Universal #521

Legacy number: 521

 Number  519
 Original  Hierarchy of ergativity:
In language L,
conjunction reduction is ergative < coreferential deletion in purposive constructions is ergative < relativization is ergative < verb agreement is ergative < case marking is ergative.
 Standardized  IF conjunction reduction has ergative alignment, THEN so does coreferential deletion in purposive constructions.
IF coreferential deletion in purposive constructions has ergative alignment, THEN so does relativization.
IF relativization has ergative alignment, THEN so does verb agreement.
IF verb agreement has ergative alignment, THEN so does case marking.
 Formula  case marking is ergative > verb agreement is ergative > relativization is ergative > coreferential deletion in purposive constructions is ergative > conjunction reduction is ergative
 Keywords  alignment, ergativity, conjunction reduction, coreferential deletion, purposive, relativization, verb, agreement, case
 Domain  inflection, syntax
 Type  implicational hierarchy
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan), Jacaltec, Aguacatec, Mam (all Mayan), Coast Tsimshian (Tsimshianic), Tagalog (W. Malyo-Polynesian), Kalkatungu, Warrungu, Yidiny (all Pama-Nyungan, Australian), Asiatic Eskimo (Eskimo-Aleut)
 Source  Kazenin 1994: 78-98

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
Tagalog (W. Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian), where verb agreement, being in many respects very non-standard, is active rather than ergative or accusative, while all other processes are ergative (Kazenin 1994: 95)
Notes
1. This hierarchy incorporates Croft’s (1991) Ergative Rule Hierarchy: coreferential argument < focusing (extraction) < verb agreement < case marking, where Kazenin’s conjunction reduction corresponds to Croft’s coreferential argument and Kazenin’s relativization corresponds to Croft’s focusing (extraction). 2. Trask (1979: 385): Apparently all languages that manifest ergativity at all (outside of certain derivational processes) show morphological ergativity, while very few exhibit syntactic ergativity.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. This hierarchy incorporates Croft's 1991 Ergative Rule Hierarchy: coreferential argument < focusing (extraction) < verb agreement < case marking, where Kazenin's conjunction reduction corresponds to Croft's coreferential argument and Kazenin's relativization corresponds to Croft's focusing (extraction).<br>
2. Trask (Trask 1979: 385): Apparently all languages that manifest ergativity at all (outside of certain derivational processes) show morphological ergativity, while very few exhibit syntactic ergativity.