Volume 38, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper reassesses the rise of ergative alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan, two branches of the Indo-European linguistic family. Both of these branches acquire split-ergative morphosyntax in the course of their history but via different grammaticalization paths and with different results. In the Anatolian language Hittite, a denominative derivational suffix develops into an ergative case marker, which is restricted to so-called neuter nouns. In Indo-Aryan, on the other hand, a new ergative category with anterior aspectual semantics emerges in Middle Indo-Aryan originating from a P-oriented resultative construction in Old Indo-Aryan.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Benveniste, Émile
    1962 Les substantifs en -ant du Hittite. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris57, 44–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel, Balthasar
    2010 Grammatical relations typology. InJae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0020 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blake, Barry J.
    1977Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bubenik, Vit
    2016 On the establishment of ergative alignment during the Late Middle Indo-Aryan period. InEystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.) Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112.04bub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.04bub [Google Scholar]
  5. Butt, Miriam
    2017 Hindi/Urdu and related languages. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 808–832. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
    2017 Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan diachrony. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagluca
    1994The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bynon, Theodora
    2005 Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society103(1), 1–72. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2004.00144.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2004.00144.x [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
    1989Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger
    2017 Split ergativity is not about ergativity. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 226–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Creissels, Denis
    2008 Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica42(1), 1–38. 10.1515/FLIN.2008.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.1 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 59–110. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.02cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.02cre [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahl, Eystein
    2010Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring inflectional semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004178144.i‑475
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178144.i-475 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2015 Toward a formal model of semantic change: A neo-Reichenbachian approach to the development of the Vedic past tense system. Lingua Posnaniensis57(1), 41–76. 10.1515/linpo‑2015‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/linpo-2015-0003 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. InEystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.), Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112.03dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.03dah [Google Scholar]
  17. Danesi, Serena & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2018 Case marking of predicative possession in Vedic. The genitive, the dative, the locative. InJóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen Mark Carey (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, 181–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.200.08dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.08dan [Google Scholar]
  18. Dardano, Paola
    2010 Zur anatolischen Morphosyntax: das Suffix -(a)nt- und seine Bildungen. in: Aygul Süel (ed.), Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, 173–188. Ankara: T.C. Çorum Valiliği.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 L’allineamento sintattico delle lingue indoeuropee dell’Anatolia: vecchi problemi e nuove proposte alla luce di una recente pubblicazione. Orientalia82(2), 29–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  21. Donohue, Mark
    2008 Semantic alignment systems. What’s what, and what’s not. InMark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.) The typology of semantic alignment, 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
    (eds.) 2008The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Filimonova, Elena
    2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology9(1), 77–113. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77 [Google Scholar]
  24. Garrett, Andrew
    1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language66(2), 261–296. 10.2307/414887
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414887 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1996 Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. InAaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.) Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 85–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Goedegebuure, Petra
    2018 The packagers -ant- and -a-, and the origin of split-ergativity in Hittite (and Lycian). InDavid M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison & Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    2011 On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology15(3), 535–567. 10.1515/LITY.2011.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015 Transitivity prominence. InAndrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.) Valency classes in the world’s languages. Volume I. Introducing the framework and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110338812‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338812-008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffner, Harry A. & H. Craig Melchert
    2008A grammar of the Hittite language. Part 1. Reference grammar. Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jamison, Stephanie W.
    1990 The tense of the predicated past participle in Vedic and beyond. Indo-Iranian Journal33: 1–19. 10.1163/000000090790083248
    https://doi.org/10.1163/000000090790083248 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jamison, Stephanie W. & Joel P. Brereton
    2014The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India. Translated by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton. 3vols.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Josephson, Folke
    2004 Semantics and typology of Hittite -ant. InJames Clackson & Birgit Annette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 91–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Keith, Arthur B.
    1914The Veda of the Black Yajus School entitled Taittiriya Sanhita. (2Volumes). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kloekhorst, Alwin
    2008Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kulikov, Leonid
    2013 Language vs. grammatical tradition in Ancient India: How real was Pāṇinian Sanskrit? Evidence from the history of late Sanskrit passives and pseudo-passives. InFolia Linguistica Historica34, 59–91. 10.1515/flih.2013.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.2013.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Laroche, Emmanuel
    1962 ‘Un ‘ergatif’ en indo-europeen d’Asie Mineure’ Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris57, 23–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Luraghi, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
    . Forthcoming. The origin of ergative case markers: the case of Hittite revisited. InEystein Dahl ed. Alignment and alignment change in the Indo-European family. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Manzini, Maria Rita, Leonardo M. Savoia & Ludovico Franco
    2015 Ergative case, aspect and person splits: Two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica62(3), 297–351. 10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  40. McGregor, William B.
    2017 Grammaticalization of ergative case marking. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 447–464. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Melchert, H. Craig
    2011 The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. InMichèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.) Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques Paris 2–4 April 2007, 161–167. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Moravcik, Edith A.
    1978 On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua45 (3–4): 233–279. 10.1016/0024‑3841(78)90026‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(78)90026-8 [Google Scholar]
  43. Oberlies, Thomas
    2001Pāli. A grammar of the language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Oettinger, Norbert
    2001 Neue Gedanken über das nt-Suffix. InOnofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds.) Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Pavia, 22–25 September 1998. Innsbruck: IBS.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Payne, John R.
    1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua51, 147–186. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Peterson, John
    1998Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München: LINCOM.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rieken, Elisabeth
    2017 Agreement patterns of collective nouns in Hittite. InAlice Mouton (ed.) Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday. 5e Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFEA, Istanbul 21–22 novembre 2014, 7–18. Istanbul: Institut Français d’études anatoliennes. 10.4000/books.ifeagd.3437
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ifeagd.3437 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rix, Helmut, Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp and Brigitte Schirmer
    2001Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichelt Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    (eds.) 2018Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InR. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Trask, Robert Larry
    1979 On the origins of ergativity. InFrans Plank (ed.) Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 385–404. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. West, Martin L.
    2011Old Avestan syntax and stylistics. With an edition of the texts. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110253092
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253092 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zeilfelder, Suzanne
    2014 Probleme des hethitischen Nominativs: split-ergativity und Casus Commemorativus. InCyril Brosch & Annick Payne (eds.), Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag, 199–210. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agreement; alignment change; Anatolian; case marking; Indo-Aryan; Indo-European
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