlled event to describe that event done on purpose, then the S
would still be marked as P, and one would have to add e.g. an adverb meaning ‘purposely’.
Fluid-S languages have syntactically based marking for transitive verbs, but semantically
based marking for intransitive predicates, depending on what the semantics are in a
particular instance of use. Hence, in a fully fluid-S language, every predicate has the
possibility of taking either A or P as its marking (Dixon 1994: 72pp).
There are two problems with this. The first problem is the division of the intransitive core
role (S) into A or P. This division has a semantic basis which is similar regardless if it is
variable (‘fluid’) or not. Second, there are languages, which employ semantic marking for
transitive clauses as well as we shall see further on. These two terms – split-S and fluid-S –
however good and unambiguous, will not do in this thesis since I will include both types of
languages and will not focus on the difference (if any) between them, and thus need one
single term to refer to both concepts.
Pamela Munro (Munro and Gordon 1982) has indeed gone so far as to call the three
different agreement markers of Chickasaw as I, II and III, without using labels such as
“active”, “ergative” and the like.
‘Active’ might not be the best choice, since it implies a distinction between active and
stative (or perhaps the name ‘active’ does not even suggest a distinction at all).
Nevertheless, this is the term that is most widely used in the latest literature and papers
and so I have decided to use it. However, it is important that the reader understands that
the word ‘active’ does not contain the whole truth.
Regarding the terms “subject” and “object”, these terms can be used in a number of ways. In
a thesis on active languages, where semantic roles like Agent and Patient are crucial, these
terms might not be the best ones to use. “Subject” and “object” work well for accusative
languages. You can still use them for ergative languages, but differently from accusative
languages. When we get to active languages, where the single argument of a one-place verb
can be marked in two ways, as either the A or the P of a transitive verb, we run into
problems. Of course, you could define “subject” as the single argument of an intransitive
verb, and this is what I have done in this thesis. However, things get more problematic as
regards transitive predicates. Two-place predicates do not usually have active marking on
any of the arguments. However, some predicates do not have the prototypical Agent and
Patient arguments. These are verbs like ‘see’, ‘hear’ and ‘love’. This is why I have chosen to
use the terms Actor and Undergoer instead, but more on that in section 1.3. “Subject” is in
any case defined as “Actor” and “object” as “Undergoer”.
1.2 Some terms used for describing active languages

Mithun (1991) suggests a few features, which are important for accurately describing the
use and semantics of active marking. These are:
11
event;
performance, effect, instigation (henceforth abbreviated P/E/I);
control.
For some languages the terms significant affectedness and empathy also play a major role.
Events are the opposite of states (often referred to as non-events or [–event] in this thesis).
Events are referred to by predicates such as ‘jump’, ‘go’, ‘fall’, ‘hiccup’ and ‘die’. Some
examples of states are ‘reside’, ‘be patient, ‘be tall’, ‘be sick’ and ‘be cold’. As we can see,
states often, but not always, correspond to what in English are adjectives. Events on the
other hand often correspond to verbs in English.
Predicates that you control are e.g. ‘jump’, ‘go’ and ‘be careful’. These can be contrasted with
non-controlled predicates such as ‘fall’, ‘die’, ‘slip’ and ‘be tall’.
Examples of predicates which are performed, effected or instigated are ‘jump’, ‘hiccup’,
‘reside’, and ‘be patient’. These three terms are not exact synonyms, but are lumped
together into one group to be able to contrast it with control, in order to differ between
certain predicates. For instance, the argument of predicates like ‘jump’, ‘reside’, and ‘be
patient’ is in control. These are also in some way performed, effected or instigated. But
‘hiccup’, ‘sneeze’ and ‘vomit’ are things that you perform, effect or instigate, but you do not
control them. Thus, to tell the difference between verbs like ‘hiccup’ and verbs like ‘jump’,
you need the term P/E/I.
As we can see, many times, the difference between these properties is the only thing that
can explain a certain use of case or agreement markers. In most situations P/E/I and
control co-occur – like the cases of ‘jump’, ‘go’, and ‘reside’. But in some situations they do
not. People who sneeze or hiccup do perform, effect or instigate the sneezing or hiccuping,
but they do not control them. In languages like Lakhota and Georgian P/E/I is an important
feature, as we shall see further on.
The last important term in describing the semantics behind active marking is affectedness.
In some languages, notably Central Pomo, being out of control is not enough to be marked
as a Patient. The participant involved must also be significantly affected. Being
significantly affected is often the same as being in a state that is temporary as opposed to
inherent states. Some examples of predicates of which the argument is significantly affected
are ‘be tired’ and ‘be cold’. Non-significantly affected predicates on the other hand are ‘be
tall’ and ‘be strong’. A participant can also be marked as significantly affected if the speaker
chooses to express empathy with her, or if the argument is human. In Central Pomo, for
instance, empathy can only be assigned to first persons. One does not want to claim to feel
what other people feel. An example is Hó mt’a· to. ‘I:PAT feel warm.’ but Hó mt’a·mu·l.
‘He:AGT feels warm.’ We will see that the notion of affectedness has even more intricate
features, and can be used to make amazing semantic distinctions.
Logically, there can be eight combinations of the three terms control, P/E/I and event.
However, only five of these are used in this thesis. The three combinations not used are:
12
• [+control, –P/E/I, –event]
• [+control, –P/E/I, +event]
• [–control, +P/E/I, –event]
The first two combinations are not used because it seems a predicate cannot be controlled
unless it is also performed, effected or instigated in some way. The other way around is of
course possible. Confer predicates like ‘hiccup’ and ‘sneeze’ which are [+P/E/I] but
[–control].
The third combination would be the non-eventive equivalent of predicates like ‘sneeze’ and
‘hiccup’. However, there seems not to be any such predicates. Although even if there were,
they are not of importance to this thesis.
Below is a table summing up the five relevant combinations of control, P/E/I and event,
with English examples. I also include the term significant affectedness, which can affect
[–control, –P/E/I, –event] predicates.
Table 1. Summary of the different combinations of terms used to describe active languages.
[+control, +P/E/I, +event] ‘jump’, ‘go’, ‘dance’, ‘fight’
[–control, +P/E/I, +event] ‘vomit’, ‘sneeze’, ‘hiccup’
[+control, +P/E/I, –event] ‘reside’, ‘be careful’, ‘reign’
[–control, –P/E/I, +event] ‘fall’, ‘die’, ‘slip’
[–control, –P/E/I, –event, –affect] ‘be sick’, ‘be tired’, ‘be cold’
[–control, –P/E/I, –event, +affect] ‘be tall’, ‘be strong’, ‘be righthanded’
1.3 Semantic roles

We will move on by explaining semantic roles (also called participant roles, deep semantic
cases, thematic relations and thematic roles (Saeed 1997: 139)).
There are a number of semantic roles such as Agent, Patient, Experiencer, Theme, Goal,
etc. According to Kibrik (1997) these roles are no longer in any doubt. Then what exactly
are the semantic roles? Kibrik (1997: 288) writes:
“These semantic primes categorise the kinds of involvement of participants in the

events described by the proposition, and thus belong to the situational component
of the content of the message.”
The two most important roles, and the ones that are essential to this thesis are Agent and
Patient. These two roles are the semantic roles which express the core arguments of two-
place verbs, and are thus the prototype of transitivity. These two roles have been defined in
a number of ways by e.g. Givón, Foley and Van Valin, and Kibrik (all definitions quoted
below from Kibrik 1997).
13
The concept of the transitive Agent of verbs like ‘do’ and ‘kill’ can be extended to the concept
of the intransitive Agent of verbs like ‘go’ and ‘jump’, while the concept of the transitive
Patient of verbs like ‘do’ and ‘kill’ can be extended to the concept of the intransitive Patient
of verbs like ‘die’ and ‘fall’. These extended terms are labelled Agent and Patient. These
concepts are generalizations of the primary semantic roles, i.e., they are hyperroles rather
than semantic roles.
Givón writes:
AGENT: The prototypical transitive clause involves a volitional, controlling,

actively-initiating agent who is responsible for the event, thus is its salient cause.
PATIENT: The prototypical transitive clause involves a non-volitional, inactive non-
controlling patient who registers the event’s change-of-state, thus is its salient
effect.
The generalized hyperroles Agent and Patient are prototypical for the active alignment.
However, some verbs like ‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘love’ and ‘be cold’ have other semantic roles (Like
Experiencer and Stimulus), which are unified with Agent and Patient in a way that is
based on semantics. (Kibrik 1997: 291). Foley and Van Valin use the hyperroles Actor and
Undergoer for the active stategy. The definitions are as follows:
ACTOR: “the participant of the situation which performs, effects, instigates, or

controls it”, or the participant “primarily responsible for the accomplishment of
the event”.
UNDERGOER: “the participant of the situation which does not perform, initiate, or
control it, but rather is affected by it in some way”, or “the participant primarily
affected in the action, resulting in its change of state or characteristics”.
These definitions of Actor and Undergoer provide a natural semantic explanation of the
active alignment, and these definitions are the ones I will use in the present thesis. But as
the terms Agent (AGT) and Patient (PAT) are the most widely used in the literature on active
languages, I will use them throughout my thesis, both in the text and in the language-
specific examples.
However, Actor and Undergoer do leave unexplained the accusative and ergative
alignments. Kibrik suggests the two semantic hyperroles Principal and Absolutive to
account for these language types. He defines these as
PRINCIPAL: the main participant, the “hero” of the situation, who is primarily
responsible for the fact that this situation takes place.
ABSOLUTIVE: the immediate, nearest, most involved or affected participant of the

situation.
These definitions may at first sight seem very similar to Actor and Undergoer, but there are
important differences. Let us first look at the definitions of Actor and Principal. When a
situation has two participants there will be a competition between them. If one compares
the most Patient-like participant with the most Agent-like participant, the participant that
is primarily responsible for the event to take place is the most Agent-like one. But if there
14
is only one participant, it is by default primarily responsible for the fact that the situation
takes place, irrespective of its particular role specification (Kibrik 1997: 292). Kibrik’s
hyperrole Principal is thus a relative definition that makes it possible to unify Agents and
Patients in the case of one-place verbs. Likewise, the Absolutive hyperrole is also a relative
concept which is based on the Undergoer hyperrole. When a situation has two participants,
the participant which is the most Patient-like one, as compared to the Agent-like one, is the
most immediate, nearest participant of the event. If there is only one participant, it is by
default the most immediate, nearest participant of the situation, irrespective of its
particular role specification (Kibrik 1997). This means that one and the same participant
can be both Principal and Absolutive, which explains why both accusative and ergative
languages are natural.
In some examples I have kept the original case names, with an explanation given in a
footnote. In all cases where there are examples with indirect objects and oblique cases, their
names have been kept as they are.
1.4 Active alignment and head vs. dependent marking

