Volume 36, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper examines current approaches to studying alignment change and the role of language contact in the spread of ergativity, using the Chukotkan languages as a case study. Chukotkan is exceptional in that there does not appear to be a single reanalysis pathway that can account for the development of ergative case. Rather, the system appears to be the product of several changes that operated in different domains. This paper provides an alternative to an earlier account that claims that Chukotkan ergativity developed due to Yupik substrate effects, which is not supported by the historical accounts of the contact between these groups. This explanation is consistent with a problematic tendency of treating ergativity as a special phenomenon, even though ergative alignment regularly arises via internal change. Instead, I propose that the loss of split ergative case marking occurred due to the reanalysis of a passive participle, which was motivated by the tendency to encode animacy distinctions in these languages.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, Steven R.
    1977 On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 317–363. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arrieta, Kutz, Brian D. Joseph & Jane Smirniotopoulos
    1986 How ergative is Basque?Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL)3. 25–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mark & Jonathan David Bobaljik
    2017 On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 114–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benveniste, Émile
    1970 Definition d’un parfait en paleo-sibérien oriental. InRoman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds.), Studies in general and oriental linguistics (American Anthropologist 73(6)), 6–9. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergsland, Knut
    1989 Comparative aspects of Aleut syntax. Aikakauskirja/Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne82. 7–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2013 Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. InDik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110331127.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.15 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bobaljik, Jonathan David
    1998 Pseudo-ergativity in Chukotko-Kamchatkan agreement systems. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes27. 21–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bogoras, Waldemar G.
    1922 Chukchee. InFranz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, part2 (BAE-Bulletin 40), 631–903. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coghill, Eleanor
    2016The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Comrie, Bernard
    1979 Degrees of ergativity: Some Chukchee evidence. InFrans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 219–240. London & New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1980 Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica1(1). 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1981The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1996 Language contact in northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and Kamchatka). InErnst Håkon Jahr & Ingvild Broch (eds.), Language contact in the Arctic, 33–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110813302.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813302.33 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/98, Accessed on2019-04-03.)
    [Google Scholar]
  15. De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde
    (eds.) 2015On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.79
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dikov, N. N.
    1979Drevnie kultury severo-vostočnoj Azii. Moskow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55(1). 59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1994Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunn, Michael
    1994 A sketch grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University BA thesis.
  20. 1999 A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.
  21. Forsyth, James
    1992A history of the peoples of Siberia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fortescue, Michael
    1995 The historical source and typological position of ergativity in Eskimo languages. Ètudes/Inuit/Studies19(2). 61–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1997 Eskimo influence on the formation of the Chukotkan ergative clause. Studies in Language21(2). 369–409. 10.1075/sl.21.2.05for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.2.05for [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998Language relations across the Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2003 Diachronic typology and the genealogical unity of Chukotko-Kamchatkan. Linguistic Typology7(1). 51–88. 10.1515/lity.2003.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2005Comparative Chukotko-Kamchatkan dictionary. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110925388
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925388 [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrett, Andrew
    1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language66(2). 261–296. 10.2307/414887
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414887 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  29. Johns, Alana
    2001 Ergative to accusative: Comparing evidence from Inuktitut. InJan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 205–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.56.09joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.56.09joh [Google Scholar]
  30. Joseph, Brian D.
    2013 Multiple sources and multiple cases multiply explored. Studies in Language27(3). 675–691.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Krupnik, Igor & Michael Chlenov
    2013Yupik transitions: Change and survival at Bering Strait, 1900–1960. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Levin, M. G.
    1963Ethnic origins of the peoples of northeastern Asia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Malkiel, Yakov
    1967 Multiple versus simple causation in linguistic change. InTo honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 1228–1246. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mithun, Marianne
    2008 The emergence of agentive systems. InMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment systems, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
    1979 Degrees of ergativity in Chukchee. InFrans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 241–262. London & New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Reuse, Willem J. de
    1994Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1996 Chukchi, English, and Eskimo: A survey of jargons in the Chukotka Peninsula area. InErnst Håkon Jahr & Ingvild Broch (eds.), Language contact in the Arctic, 47–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110813302.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813302.47 [Google Scholar]
  38. Siewierska, Anna
    2013 Alignment of verbal person marking. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/100, Accessed on2019-04-03.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InR.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Skorik, Petr Ja
    1961/1977Grammatika Chukotskogo jazyka [The grammar of Chukchi]. Moscow & Leningrad: Akademija Nauk USSR.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman
    1988Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Trask, Robert L.
    1979 On the origins of ergativity. InFrans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 385–404. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tuite, Kevin
    1999 The myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund: The case of ergativity. Lingua108. 1–26. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(98)00037‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00037-0 [Google Scholar]
  44. Vakhtin, Nikolai
    1998 Endangered languages in northeast Siberia: Siberian Yupik and other languages of Chukotka. InErich Kasten (ed.), Bicultural education in the north: Ways of preserving and enhancing indigenous peoples’ languages and traditional knowledge, 159–173. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Vdovin, I. S.
    1961 Eskimosskie elementy v kul’ture čukčej i korjakov. Sibirskij Ètnografičeskij Sbornik3. 27–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Volodin, Aleksandr P.
    1976Itel’menskyj jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1992 Chukotsko-KamCatskie jazyki. InAleksandr P. Volodin, Nikolai B. Vakhtin & Andrej A. Kibrik (eds.), Jazyki mira: Paleoaziatskie jazyki, 12–22. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk Institut Jazykoznanija.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Whitman, John & Yuko Yanagida
    2012 The formal syntax of alignment change. InCharlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change, 177–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659203.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659203.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhukova, Alevtina N.
    1978 Dialektologicheskoe i lingvogeograficheskoe issledovanie chukotsko-kamchatskikh jazykov. InM. A. Borodina (ed.), Narody i jazyki Sibiri, 78–83. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alignment change; animacy; Chukotko-Kamchatkan; ergativity; language contact; reanalysis; Yupik
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error