Sentences and phrases are built of heads and dependents. For example, the head of a PP is
the preposition and the dependent is the object NP. The head of a VP is the verb and the
dependents are the arguments of the verb. In an NP consisting of a noun and an adjective,
the head is the noun and the dependent is the adjective. In a phrase like “John’s book”,
“John” is the possessor/dependent and “book” – what the phrase is about – is the possessed
NP/head. In English, “John” is the constituent that is marked and “John’s book” is thus an
example of dependent-marking. If “book” had been marked instead, it would have
illustrated head-marking.
Nichols (1992) has done research on the possible correlation between two linguistic
properties, alignment and head/dependent marking. The active language type strongly
prefers head-marking morphology. This does of course not say that it is impossible for a
dependent-marking language to have active alignment, just that it is more rare (Nichols
1992: 101). Table 2 summarizes the number of head-, double- and dependent-marking
active languages in a survey by Nichols (1992: 101):
The total sample is 174 languages. In total, only 21 out of 174 languages are active in some
aspect (on the pronoun, the nouns or the verb).
Table 2. Dominant marking of 21 languages with active alignment.
Dominant Head Double Dependent Total

alignment
Active 14 4 3 21
Of the three active languages in Nichols’ sample (Georgian, Eastern Pomo and Tonkawa)
15
plus Ts’ova-Tush that are dependent-marking, three are classified as fluid-S2 (Ts’ova-Tush,
Eastern Pomo and Tonkawa) and only one (Georgian) as split-S. The fluid-S language type
is very uncommon among active languages (Merlan 1985, quoted in Nichols 1992). Thus we
can see a clear tendency for fluid-S languages to be case-marking. Head-marking languages
with active alignment are split-S with the exception of Acehnese. Whether this holds true
or not I will not debate here, since it is not of primary concern for the results of this thesis.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting correlation, which is explained thus: Languages with
active alignment prefer head-marking since they grammaticalize lexical categories of verbs.
However, dependent-marking active languages are generally fluid-S, as we saw, which
means that they rather grammaticalize nominal semantic roles and not verb categorization
(Nichols 1992). In conclusion it can be put like this: alignments that favor nominal marking
are associated with grammaticalization of nominal semantic functions, and those that favor
verbal marking are associated with the grammaticalization of verbal semantics. Or, in
other words, if the active alignment is marked on the NP, the ‘activity’ is related to
semantic functions of the NP (see also section 1.3 Semantic roles). If the active alignment is
marked on the predicate, the ‘activity’ is related to the semantics of the verb.
For the purpose of this thesis, it is enough to say that active languages grammaticalize
either lexical categories of verbs or nominal semantic functions, as opposed to accusative
languages, which grammaticalize subject-object relations and ergative languages, which
grammaticalize agent and patient3.
2 ANALYSIS
In this part of the thesis I will go through a number of languages from different parts of the
world. I will look at the active alignment of the languages in order to establish what the
semantics behind the marking is, in which way the active alignment is expressed (head-
marking or dependent-marking), and if the active alignment exists in only some specific
part of the grammar. I begin each section with a description of the language generally and
a short background. Then I describe the normal alignment. After that, I uncover the
grammatical whereabouts of the active alignment and I go through examples of predicates
that display active alignment and analyze these. I explain the exceptions to the active
alignment (which almost always show up), and last – in case I have found some – I show
examples of other active and semantically related things such as transitive verbs,
emotional verbs, etc. Keep in mind that the analyses of Acehnese, Lakhota, Central Pomo
and Eastern Pomo are shorter and deal more directly with the active alignment of the
language in question due to the scarcity of data (see also section 0.3).
2 see section 1.1

3 see Nichols (1992) for the full discussion, especially pages 65-69.
16
2.1 Guaraní
2.1.1 Background
Guaraní is one of the languages in the Tupí-Guaraní family. It is spoken in South America,
mainly in Paraguay by 4,648,000 people (1995), which is 95% of the population, and in
Argentina in regions bordering Paraguay by hundreds of thousands. About half of the rural
Paraguayans are monolingual in Guaraní. The name of the country itself – Paraguay – is a
Guaraní word.
2.1.2 Alignment
Guaraní does not mark its nouns for case, but it does have two different sets of pronominal
verb prefixes, which denote two different cases. I call these AGT and PAT. The pronominal
system contains distinct forms for three persons, two numbers (for first and second person)
and inclusive and exclusive first person pronouns (Mithun 1991: 512). The AGT set is used
for some intransitive arguments and all A-arguments of transitive verbs. The PAT set is
used for some other intransitive arguments and P-arguments of transitive verbs. The first
person AGT prefix is a- and the first person PAT prefix is se-. Let us first look at the use of
these prefixes in transitive sentences. The first example demonstrates the A-use and the
second one the P-use:
(1) ha upépe a-ara supé ’And there I caught him.’
(2) se-yukà varà moá ’He would have killed me.’
It is clear that the AGT prefix a- is used for transitive agents and the PAT prefix se- is used
for transitive patients.
2.1.3 Active alignment
Now let us have a look at intransitive predicates. Examples (3) and (4) use the AGT a- prefix
while examples (5) and (6) use the PAT se- prefix (examples from Mithun 1991: 511).
(3) a-xá
1SG-walk
’I walk.’
(4) a-puá
1SG-got:up
’I got up.’
(5) se-ras
1SG-am:sick
’I’m sick.’
17
(6) se-ropehí
1SG-am:sleepy
’I’m sleepy.’
Obviously, some predicates are used with the AGT prefix and some with the PAT prefix, but
what determines when to use which? Below is a list of intransitive predicates some of which
take the PAT prefix and some of which take the AGT prefix. Let us see if we can find a reason
for the difference in marking (Examples from Gregores and Suárez 1967, quoted in Mithun
1991: 512f).
AGT PAT
gwatá ‘walk’ yemahi ‘be hungry’

ú ‘come’ kaneó ‘be tired’
yaní ‘run’ akateí ‘be stingy’
yemoetá ‘chat’ ak ‘be tender, unripe’
yerokí ‘dance’ kaí- ‘be weak’
pitá ‘smoke’ -akú ‘be hot, warm’
yemosaraí ‘play’ akwá ‘be fast, quick, lightfooted’
ma.apó ‘work’ amrí ‘be dead, deceased, distant’
á ‘fall’ aatá ‘be anxious, grieved’
manó ‘die’ aó ‘have a cramp’
yepasurú ‘sink’ apesií ‘be smooth’
kasá ‘stagger’ aimé ‘be sharp’
kay ‘get lost’ aranú ‘be wise’
ké ‘sleep’ ate ‘be lazy’
yeká ‘split, crack, burst’ mirí ‘be humble’
posí ‘be angry’
karapé ‘be short’
katú ‘be possible’
karé ‘be lame’
moriahú ‘be poor’
The difference between predicates that take AGT and those that take PAT is one between
event and state. Predicates in the AGT group have meanings which are activities,
accomplishments and achievements (Vendler 1967, Van Valin 1990, quoted in Mithun
1991: 513), i.e what I call events. They have meanings which imply a change over time or
dynamicity. Predicates in the PAT group on the other hand denote states and imply a
certain stability over time (Blake 1994, Mithun 1991).
The division of Guaraní predicates into either states or events is not totally fixed. Some
predicates can be used with both the AGT and the PAT pronominal prefix. Guaraní is thus a
so-called fluid-S4 language, at least in some cases. The predicate karú means ‘to have lunch
or supper, to dine’ if used with the AGT prefix, but ‘to be a glutton’ with the PAT prefix.
Similarly, kaú means ‘to get drunk’ with AGT and ‘to be a drunkard, to be drunk’ with PAT,
and mimí means ‘to shine’ with the eventive á- prefix, but ‘to be brilliant’ with the stative
se- prefix.
4 See section 1.1 and Dixon (1994: 78)
18
If we summarize these findings in a table, we get the following results:
Table 3. Summary of the semantics behind Guaraní pronominal prefix marking.
+ event + event + event – event – event

+ P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I
– control – control + control – control
+ control
Guaraní xá ‘go’, yerokí – á ‘fall’, – karapé ‘be

examples ‘dance’ manó ‘die’ short’,
ras ’be sick’,
kaneó ‘be
tired’
Pronominal
AGT AGT AGT PAT PAT
prefix
2.1.4 Explaining the exceptions
Even though the active system of Guaraní is very regular and transparent throughout the
system, there are exceptions. One is lexicalization. One set of pronominal affixes becomes
fixed even if the meaning of the predicate changes. One example is the verb esaví ‘to wink’,
an event, and should thus be used with the AGT prefix, but in fact the PAT prefix is used.
However, the verb is formed from the word esá ‘eye’, and its literal meaning is ‘to have
defective eyes’, which clearly is a state and should be marked with the PAT se- prefix.
Another aspect, which may affect the case or agreement system of an active language is
language contact. Guaraní has borrowed, and borrows, a large number of words from
Spanish. These verbs are regularly marked as dynamic or events, even if they have a
stative meaning. An example is avuri meaning ’to be bored’. This predicate is used with the
AGT case prefix, even though it obviously is of stative meaning. This is due to the borrowing
from Spanish se abburir. Guaraní has generalized its borrowing so that Spanish adjectives
are used with the stative case (PAT), while Spanish verbs are used with the dynamic case
(AGT) (Mithun 1991: 514). This leads to correct results in most cases – adjectives often have
a stative meaning and verbs a dynamic meaning – but sometimes it comes out incorrectly.
Guaraní also has a native verb kaigwé meaning ‘to be or become bored’, which is used – as
predicted from the rule of event vs. state – with the stative PAT pronominal prefix. Another
example of the same fact is apurá ‘to hurry, to be in a hurry’ borrowed from the Spanish
verb se apurar. This predicate is classified as an event, while the native predicate -age,
having the exact same meaning, is marked with the PAT prefix and is thus classified as a
state.
2.1.5 Summary
In summary, Guaraní marks its active alignment by pronominal prefixes on the predicate,
i.e. head-marking. The AGT prefix is used if the predicate denotes an event, if it is dynamic,
19
or indicates a change over time. The PAT prefix is used when the predicate denotes a state,
or is stable over time. Spanish borrowings sometimes cause confusion since adjectives are
regularly marked as PAT and verbs as AGT. This leads to cases such as avuri ’to be bored’
being marked as AGT even though it is a state, due to its being borrowed from the Spanish
verb se abburir of the same meaning.
2.2 Georgian
2.2.1 Background
Georgian is the largest one of the South Caucasian (Kartvelian) languages. It is spoken by
nearly 4 million people in Georgia and also by some groups in Iran and Turkey (Harris
1981, Hillery 1999).
2.2.2 Alignment
In Georgian, verbs are divided into four Classes for syntactic and semantic, and – mainly –
morphological reasons. Class 4 verbs are treated differently from the other verbs for
semantic reasons. They contain verbs of emotion and attitudes, so called experiencer-verbs.
The other verbs are divided into transitive and intransitive ones. Transitive verbs fall into
Class 1 and the intransitive verbs fall into Classes 2 and 3. There are of course exceptions
to the transitive/intransitive dichotomy, in that some verbs in Class 1 do not take a direct
object (e.g. daamtknarebs ’he will yawn’ (Harris 1981:259)), and some verbs in Classes 2
and 3 may indeed take a direct object (e.g. itamashebs ’he will play’ is an intransitive Class
3 verb, but may take a direct object as in the sentence nardi vitamashe ’I played
backgammon’ (Harris 1981:265, 1990:47)). As we shall see further on, it is the Classes 2
and 3, which are of special interest to us.
Two other important things in Georgian verb morphology are Screeves and Series. Screeves
are really nothing more than ordinary tense-aspect-mood-status paradigms. However, each
conjugational pattern in Georgian represents a unique combination of tense, aspect, mood
and ’status’, and is known as a screeve5. One might think of a screeve as a TMA pattern. A
screeve consists of the pattern of verb forms for each person and number. There are eleven
screeves in Georgian, grouped into three Series:
Series I – the ’present series’ – has two subseries (’present’ and ’future’), each with three
screeves. Series II – the ’aorist6 series’ – has two screeves, while Series III the – ’perfect
series’ – has three.
5 This word was coined on the basis of the Georgian term mc’k’rivi (’row’) to avoid using the label ’tense’ with its
strong temporal connotations.
6 ’Aorist’ is comparable to ’past’ tense.
20
It can also be noted that verb-agreement in Georgian follows a strict nominative-accusative
principle, it is the case-marking that is of interest as regards the active alignment. Old
Georgian however, actually did have active verb-agreement as well. The predicate was
agreeing with the objects of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitive ‘inactive’ verbs by
using the verbal agreement suffix -en in Series II (Harris 1990: 39). This agreement has
been lost in modern Georgian.
To further complicate things, Georgian is also ergative, but only in the aorist series,
otherwise it follows a nominative-accusative strategy. It is thus a so-called split-ergative
language. Compare the following examples (from Hillery 1999)7:
Nominative-Accusative (in the future series):
(1) bich’-i dzaghl-s bagh-(s)-shi8 damalavs.

boy-NOM:SG dog-DAT:SG garden-DAT:SG-in hide
’The boy will hide the dog in the garden.’
(2) dzaghl-i bagh-(s)-shi daimaleba.

dog-NOM:SG garden-DAT:SG-in hide-oneself
’The dog will hide in the garden.’
Ergative-Absolutive (in the Aorist series):9
(3) bich’-ma dzaghl-i bagh-(s)-shi damala.

boy-ERG:SG dog-ABS:SG garden-DAT:SG-in hide
’The boy hid the dog in the garden.’
(4) dzaghl-i bagh-(s)-shi daimala.

dog-ABS:SG garden-DAT:SG-in hide-oneself
’The dog hid in the garden.’
2.2.3 Active alignment and an explanation of its exceptions
This ergative alignment is only true for Class 1 verbs in the aorist series. The intransitive
verbs in Class 2 and Class 3 in the aorist series behave differently from Class 1 verbs and
differently from what they do in Series I (’future’ and ’present’) and Series III (’perfect’).
Examples (5) and (6) exemplify a Class 3 verb (‘play’) and a Class 2 verb (‘remain’) (from
Hillery 1999):
7 I have simplified the verb complex in the examples since it is of no interest to this thesis and would only serve to
blur the discussion. However, the curious reader might want to know that the infix -i- is a so-called object
“version” vowel, which in this case marks reflexivity. The prefix da- often marks the perfective. I have completely
ignored the verb-agreement since it always follows a nominative-accusative principle.
8 The dative suffix is -s which is assimilated into the postposition -shi ‘in’.
9The attentive reader may notice that ABS and NOM are in fact the same case, traditionally called ‘nominative’ in
Georgian studies. I decided to split them up to further clarify the difference between the future series and the
aorist series. The case called DAT most often functions as ‘accusative’, but I chose to keep the original name.
21
(5) bich’-ma bagh-shi itamasha.
boy-AGT:SG garden-DAT:SG play-in
’The boy played in the garden.’
(6) bich’-i bagh-shi darcha.

boy-PAT:SG garden-DAT:SG remain-in
’The boy remained in the garden.’
As we can see, in example (5) the AGT case is used, and in example (6) the PAT case is used,
despite the fact that they are both intransitive verbs. Georgian thus can mark the subject of
one-place predicates as either Agents or Patients. Hence Georgian must be an active
language, be it only in very strict syntactical surroundings, i.e. the Series II (‘aorist’),
Classes 2 and 3 (the intransitive verbs).
Now, what determines if the argument of a verb gets AGT or PAT case marking? Let us look
at some different Class 2 and Class 3 verbs and see what they have in common.
Class 2 verbs mark their subject as PAT and Class 3 verbs mark their subject as AGT. Here
are some examples of Class 2 – PAT verbs (from Harris 1981: 263ff)10:
(a) ikneba ‘he will be’

(b) elodeba ‘he will wait for him’
(c) gat’qdeba ‘it will break’
(d) chavardeba ‘he will fall’
(e) darcheba ‘he will remain’
(f) moxdeba ‘it will happen’
(g) gamtbari ikneba ‘it will be heated, warmed’
(h) dac’erili ikneba ‘it will be written’
(i) dac’qebuli ikneba ‘it will be begun, started’
(j) daic’qeba ‘it will begin’
(k) chak’et’ili ikneba ‘it will be locked’
(l) chaik’et’eba ‘it will lock’
(m) gadneba ‘it will melt’
(n) daibadeba ‘it will be born’
(o) gatetrdeba ‘it will become white’
(p) gagrzheldeba ‘it will become long(er)’
(q) acek’vdeba ‘he will begin to dance’
(r) dac’erili ikna ‘it got written’
(s) dach’rili ikna ‘he got wounded’
(t) ec’ereba ‘it will stand written, be in a state of having been written’
(u) etamasheba ‘he will play with him’
(v) mouqveba ‘he will tell it to him’
(w) ik’bineba ‘he bites’
(x) igineba ‘he curses, swears’
10 The verbs being in the future is simply because Harris (1981) has chosen to do so. It does not affect the analysis.
22
(y) ic’veta ‘it dripped’
Below follow some examples of Class 3 – AGT verbs (from Harris 1981: 265f):
(A) icek’vebs ‘he will dance’

(B) imgherebs ‘he will sing’
(C) itamashebs ‘he will play’
(D) ibrzhvis ‘he will fight’
(E) isuntkebs ‘he will breathe’
(F) it’irebs ‘he will cry’
(G) iqvirebs ‘he will yell’
(H) ilap’arak’ebs ‘he will talk’
(I) ioxrebs ‘he will sigh’
(J) ixvrinebs ‘he will snore’
(K) irbens ‘he will run’
(L) isrialebs ‘he will slide’
(M) ipikrebs ‘he will think’
(N) imepebs ‘he will reign’
(O) imushavebs ‘he will work’
(P) iqaraulebs ‘he will guard it’
(Q) ibavshvebs ‘he will behave childishly’
(R) imgzavrebs ‘he will travel’
(S) ik’ashk’ashebs ‘it will glisten’
(T) ip’rialebs ‘it will shine’
(U) idughebs ‘it will boil’
Now, what is it that characterizes Class 2 (PAT) and Class 3 (AGT) verbs? Let us begin with
Class 2. First of all, we can disregard the verbs (g) to (n). These verbs are analytic and
synthetic passives, derived from basic Class 1 verbs. They end up in Class 2 since they are
now intransitive, but what is now the subject was originally the object, and is still marked
as such. The verbs (r) to (t) are also passives, what Harris calls Zustandspassiv, being in
Class 2 for the same reasons as (g) to (n). The inceptives (o) to (q) are also seen as non-
controlled, and semantically analyzed as such by Harris (1981: 39ff, 246, 261).
The verbs (u) and (x) are in a group of exceptions to Class 2. These are controlled verbs, but
are still in Class 2. These exceptions are explained in three ways:
1. All of them occur in synchronically non-productive morphological subclasses.

2. Some of them cause confusion for native speakers.
3. Some or all of them are regularized in the non-literary dialects.
The predicates (u) to (x) are all in closed and non-productive morphological subclasses.
They have become lexicalized and frozen. They also cause confusion for native speakers. An
example of the latter can be seen in example (7) and (8) (Harris 1981: 246):
(7) macivridan c’qalma ic’veta

refrigerator:from water:AGT dripped
‘Water dripped from the refrigerator.’
23
Example (7) can be compared to example (8):
(8) macivridan c’qali ic’veta

refrigerator:from water:PAT dripped
‘Water dripped from the refrigerator.’
The verb c’vetva ‘drip’ is a verb which formally belongs to Class 3 (AGT). However, the use in
(7) is considered more literary and is preferred by prescriptive norms, and one language
consultant noted that he knew that (7) was right (normative), but that it sounded strange,
as though the water were dripping on purpose, as though the water were active (akt’iuri).
By this comment, the native speaker thus both proves that these few verbs (u) to (y) should
in fact be seen as exceptions rather than counter-examples, and, more importantly, that
Georgian bases its active alignment on control or P/E/I rather than event vs. state.
Analyzing the verbs (a) to (f) we see that all of them are in fact non-controlled predicates.
The exception might be the verb ‘be’, which is a special case and hard to define
semantically.
Finally, some verbs which are exceptions in the literary language (based on the dialect of
the capital Tbilisi) are regularized in many dialects, including Gurian and Imerian in
western Georgia, the mountain dialects of north central Georgia, and Pereidnian spoken in
Iran. Some examples are (Harris 1981: 246) k’acma c’avida ‘The man-AGT went’ and k’acma
adga ‘The man-AGT got up’, where the subjects are marked as Agents as would be expected
for control-verbs. In the Tbilisi dialect, these verbs are exceptions marking their subject as
Patient.
As regards the verbs in Class 3 (AGT), we see that all of them are controlled. The exceptions
(e.g. (J), (S), (T) and (U)) can all be shown to belong to frozen, lexicalized, non-productive
subclasses (Holisky 1980). One interesting thing we can see by analyzing Class 3 verbs is
that predicates that are not controlled but still performed, effected or instigated fall in this
class. Examples of Class 3 verbs with these features are ixvrinebs ‘snore’ and also ip’rialebs
‘shine’ and ik’ashk’ashebs ‘glisten’. The conclusion to draw from this is that case marking in
Georgian is in fact not based on control but on performance, effect and instigation. An
argument does not need to be in control to be marked as AGT, it is sufficient for it to in some
way perform, effect or instigate the event (or state).
As regards what would have been the last column in table 4 below, showing predicates that
are [–event], [–P/E/I] and [–control] (i.e, traits, properties or attributes such as ‘be tall’, ‘be
sick’ and ‘be tired’) is unapplicable in Georgian since this language uses adjectives that are
more like nouns than verbs (as in English). This, however, is of no importance to the
analysis, since verbs like imepebs ‘reign’ and iqaraulebs ‘guard’, which are [–event] still
mark their argument as AGT showing that [event] cannot be crucial to the case marking.
24
Table 4. Summary of the semantics behind Georgian case-marking.
+ event + event + event – event

+P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I + P/E/I
+ control – control – control + control
Examples icek’vebs ‘dance’, ixvrinebs ‘snore’, chavardeba ‘fall’, imepebs ‘reign’,
itamashebs ‘play’ ik’ashk’ashebs gat’qdeba ‘break’, iqaraulebs
ibrzhvis fight ‘glisten’ daixrcho ‘drown’ ‘guard’, ipikrebs
‘think’
Case-
AGT AGT PAT AGT
marking
2.2.4 Other aspects related to active alignment
One other thing, which is not related to the active character of Georgian, but still of interest
from a semantic point-of-view is that the predicates in Class 4 in all series mark their
subject with the dative case, and the direct object with the nominative. Most Class 4 verbs
denote feelings, emotions, sensations and states of being that endure for periods of time.
The Class 4 verbs also include desideratives, which indicate an urge to do something and
which are formed using the circumfix e- – -eb, e.g. etsek'veba ‘he feels like dancing’ as
compared to tsek'vavs ‘he dances’. A few Class 4 verbs mark the direct object with the
genitive, e.g. gogos dzaghlis eshinia ‘the girl is afraid of the dog’ (Hillery 1999).
2.2.5 Summary
Summarizing the active alignment of Georgian we see that the active alignment is
restricted to Series II – i.e. the aorist – and Classes 2 and 3, the intransitive verbs. The
argument of Class 3 verbs takes an AGT and the argument of Class 2 verbs takes a PAT. The
other Series have a split-ergative alignment. The reason as to why a predicate ends up in
Class 3 or Class 2 is based on semantics. The main conclusion is that the active alignment
of Georgian shows a distinction not between control and non-control, but of performance,
effect and instigation. Finally we see that the active alignment of Georgian is marked by
case as opposed to most other active languages (even though in Old Georgian it was marked
by verb-agreement as well). The exceptions can be explained as being old lexicalized (non-
productive) verb-forms (which is also proved by the regularization in dialects other than the
main one), and causing confusion to the native speakers. On a peripheral remark we can
note that Georgian also has a special class of verbs whose arguments take the dative case.
These experiencer-verbs thus have a kind of semantic case-marking.
2.3 Chickasaw
2.3.1 Background
Chickasaw is a Western Muskogean language primarily spoken in Oklahoma.
25
2.3.2 Alignment
Chickasaw is an accusative language insofar as it marks all full nouns with either the
nominative suffix -at or the accusative suffix -a (even though the accusative marker is in
many cases optional). An example (from Smith 2000b: 6):
(1) hattak-at ihoo-a pisa-tok

man-NOM woman-ACC see-PAST
‘The man saw the woman.’
Let us look at the use of the pronominal agreement affixes Agent, Patient and Dative
(DAT)11 of intransitive predicates. The agentive pronominal agreement affixes are used with
verbs that denote an action and typically require some kind of volition on the part of the
subject. The patientive pronominal agreement suffixes are used with stative verbs, i.e.
verbs which describe a situation or property and do not require the participation of the
subject. The dative pronominal agreement suffixes are used with experience verbs, roughly
verbs that show a mental state. (Smith 2000a). We will soon see if this holds true.
Chickasaw is also a pro-drop language and thus does not need to have explicit independent
pronouns. Intransitive verbs which take the agentive agreement affix are aya ‘go’, foyopa
‘breathe’, and toyya ‘climb’. Predicates that are marked with the patientive agreement
suffix are chaaha ‘be tall’, chiwiiki ‘be heavy’, and lhinko ‘be fat’. Predicates that take the
dative agreement suffix are takho’bi ‘be lazy’, and ilhlha ‘be scared’.
A predicate which shows this pattern clearly is chokma ‘good’. Below are examples with the
AGT, PAT and dative affixes. As we see, Chickasaw is a so called fluid-S language where a
single root gets different meanings depending on which agreement affix is attached to it.
(Examples from Munro and Gordon 1982: 84)
(2) chokma-li
good-1SG:AGT
‘I act good.’
(3) sa-chokma
1SG:PAT-good
I am good.’
(4) an-chokma
1SG:DAT-good
‘I feel good’
11 Munro and Gordon call these I, II and III, due to the fact that on many occasions AGT, PAT, and DAT are clearly
misleading. However, to keep the terminology in this thesis consistent, I have changed these to AGT, PAT, and DAT
respectively.
26
Let us look more closely at the exact use of the active alignment in Chickasaw intransitive
predicates. Which predicates take the AGT affix and which take the PAT one? Here is a list of
words (from Smith p.c.) which correspond to the predicates Mithun (1991: 524) uses. Within
parenthesis is the agreement suffix (either AGT or PAT or sometimes DAT). A (3) means that
the predicate takes a third person only, and thus no agreement.
aya (AGT) ‘go’

malli (AGT) ‘jump’
owwatta (AGT) ‘hunt’
áyya'sha (AGT) ‘to exist, to be located, to live there’
aha'anhi (AGT) ‘be careful’
ilihopóo (AGT) ‘be extremely fearful or suspicious’
yahmanhi (AGT) ‘pay attention’
yakohmanhi (AGT) ‘to be this way’
habishko (AGT or PAT) ‘sneeze’

howita (AGT or PAT) ‘vomit’
chokfiyammi (AGT or PAT) ‘hiccup’
shalalli or shalatli (AGT or PAT) ‘slip/slide’
illi (PAT) ‘die’

chaaha (PAT) ‘be tall’
kilimpi (PAT) ‘be strong’
abika (PAT) ‘be sick’
tikahbi (PAT) ‘be tired’
kapassa (PAT) ‘be cold’
ichchokwa (PAT) ‘be cold’
inkapassa (DAT) ‘feel cold’
A special case is ‘fall/take heed’ which translates into the following:
ittola sg.-pl. animate (PAT); sg. animate (AGT); sg. inanimate (3)
lhatapa pl. inanimate (3)
wilili pl inanimate (3)
If we put these predicates into a table to see if they show control or not, are events or
states, etc. we end up with a table like this:
27
Table 5. Summary of the semantics behind Chickasaw agreement marking.

+ P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I
+ control – control – control + control – control
Examples aya ‘go’, malli habishko illi ‘die’, áyya'sha chaaha ‘be
‘jump’, ‘sneeze’, shalalli ‘exist, be tall’, kilimpi
owwatta ‘hunt’, howita ‘slip/slide’, located, live ‘be strong’,
[shalalli ‘vomit’, ittola there’, abika ‘be
‘slip/slide’, chokfiyammi ‘fall/take aha'anhi ‘be sick’, tikahbi
ittola ‘fall/take ‘hiccup’ heed’ careful’, ‘be tired’,
heed’, ilihopóo ‘be kapassa ‘be
habishko suspicious’, cold’,
‘sneeze’, yahmanhi ichchokwa ‘be
howita ‘vomit’, ‘pay cold’
chokfiyammi attention’,
‘hiccup’] yakohmanhi
‘be this way’
Pronominal
AGT PAT PAT AGT PAT
prefix
As we can see, in Chickasaw it is control that takes precedence in the agreement marking,
and not the difference between event and state. Predicates such as ‘go’, ‘jump’ and ‘run’
always take an Agent affix. Some of the events which are in the [–P/E/I] and [–control]
group (like ‘fall’, ‘die’ and ‘slip/slide’) can take either an AGT or PAT affix. They take a
Patient affix if they are non-controlled and an Agent affix if they are controlled. Examples
of predicates with this fluid marking are ‘fall/take heed’ and ‘slip/slide’, but not ‘die’ for
obvious reasons. The same holds true for events such as ‘hiccup’ and ‘vomit’ which take an
AGT if they are controlled and a PAT if they are not (fluid-S in Dixon’s terms). This is why I
have included them within brackets in the first column ([+event] [+P/E/I] [+control]). The
difference between the former (the ‘slip/slide’ and ‘fall’ predicates) and the latter (the
‘hiccup’ and ‘vomit’ predicates) is that ‘hiccuping’ and ‘vomiting’ are events that are
somehow performed, effected or instigated by someone, while ‘falling’ and ‘dying’ are not
(Mithun 1991).
Another special thing about Chickasaw to note is that predicates which denote a mental
state (inkapassa (DAT) ‘feel cold’) are marked with the DAT pronominal affix.
This is not the whole story, however. In many cases of intransitive predicates the
agreement marking is not what one would have expected. Although the active alignment is
basically semantically based there are a number of exceptions, which according to Munro
28
and Gordon (1982) and Smith (2000b) can only be explained with syntax and lexicalization.
Munro and Gordon (1982: 82) writes:
”In particular, this system appears to have undergone a number of changes resulting
in (frequent) lexicalization of agreement type […] Further, it is not true (even given
the lexical restrictions noted) that identification of the subject is based solely on
semantic role.”
Let us have a look at some exceptions to the semantically overt marking.
The subject of banna ‘want’ takes a PAT affix, but in Chickasaw, if there are two agreement
markers on a predicate, one of them must be an AGT marker. The problem here is that
banna cannot have two agreement morphemes. One of the arguments must be an overt
separate pronoun or full NP, and the object must always be third person. Hence, if there is
an object in a sentence using the predicate banna, either the subject must be marked as
AGT or the object must be. And the object cannot marked as AGT, since it it would then be
interpreted as the subject.
Inherent transitive predicates can never be used intransitively. For example sa-hopoo –
where sa- is a first person PAT-prefix and hopoo means ‘be jealous’ – can only mean ‘He is
jealous of me’ and never ‘I am jealous’. This is because hopoo is inherently transitive. Hence
sa-hopoo must be interpreted in a way so that the PAT-prefix is the ‘object’ of the sentence
and that there is an implicit third person ‘subject’ which is marked as AGT.
Reflexives and reciprocals always take AGT agreement, even with predicates which
otherwise would have taken a PAT or DAT affix. Some verbs contain a reflexive or reciprocal
marker and might derive from reflexive or reciprocal verbs, but synchronically they cannot
always be analyzed as such. These precdicates may also take an AGT affix, even those which
are non-controlled and hence should have used a PAT affix. Some examples are ilachaffa ‘to
be an only child’, ilolhatabli ’to spill (something) on oneself’ and ilimalhkaniya ‘to forget
oneself’, which are all non-controlled predicates. Ilimalhkaniya also requires a DAT affix
when not used reflexively. These verbs are always used reflexively and it appears as if the
first element ili- is a reflexive prefix which has become ‘frozen’. Consequently there would
be an explanation as to why these predicates are used with AGT even though they have a
stative meaning and should take PAT, namely lexicalization.
There is also a verb akánni’ya ‘not to think anything’. It is intransitive, and takes PAT
agreement. Even though the verb cannot take a direct object, it is possible to add the
reciprocal prefix itta- leading to ittakánni’ya which is a predicate with three meanings: 1)
‘to be committed (intransitive)’; 2) ‘to be commited to each other (intransitive – i.e., it
cannot take another object)’; and 3) ‘to be committed to (transitive, but object cannot be 1st
or 2nd person)’. The semantics of the first intransitive version, is even more patient-like
than the original, and the other two are more experiencer-like, which should have a DAT
subject. However, since there is a reciprocal, the subject must show AGT agreement (Marcus
Smith, personal communication).
There are two verbs meaning ‘to be scared’. One takes a PAT subject and the other a DAT
subject. This cannot be explained semantically, but it is possible to find a syntactic
29
explanation. When the version of ‘be scared’ that takes a PAT subject is the complement of
‘want’ it cannot agree with its subject if it corefers with the subject of ‘want’. The other,
which takes a DAT subject, must agree. (Smith, p.c.). This might, according to Smith, be
because of the subject not being the underlying subject but only a surface subject.
One last oddity that about the Chickasaw active system is the quantificational verbs. These
are most probably non-controlled and non-events and should thus take PAT marking, but
contrary to the expected they take AGT marking without exception. Here are some examples
(supplied by M. Smith, see also Munro et.al. 1982: 85):
lawa ‘to be many, to be a lot, to be a bunch’.
chaffa ‘one; to be one in number, to be the one, to be the other one (sg subj).’
láttassa ‘to be all alone by oneself; to be flat-chested, skinny’
momma ‘to be all’
This use has not yet been explained, neither semantically nor syntactically. The only
explanation I dare – although I do not have any diachronic data for these predicates in
Chickasaw – is that these quantificationals are seen as controlled, and hence take the AGT
affixes. I am aware that this reasoning is circular. However, Alabama, a language in the
same family as Chickasaw, also appears to mark quantificational predicates as Agents. The
Alabama predicates toklo ‘two’, totchiina ‘three’, and sahmi ‘some’ all take AGT agreement
marking. Thus it looks like this is a feature of the language family. If something has
survived for hundreds of years it should have been analogically levelled out if it is an
exception (M. Smith, p.c.). Confer also Chickasaw predicates such as áyya'sha ‘to exist, to
be located, to live there’ and aha'anhi ‘be careful’. These predicates are states and not
performed, effected or instigated in any way. They are however controlled (being careful is
something you are on purpose, something you have control of) and thus take an AGT affix.
The only explanation I can see is that the quantificationals behave in the same manner.
2.3.5 Other aspects related to active alignment
The pronominal agreement affixes can also be used with transitive predicates in a manner
semantically similar to the use in intransitive clauses. Regarding transitives the marking
rather seems to be one of active vs. stative rather than control vs. non-control. This is not
the main interest of this thesis, so I have not delved deeper into the matter, but I go with
the findings of Munro and Gordon (1982). Nevertheless, when looking at transitives you
will find a number of exceptions to the semantic marking, which is of interest to this thesis.
For transitives, the AGT affix is typically used to mark the subject, more or less
independently of its semantic role. For instance, ‘love’ involves an Experiencer rather than
an Agent, but still marks its subject as AGT. This is consistens with the use of the hyperrole
Actor in this thesis, which marks the participant “primarily responsible for the
accomplishment of the event” (cf. section 1.3).
30
One of the other two affixes (i.e. PAT and DAT) marks the object. The Patient suffix is then
used for direct objects and object of applicatives, and the dative suffix is used with datives
and benefactives. (Examples from Smith 2000b):
(5) chi-pisa-li [direct object]

2SG:PAT-see-1SG:AGT
‘I see you.’
(6) chim-anompoli-li [dative]

2SG:DAT-speak-1SG:AGT
‘I am speaking to you.’
(7) chi-hollo-li [benefactive]

2SG:DAT-love-1SG:AGT
‘I love you.’
(8) chin-taloowa [benefactive]

2SG:DAT-sing
‘He sings for you.’
Subjects of transitive predicates, though, are not crucially associated with AGT, either. Here
are some examples, which also show the semantics behind the selection of the agreement
marker. ‘Remember’ takes a PAT affix since it is a ‘stative’ transitive verb and ‘to like taste’
takes a DAT affix since it is an experience verb. This is thus exactly what one would have
expected. However, this system is not very consistent. Confer ‘love’ above, which also is an
experience verb, but which agrees with its subject as if it were an Agent. Examples from
Munro and Gordon 1982: 85:
(9) holhchifo chi-nokfónkha-ta

name 2SG:PAT-remember-QUE
‘Do you remember her name?’
(10) paska’ in-champoli

bread 3:DAT12-like:taste
‘She likes the bread.’
2.3.6 Summary
In summary, intransitive predicates indisputably draw the line between control and non-
control. Regarding where in the system the active marking occurs, it is only in the first and
second person pronominal affixes.
It is clear that Chickasaw bases its active system on semantics, and that earlier this must
have been even more apparent. However, nowadays, the use has become blurred because of
syntactic rules and lexicalization. The agreement marking for many verbs is marked
12 The only overt (or existing) agreement suffix is the third person dative.
31
lexically, either idiosyncratically, or by the rules of the exceptions, which I have gone
through above, where e.g. reflexives always takes an AGT pronominal agreement affix.
2.4 Middle Welsh
2.4.1 Middle Welsh alignment – a background
The active nature of Middle Welsh is rather a question of nominalization than finite verbs.
However, Middle Welsh can have strings of nominalizations, which then work somewhat
like finite verbs. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that this language differs from
the other languages in quite a considerable manner.
Welsh is normally a verb initial language. For some reason, it was considered elegant in
late medieval prose to initialize the subject but one had to indicate this by borrowing the
relative particle a and putting it before the displaced verb. (Verbs were normally preceded
by preverbal particles.) So you get a construction like Gwyr a aeth Catraeth, which looks
like ‘[it is] Men [who] went to Catraeth’, but was used to mean ‘men went to Catraeth’. By
analogy, one took the verbal noun and fronted it also: Kyfodi a oruc ‘arising [that] he did’,
meaning ‘he arose.’ (Sarah Higley, p.c.)
So instead of ‘he went’ you got ‘he did go’. When a series of actions needed to be described
only the first was given the auxillary or a finite verb, the rest were expressed by a series of
verbal nouns. So ‘he arose, and went out and looked and saw...’ would be ‘arising he did,
and going out, and looking and seeing...’ This gives a very fluid narrative effect when for
example one event leads to another. Usually the subject is established at the beginning of
the sequence, but if it needs to be expressed later, an o-construction can be used with a
verbal noun. The nearest translation would be ‘by’ as in ‘its taking by Arthur’. Normally o is
the preposition ‘from’. Here are a couple of examples (Keith Gaughan p.c.):
Y deffroes sarff... ‘a serpent awoke’ [finite verb to start the chain off] a chyrchu neuad... ‘and
making for the hall’ Ac arganuot y mab... ‘And perceiving the child’ a dwyn ruthur idaw
‘and making a rush at him’
That is ‘[then] a serpent awoke and made for the hall and perceived the child and made a
rush at him.’
In transitive non-finite clauses, transitive subjects (A) are marked with the preposition o
‘of, from’, and transitive objects (P) are marked as simple adnominal genitives. (Example
from Manning 1995: 174).
32
(1) VN13 AGT PAT
kymryt [o Arthur] [y daryan eureit]
taking of Arthur the shield golden
‘Arthur took the golden shield.’
Subjects of non-finite intransitive verbs vary between being marked as either the AGT of
above or the PAT. (Manning 1995: 181, 184)
(2) VN AGT
ymlad [ohonafi] dros vym baryf
fighting of-me for my beard
‘I fought for my beard.’
(3) VN PAT
kynn diodef [Crist]
before suffering Christ
‘Before Christ suffered.’
Ymlad 'fight' thus marks its subject as AGT while diodef 'suffer' marks its subject as PAT.
Here are some verbs which take AGT and PAT marking (Manning 1995: 185f).
AGT PAT
marchogaeth ’ride’ marw ’die’
kerdet ’walk’ llithraw ’slip’
redec ’run’ diangk ’escape’
crwydraw ’wander’ dygwydaw ’fall down’
llauuryaw ’labor’ bot ’be’
buchedockau ’live a life’ hanuot ’be from’
ymlad ’fight’
ymgyuot ’fight’
ymwan ’joust’
ymdidan ’converse’
pregethu ’preach’
bwyta ’eat’
studyaw ’study’
gwylyaw ’watch’
ryuedu ’wonder’
gwedyaw ’pray’
ymgueiraw ’prepare self’
ymbaratoi ’prepare self’
ymwasgu ’embrace e. other’
ymrodi ’devote self’
pechu ’sin’
ymgroessi ’cross self’
ymchoelut ’return’
esgynnu ’mount’
However, there is not just a simple dichotomy between AGT and PAT verbs. Some verbs may
take either AGT or PAT marking. Let us look at the three classes.
13 VN is ‘Verbal Noun’
33
Sample verbs of class 1 (AGT):
ride, walk, run, fight, preach, eat, study, pray, return, sin, mount.
Sample verbs of class 2 (AGT or PAT):

suffer, sleep, sit down, flee, remain.
Sample verbs of class 3 (PAT):

be, die, slip, escape, fall down.
We can easily see that all of the verbs in class 1 are [+control], though they need not be
[+event] as we can see from verbs like ‘pray’. Verbs in class 3 are all [–control], but not
always [–event]. Thus the main distinction seems to be one of control vs. non-control.
The second class of verbs is tricky to analyze without more information than I have found.
However, it seems that there is a tendency for [+control] verbs like eisted ‘sit down’ and
ymwahanu ‘part ways’ to take AGT marking. Regarding [–control] verbs like diodef ‘suffer’
there is no clear preference.
One other aspect is that only human subjects can be marked as AGT. If the intransitive
subject is non-human it is marked as PAT, regardless of which verb is used. Remember also
that this variation between AGT and PAT is only applied to intransitive verbs.
Analyzing the above predicates leads us to the conclusion that all verbs which mark their
argument as AGT are [+control], but they may be either [+event] (e.g. kerdet ’walk’ and
ymlad ’fight’) or [–event] (e.g. gwylyaw ’watch’). The predicates taking the PAT marking on
the other hand, are typical examples of [–control] predicates (marw ’die’, llithraw ’slip’,
dygwydaw ’fall down’ and diangk ’escape’14). Like the AGT predicates, they may be either
[+event] or [–event], although the [–event] predicates are all derivatives of bot ’be’.
2.4.3 Summary
In summary we see that Middle Welsh active alignment made a distinction between control
and non-control. Agents are marked with the preposition o ’of, from’ and it is used both on
pronouns and on full NPs. The active alignment also only occurs in non-finite clauses.
2.5 Acehnese
2.5.1 Background
Acehnese (also spelled Achinese, Achehnese, and Atjenese) is a Malayic (western

Austronesian) language spoken by around 3 million people in the northern part of Sumatra,
Indonesia.
14 Diangk ‘escape’ is used here in the sense of ‘escape from us’ in the sentence Diangk eneit y gwrda ‘The goodman’s
soul escaped’ implying a lack of control.
34
2.5.2 Alignment
AGTpronominal clitics precede the verb and PAT pronominal clitics come after the verb. The
Agent of a transitive sentence is marked with the preposition lê (Blake 1994).
Let us begin by looking at some example sentences (Kibrik (1997: 285)).
(1) geu-jak gopnyan

(s)he-go (s)he
‘(S)he goes.’
(2) gopnyan rhët(-geuh)

(s)he fall(-(s)he)
‘(S)he falls.’
(3) gopnyan geu-mat lõn

(s)he (s)he-hold I
‘(S)he holds me.’
Here we clearly see that AGT arguments are marked by the prefix geu-, while the PAT
argument is marked by the suffix -geuh. There is thus a difference in marking for the
argument of intransitive predicates. They can be marked as either AGT or PAT.
Let us look at a list of predicates to see which get AGT marking and which get PAT marking
(Durie 1988: 6).
AGT PAT
beudöh ‘get up’ bagah ‘be fast, be rapid’
cruep ‘lie on stomach’ beuretôh ‘explode’
döng ‘stand’ gatay ‘itch, feel itchy’
iem ‘keep quite, still’ gli ‘be thicklish’
manoe ‘bathe’ hanyöt ‘drown’
marit ‘talk’ lahé ‘be born’
plueng ‘run’ mabôk ‘be intoxicated’
woe ‘return’ reubah ‘topple over’
trôh ‘arrive, happen’
Analyzing these predicates, it is quite clear that the difference is one between control and
non-control. The AGT predicates are all [+control], but can be both [–event] such as iem
35
‘keep quite, still’ and [+event] like plueng ‘run’- The PAT predicates can be both [–event] like
bagah ‘be fast’ and [+event] like reubah ‘topple over’, but they are all [–control].
In Acehnese one actually marks ‘sneeze’, ‘cough’ and ‘vomit’ and similar predicates (those
which are [–control] but [+P/E/I]) as AGT, since it is seen as the element of control is a
negative or potential one: the activities concerned can be inhibited, delayed or permitted, if
not completely controlled. The non-controlled derivatives, such as ‘cough uncontrollably’
imply a pathological lack of any control, however limited.
Thus it seems that Acehnese is yet another language in which performance, effect and
instigation play the leading role.
The verb mabôk ‘drunk’ takes a PAT clitic, since being drunk is seen as pathological.
Drunkenness is strictly forbidden in the Aceh culture and hence not seen as something one
does, but rather a bad state one can be in.
The active alignment of Acehnese also has an effect on the syntax. For example, in
Acehnese the verb ‘want’ requires A - A coreference between the clauses. It would be
impossible in Acehnese to say ‘He wants to die’ because there would be coreference, but the
embedded sentence would not have an Agent. Also, ‘I want him to run’ would be impossible,
because there is no coreference between the Agents. These concept would require a
complicated structure. ‘He wants to go’ is accepted, but ‘He wants to fall’ is not.
2.5.4 Summary
The active alignment of Acehnese makes a distinction between predicates that are in some
way seen as performed, instigated or effected (marked as AGT) and things that are not
(marked as PAT). It is marked by pronominal clitics, which are affixed to the verb. The
active alignment can occur in any tense or aspect and for first, second and third person.
2.6 Central Pomo
2.6.1 Background
Pomo is a group of languages which is a branch of Northern Hokan and is spoken in south
western USA.
2.6.2 Alignment
Central Pomo distinguishes case on pronouns for all four persons and on some nouns
referring to human beings (Mithun 1991: 518). There are three cases, two core cases and
one oblique. The arguments of intransitive predicates can be marked as either of the two
core cases, which I call AGT and PAT.
36
Central Pomo marks performers, effectors, instigators and controllers as Agents, and all the
others (such as those who are sick, chased away, fall and die) as Patients. Thus the main
distinction is based on control. Situations which are performed, effected or instigated but
not controlled (e.g. predicates like ‘hiccup’ and ‘sneeze’) does not take an Agent prefix, but a
Patient one. Let us look at some examples. a is the first person agent pronoun and to is the
first person patient pronoun. (All examples from Mithun 1991: 518f)
(1) a· béda chá·w ‘I:AGT live here.’ [+control, –event]
(2) a· pdíw e ‘I:AGT jumped.’ [+control, +event]
(3) to ló·ya ‘I:PAT fell.’ [–control, +event]
(4) to yá·qan· ‘I:PAT remember.’ [–control, –event]
(5) to ésesya ‘I:PAT sneezed.’ [–control, +P/E/I]
As we can see, controllers take the agentive pronoun a and those that do not – including
performed, instigated and effected predicates – get the patientive to. Whether a predicate is
an event or a state is not important. To be marked as AGT, one must thus be in control.
P/E/I is not enough.
Although this is not the whole story. It is far more complicated, and interesting.
Two important features of Central Pomo active alignment are significant affectedness and
empathy. In Central Pomo, it does not suffice to be out of control to be marked as a Patient.
You must also be significantly affected.
If one possesses an inherent state such as ‘be tall’, ‘be good’, ‘be beautiful’ and ‘be deaf’, one
receives an AGT pronoun. Participants do not have to be aware of their own attributes. But
if an inherent state is marked by an inchoative, the state suddenly becomes significantly
affected and so marked as a PAT. That is, the coming into being of a state is affecting a
participant more that just being in a state. Confer the sentences below:
(6) Yém e a· ‘I:AGT am old.’
(7) Yémaq’ to ‘I:PAT have gotten old.’
Another thing that follows from this is that only human beings (or pets or animals in
legends) can be marked as PAT, since non-humans cannot be significantly affected and one
cannot feel empathy for them. The pronoun m’u· tu in (8) below referring to a man is in the
PAT case, but the pronoun mu·l is in the AGT case and refers to a bee. (Mithun 1991: 521).
(8) Q’alá·w m’u· tu ‘He:PAT died.’
(9) Mu·l q’alá·w ‘It:AGT (the bee) died.’
If the speaker does not know the effect of the state or event, the PAT pronoun is not even
used for human beings. For some predicates, like the ones in (10) to (13) below, a PAT
pronoun is used for first person, but an AGT pronoun is used for third persons. This is
because speakers do not want to claim they feel what another person is feeling.
37
(10) Hó mt’a· to ‘I:PAT feel warm.’
(11) Hó mt’a· mu·l ‘He:AGT feels warm.’
(12) šya·’a to· ‘I:PAT am afraid.’
(13) šya·’a mu·l ‘He:AGT is afraid.’
One more thing to notice about the active system of Central Pomo is that one can also
choose to use the agentive pronoun, if one wants to just state a fact, without paying any
attention to the affectedness of the person(s) involved in the action.
Let us sum this all up in table 6 below.
Table 6. Summary of the semantics behind Central Pomo agreement marking.
+ event + event + event – event – event – event

+P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I – P/E/I
+ control – control – control + control – control – control
– affect + affect
Example go/walk, sneeze fall, slip, stand up, be tall, be be tired, be

predicates kill, bite, become sit/dwell strong cold
slide sick
Pronoun AGT PAT PAT AGT AGT PAT
2.6.4 Summary
To sum it up, this means that in Central Pomo a person is marked as Patient only if it is
simultaneously out of control and significantly affected and the speaker chooses to express
empathy with him or her (because he of she is affected in such a way).
The active alignment is shown through case on pronouns, for all four persons and in all
tenses and aspects.
2.7 Eastern Pomo
Eastern Pomo (McLendon 1978) has an interesting variant of the active language type with
complementarity between Agents and Patients, in that pronouns, kinship terms and proper
names can be marked as PAT, while other nouns can only be marked as AGT. The verbs end
up in one of the following classes depending on whether they take one or two arguments
and if the arguments are marked as AGT or PAT (Blake 1994: 127)
One argument is marked as AGT and optionally another argument as PAT. (’kill’, ’bite’).
One argument is marked as PAT: (’fall’, ’be burned’, ’bleed’, ’sneeze’, ’become sick’).
Two argument both marked as PAT: (’love’, ’hate’).
38
One argument which is marked as either AGT or PAT: (’slip/slide’).
One argument is marked as AGT if it is a pronoun, a kinship term or proper name, and
PAT if it is a common noun: (‘sit/dwell’, ‘go/walk’, ‘stand up’)
Following our terminology, and concentrating on the intransitive predicates, we can

conclude the following.
Some events such as ‘fall’ and ‘sneeze’ and even ‘become sick’ are marked as PAT, but the
argument of other events like ‘kill’ and ‘bite’ are marked as AGT. Thus the marking cannot
be one between event and state. Looking instead at a predicate like ‘slip/slide’ gives us a
clue, it can be marked as either AGT or PAT. Predicates like ‘kill’, ‘bite’, ‘sit/dwell’, ‘go/walk’,
and ‘stand up’ are all controlled, but ‘fall’, ‘be burned’, ‘bleed’, and ‘sneeze’ all imply a lack
of control. Hence it seems that control is the important factor. Further evidence of this is
that predicates like ‘sit/dwell’, and ‘go/walk’ both mark their argument as AGT. What these
predicates have in common is in fact that they are controlled. But they are also both
performed, effected or instigated. How do we know that it is not in fact P/E/I that is the
crucial ingredient? Well, if we compare a [+P/E/I] but [–control] predicate – ‘sneeze’ for
instance – with a predicate which is both [+control] and [+P/E/I], e.g. ‘go/walk’, we find that
it is only ‘go/walk’ that marks its argument as AGT. Thus it must be control that is main
distinction between Agents and Patients.
If we put this into a table it looks like this:
Table 7. Summary of the semantics behind Eastern Pomo agreement marking.

+P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I + P/E/I – P/E/I
+ control – control – control + control – control
Example go/walk, kill, sneeze fall, slip, stand up, be burned

predicates bite, slide become sick sit/dwell
Marking AGT PAT PAT AGT PAT
From the information I have, it might also be the case that Eastern Pomo marks some kind
of significant affectedness and empathy, just like Central Pomo. That only pronouns,
kinship terms and personal names may take PAT marking strongly points in this direction.
However, an inchoative predicate like ‘become sick’ always seems to take PAT marking,
contrary to the Central Pomo system. On the other hand, Central Pomo marks both P/E/I
and control as AGT, unlike Eastern Pomo, so that may not be a valid point in this case.
Judging from the information I have, my guess would be that Eastern Pomo marks
arguments for empathy but not significant affectedness, the normal case being that the
speaker empathizes with the speaker.
39
2.7.2 Summary
In summary this would mean that in Eastern Pomo an argument is marked as PAT if it is
simultaneously out of control and the speaker expresses empathy with him or her.
2.8 Lakhota
2.8.1 Background
Lakhota belongs to the Sioux language family and is mainly spoken in Dakota, USA.
Lakhota, as opposed to e.g. Central Pomo (see section 2.6), does not distinguish between
control and non-control. This can be seen from examples like the ones below (from Mithun
1991). Wa- is the first person agent prefix and ma- is the first person patient prefix15:
(1) masláte ‘I:PAT am slow.’
(2) mahíxpaye ‘I:PAT fell.’
(3) blowákaska ‘I:AGT hiccup.’

(4) wapsa ‘I:AGT sneezed.’
(5) mawáni ‘I:AGT walk.’
From these examples we can see that Lakhota marking is sensitive to performance, effect
and instigation rather than control, since predicates like ‘hiccup’ and ‘sneeze’ take an Agent
prefix, just like a controlled event like ‘walk’ despite the fact that a sneeze is something
that you do not control.
Some Lakhota verbs can occur with either the PAT or the AGT prefix. For instance
huwákaše/ humákaše ‘I stumbled’ (Mithun 1991: 517) could be viewed as either internally or
externally instigated. Although it would always be uncontrolled.
Lakhota has several exceptions to its active marking, which can be explained by
lexicalization. One example is hawágluxpu ’I:AGT am scabbed’. This should take a PAT, but
the predicate consists of há ’skin’, ki- a benefactive prefix, and yuxpu ’pick off’. So the literal
meaning is ‘to pick off one’s own skin’, which is something done by a semantic Agent.
15 The acute accent only denotes stress and has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.
40
2.8.4 Summary
As for Lakhota, it is enough to perform, instigate or effect the event or state to be marked
as an AGT, one does not need to be in control. The active alignment is marked by
pronominal affixes and occurs in all tenses and aspects. The exceptions can be explained by
lexicalization.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Difference in meaning between AGT- and PAT-marking

Let us then finally summarize the motivation behind the active alignment. I will answer
the questions asked in the beginning of and throughout this thesis. Let me begin with the
question regarding what distinctions can be made by having active alignment, i.e. what
difference there is in meaning between AGT-marking and PAT-marking.
3.1.1 Event vs. state
Guaraní has an opposition between events and states. Predicates such as gwatá ‘walk’, ú
‘come’, yaní ‘run’, yemoetá ‘chat’ and yerokí ‘dance’ – i.e. events – take the AGT pronominal
prefix. Predicates like yemahi ‘be hungry’, kaneó ‘be tired’, akateí ‘be stingy’ and ak ‘be
tender, unripe’ – i.e. states – take the PAT pronominal prefix.
3.1.2 Performance, effect and instigation
The active alignment of Georgian makes a distinction not between control and non-control,
but of performance, effect and instigation. The predicates icek’vebs ‘dance’, itamashebs ‘play’
and ibrzhvis ‘fight’ are [+event], [+P/E/I] and [+control]. Their argument is always marked
as AGT. Predicates like ixvrinebs ‘snore’ and ik’ashk’ashebs ‘glisten’ are [+event] and [–
control], but more importantly [+P/E/I]. These predicates mark their argument as AGT.
Predicates such as chavardeba ‘fall’, gat’qdeba ‘break’, daixrcho ‘drown’ are [+event], but [–
P/E/I] and [–control]. These predicates mark the argument as PAT. The predicates imepebs
‘reign’, iqaraulebs ‘guard’ and ipikrebs ‘think’ are [–event], [+P/E/I], but [+control]. Such
predicates mark their single argument as AGT.
Acehnese marks the argument of predicates like ‘sneeze’, ‘cough’ and ‘vomit’ as AGT. The
element of control is potential. They can be inhibited, delayed or permitted, if not
completely controlled.
Lakhota is yet another language which is sensitive to performance, effect and instigation.
41
3.1.3 Control
As for Chickasaw, intransitive predicates indisputably draw the line between control and
non-control. Predicates that take the AGT pronominal affix are aya ‘go’ and aha’anhi ‘be
careful’. Examples of PAT predicates are habishko ‘sneeze’, illi ‘die’ and chaaha ‘be tall’. As
we can see, the AGT predicates are all [+control] while the PAT predicates are [–control]. No
other distinctions (eventhood or P/E/I) matter. Some predicates like ‘fall’, ‘die’ and
‘slip/slide’ can take a PAT affix if they are non-controlled. The same holds true for events
such as ‘hiccup’ and ‘vomit’ which take an AGT if they are controlled and a PAT if they are
not, but even though instances of fluid marking occur, the distinction is still one between
control and non-control. Middle Welsh also draws the line between control and non-control.
Both Central and Eastern Pomo makes a distinction between control and non-control.
However, Central Pomo goes even further. In order to be marked as a Patient, the
participant must be simultaneously out of control and significantly affected and the
speaker must choose to express empathy with him or her. Let us sum it all up in a table. To
clarify each row, I’ll include some typical predicates.
Table 8. Summary of the motivations and semantics behind the active alignment (based on Mithun (1991: 524)).
Guaraní Lakhota C. Pomo E. Pomo Acehnese Georgian Chick- Middle

asaw Welsh
+ event
+ P/E/I AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT
+ control
(‘jump’, ‘go’, ‘dance’)
+ event
+ P/E/I AGT AGT PAT PAT AGT AGT PAT PAT
– control
(‘sneeze’, ‘vomit’, ‘hiccup’)
+ event
– P/E/I AGT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT
– control
(‘fall’, ‘die’, ‘slip’)
– event
+ P/E/I PAT AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT AGT
+ control
(‘reside’, ‘reign’, ‘be careful’)
– event
– P/E/I PAT PAT AGT PAT PAT – PAT PAT
– control
– affect
(‘be tall’, ‘be strong’, ‘be
righthanded’)
– event
– P/E/I PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT – PAT PAT
– control
+ affect
(‘be sick’, ‘be tired’, ‘be
cold’)
42
3.2 Where and how the active alignment is marked
So where in the morphology do the different languages mark the active alignment? As we
have seen in the analyses, the active alignment can be marked with pronouns, on NPs with
case and as affixes on the verb.
Chickasaw makes use of pronominal affixes attached to the verb. These occur in first and
second person. Guaraní also uses pronominal affixes, but not only for first and second
person, but for third person as well. As does Lakhota. Georgian marks the active alignment
by using case-markers on the NPs. Middle Welsh made use of prepositions, either attached
to a pronoun or with a full NP. Central Pomo has two different sets of pronouns, which can
be regarded as case.
Regarding the case of aspect and tense, we find that only Georgian and Middle Welsh has
such restrictions on the active alignment. Georgian only gets active alignment in the aorist
tense. As for Middle Welsh, the active alignment only occurs in non-finite clauses.
If we summarize the information, we end up with a table like the one below.
Table 9. Summary of where in the morphology the active alignment occurs.
LANGUAGE HEAD-MARKING DEPENDENT-MARKING TMA PERSON
Acehnese pronominal clitics all 1+2+3
C. Pomo pronouns all 1 + 2 + 3/4
Lakhota pronominal affixes all 1+2+3
Chickasaw pronominal affixes all 1+2
Georgian case aorist 1+2+3
Guaraní pronominal affixes all 1+2+3
M. Welsh prepositions and non-finite 1+2+3

prepositional affixes clauses
One thing to note is that head-marking is not as dominant as it is in Nichols survey (see
section 1.4), although my sample is considerably smaller. Another thing to note is that all
four of the head-marking languages use pronominal affixes or clitics, not even one use
agreement.
3.3 Exceptions to the semantics behind the active marking

There are a number of ways to explain the exceptions to the otherwise predictable active
marking; lexicalization, borrowing, syntax and analogy. Let us start with lexicalization.
43
3.3.1 Lexicalization
One common exception which can make the classification of a predicate seem strange is
lexicalization. In Guaraní some predicates still use the same set of pronominal affixes, even
if the meaning of the predicate changes. Esaví ‘to wink’ is used with the PAT affix, even
though one might expect the AGT set. This is because the literal meaning of esaví is ‘to have
defective eyes’, a state. That is, it was first used as a state, but the meaning changed to an
event. However, the pronominal affixes did not change as the meaning changed. Thus a
case of lexicalization.
In Georgian there is a group of verbs, which belong to Class 2. This group normally
contains PAT verbs, verbs which are not performed, effected, instigated or controlled. These
verbs are e.g. etamasheba ‘he will play with him’, mouqveba ‘he will tell it to him’, ik’bineba
‘he bites’ and igineba ‘he curses, swears’. However, these verbs occur in synchronically non-
productive morphological subclasses, and they cause confusion for native speakers. They
should belong to Class 3 in accordance with the other verbs, but do not because they have
become lexicalized and frozen.
Lexicalization is common in Chickasaw where it might explain many cases of inconsistent

use of pronominal affixes. For instance, reflexives and reciprocals always take AGT
agreement, even with predicates which otherwise would have taken a PAT or DAT affix.
Lakhota also have several instances of lexicalization which obscure the semantic basis of
the active alignment. One example is the phrase hawágluxpu ’I:AGT am scabbed’. This
should have a PAT argument and not an AGT one. However, the literal meaning is ‘to pick
one’s own skin off’, which demands an AGT. Hence another case of lexicalization.
3.3.2 Borrowing
Another aspect, which may affect the case or agreement system of an active language is
language contact. In Guaraní, Spanish adjectives that are borrowed into the language are
marked as P and verbs are marked as A, regardless if it is a state or an event. This leads to
cases such as avuri ’to be bored’ being marked as AGT even though it is a state, due to its
being borrowed from the Spanish verb se abburir of the same meaning. Guaraní has
generalized its borrowing so that Spanish adjectives are used with the stative case (PAT),
while Spanish verbs are used with the dynamic case (AGT) (Mithun 1991: 514).
3.3.3 Syntax
Some languages have syntactic rules of a language that may disguise the semantic basis of
the difference between AGT and PAT marking. Chickasaw is such a language. One example
is the predicate banna ‘want’, which cannot have two agreement morphemes. One of the
arguments must be an overt separate pronoun or full NP, and the object must always be
third person. Hence, if there is an object in a sentence using the predicate banna, either the
subject must be marked as AGT or the object must be. And if the object is marked as AGT, it
is interpreted as the subject.
44
Another syntactic rule of Chickasaw is that inherent transitive predicates can never be
used intransitively.
The active alignment of Acehnese also has an effect on the syntax. For example, in
Acehnese the verb ‘want’ requires A - A coreference between the clauses. It would be
impossible in Acehnese to say ‘He wants to die’ because there would be coreference, but the
embedded sentence would not have an agent. Also, ‘I want him to run’ would be impossible,
because there is no coreference between the agents. These concept would require a
complicated structure. ‘He wants to go’ is accepted, but ‘He wants to fall’ is not.
3.3.4 Analogy
Finally, some verbs which are exceptions in the literary language (based on the dialect of
the capital Tbilisi) are regularized in many dialects, including Gurian and Imerian in
western Georgia, the mountain dialects of north central Georgia, and Pereidnian spoken in
Iran. Some examples are k’acma c’avida ‘The man-AGT went’ and k’acma adga ‘The man-
AGT got up’ (Harris 1981: 246), where the subjects are marked as Agents as would be
expected for control-verbs. In the Tbilisi dialect, these verbs are exceptions marking their
subject as Patient.
As regards analogy, one may also compare the case of the Chickasaw quantificationals,
which should have taken PAT affixes by analogy if these were seen as non-controlled events.
4 SUMMARIZING DISCUSSION
In summary, one can say that most systems can be explained semantically. In those cases
where the semantics does not add up, there is almost always a good explanation to the
exceptions. Most exceptions occur because of lexicalization. This is clear in Lakhota, where
you can still see the specific elements in a word, which make it get a different marking than
expected. In Chickasaw, on the other hand, the exceptions to the semantics is explained by
syntactic rules. In Eastern and Central Pomo, the semantic background of the active
alignment is very elaborate and one can even tell if the speaker is expressing empathy or
significant affectedness. Other explanations include borrowing, syntactic rules and analogy.
As regards where in the morphology the active alignment occurs, it is most often marked by
pronominal affixes attached to the verb. Only Georgian and Central Pomo use case. Middle
Welsh is a special case and use a preposition.
The use of active alignment can be used in any tense or aspect except for Middle Welsh and
Georgian. Middle Welsh active alignment only occurs in non-finite clauses, while the
Georgian active alignment only shows up in the aorist tense.
And finally, the distinctions made by choosing either AGT or PAT marking can be one of
control vs. non-control, one of performance, effect and instigation, or one of event vs. state.
45
In some more intricate cases the choice of marking can also be used to express empathy or
significant affectedness.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take the opportunity to thank my advisor Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm who
has given me innumerable suggestions and comments. I would also like to thank Marcus
Smith who has supported me and given invaluable comments to this thesis, especially to
the part on Chickasaw. Thanks also to Matt Pearson for being the first person to explain
active languages to me, and finally to Niklas Edenmyr and Elin Törnqvist for
encouragement and support.
6 REFERENCES
BLAKE, BARRY J. 1994. Case. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
CHANG, B. S. and K. CHANG. 1980. Ergativity in spoken Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of
history and Philology, Academia Sinica (51) 15-32.
COMRIE, BERNARD 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Blackwell

Publishers.
DIXON, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
DURIE, MARK 1988. Preferred Argument Structure in an Active Language. Lingua (74), 1-
25.
SUMMER INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS. 2000. Ethnologue. 13th edition. <http://www.sil.org/

ethnologue> (Date of access: 05/22/2001).
GREGORES, EMMA and JORGE A. SUÁREZ. 1967. A description of colloquial Guaraní. The
Hague. Mouton.
HARRIS, ALICE C. 1981. Georgian Syntax. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
–, 1990. Georgian: A Language with Active Case Marking. Lingua (80), 35-53.
HILLERY, P.J. 1999. Georgian: An Outline Grammar. <http://www.armazi.demon.co.uk/
georgian/grammar1.html> (Date of access: 03/17/1999).
HOLISKY, DEE ANN. 1980. A Contribution to the Semantics of Aspect: Georgian Medial
Verbs. Dissertation. University of Chicago.
KIBRIK, ALEKSANDR E. 1985. Towards a typology of ergativity. In Nichols and Woodbury

(1985) 268-323.
– , 1997. Beyond Subject and Object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology.

Linguistic Typology (1), 279-346.
46
MANNING, H. PAUL 1995. Fluid intransitivity in Middle Welsh: Gradience, typology and
’unaccusativity’. Lingua (97), 171-194.
MCLENDON, SALLY 1978. Ergativity, case and transitivity in Eastern Pomo. International
Journal of American Linguistics 44 (1-9)
MERLAN, FRANCESCA 1985. Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive

inflection. In Nichols and Woodbury (1985), 324-62.
MITHUN, MARIANNE 1991. Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivations. Language 67
(3).
MUNRO, PAMELA and LYNN GORDON 1982. Syntactic Relations in Western Muskogean: A
Typlogical Perspective. Language 58 (1), 81-115.
NICHOLS, JOHANNA 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago. University of
Chicago Press.
PENAYO, JEREMÍAS 1990. Guarani Grammatik. Uppsala. Folkets Förlag.
SAEED, JOHN I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
SMITH, MARCUS A. 2000a. Against a Pronominal Argument analysis of Chickasaw.

Conference presentation. Los Angeles. UCLA.
– , 2000b. Case, Agreement, and Scrambling in Chickasaw: A Principled Connection. Senior

thesis. Los Angeles. UCLA.
VAN VALIN, ROBERT D. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66 (1).
47

Active PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active languages

Thesis for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in General Linguistics

Supervisor: Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm

0.1 PURPOSE AND MOTIVATION 5

1.1 GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS, SYNTACTIC ALIGNMENT, AND A DEFINITION OF THE

3.1 DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETWEEN AGT- AND PAT-MARKING 41

0.1 Purpose and motivation

Thus, the questions I will try to answer in this thesis are:

 Does it occur only in certain tenses or aspects?

0.3 Method and data sources

Central Pomo Mithun (1991)

Chickasaw Smith (2000a,b, p.c.), Munro and Gordon (1982)

Eastern Pomo McLendon (1978), Blake (1994)

Georgian Harris (1990), Hillery (1999), Van Valin (1990)

Guaraní Mithun (1991), Penayo (1990)

Lakhota Mithun (1991)

Middle Welsh Manning (1995), Higley (p.c.), Gaughan (p.c.)

Section 1 includes a theoretical background in which I give a general summary of semantic

1.1 Grammatical relations, syntactic alignment, and a definition of the

nominative-accusative ergative-absolutive tripartite

Figure 1. Alignment of some different language types

In nominative-accusative languages the case marker marking S/A is called nominative. If

1 Dixon (1994) uses O instead of P.

Figure 2. Alignment of active languages

1.2 Some terms used for describing active languages

performance, effect, instigation (henceforth abbreviated P/E/I);

• [+control, –P/E/I, +event]

• [–control, +P/E/I, –event]

[+control, +P/E/I, +event] ‘jump’, ‘go’, ‘dance’, ‘fight’

[–control, +P/E/I, +event] ‘vomit’, ‘sneeze’, ‘hiccup’

[+control, +P/E/I, –event] ‘reside’, ‘be careful’, ‘reign’

[–control, –P/E/I, +event] ‘fall’, ‘die’, ‘slip’

1.3 Semantic roles

“These semantic primes categorise the kinds of involvement of participants in the

AGENT: The prototypical transitive clause involves a volitional, controlling,

ACTOR: “the participant of the situation which performs, effects, instigates, or

ABSOLUTIVE: the immediate, nearest, most involved or affected participant of the

1.4 Active alignment and head vs. dependent marking

Table 2. Dominant marking of 21 languages with active alignment.

Dominant Head Double Dependent Total

2 see section 1.1

(2) se-yukà varà moá ’He would have killed me.’

2.1.3 Active alignment

gwatá ‘walk’ yemahi ‘be hungry’

4 See section 1.1 and Dixon (1994: 78)

Table 3. Summary of the semantics behind Guaraní pronominal prefix marking.

+ event + event + event – event – event

Guaraní xá ‘go’, yerokí – á ‘fall’, – karapé ‘be

2.1.4 Explaining the exceptions

strong temporal connotations.

6 ’Aorist’ is comparable to ’past’ tense.

Nominative-Accusative (in the future series):

(1) bich’-i dzaghl-s bagh-(s)-shi8 damalavs.

(2) dzaghl-i bagh-(s)-shi daimaleba.

Ergative-Absolutive (in the Aorist series):9

(3) bich’-ma dzaghl-i bagh-(s)-shi damala.

(4) dzaghl-i bagh-(s)-shi daimala.

2.2.3 Active alignment and an explanation of its exceptions

(6) bich’-i bagh-shi darcha.

(a) ikneba ‘he will be’

(A) icek’vebs ‘he will dance’

1. All of them occur in synchronically non-productive morphological subclasses.

(7) macivridan c’qalma ic’veta

Does it occur only in certain tenses or aspects?

Two argument both marked as PAT: (’love’, ’hate’).