1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 49, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 49, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

One possible usage-based motivation for ergative alignment in grammars is the reference-establishing function shared by the sole argument of intransitives and the patient argument of transitives. Here we test this hypothesis, known as Preferred Argument Structure, against discourse data from Basque, a language with ergative case marking. While we do find a discourse-ergative distribution of lexical forms of reference, our results suggest animacy in addition to role to be a central driver of this distribution. Thus, syntactic position does not appear to reflect referential status directly. This opens new avenues for exploring the specific effects of reference management on grammar. In drawing on production data from a language with ergative case, we also complement previous studies into discourse ergativity that were based primarily on languages with accusative alignment in their grammatical relations.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23005.egu
2025-07-31
2026-02-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.23005.egu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldai, Gontzal
    2009 Is Basque morphologically ergative?: Western Basque vs. Eastern Basque. Studies in Language33(4). 783–831. 10.1075/sl.33.4.01ald
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.4.01ald [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Stephen R.
    1976 On the notion of subject in ergative languages. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic1–24. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariel, Mira
    1990 Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, Jennifer E.
    2008 Reference production. Language and Cognitive Processes23(4). 495–527. 10.1080/01690960801920099
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801920099 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aske, Jon
    1997 Basque word order and disorder. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation.
  6. Berro, Ane & Ricardo Etxepare
    2017 Ergativity in Basque. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa D. Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 782–806. Oxfrd: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.32
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.32 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bickel, Balthasar
    2003 Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language79(4). 708–736. 10.1353/lan.2003.0205
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0205 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2011 Grammatical relations typology. InJae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Stephen Wechsler
    2015 Lexical-functional syntax. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119105664
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119105664 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brickell, Timothy C. & Stefan Schnell
    2017 Do grammatical relations reflect information status? Reassessing Preferred Argument Structure theory against discourse data from Tondano. Linguistic Typology21(1). 177–208. 10.1515/lingty‑2017‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bürkner, Paul-Christian
    2017 brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software80(1). 1–28. 10.18637/jss.v080.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal10(1). 395–411. 10.32614/RJ‑2018‑017
     https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carpenter, Bob, Andrew Gelman, Matthew D. Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt, Marcus Brubaker, Jiqiang Guo, Peter Li & Allen Riddell
    2017 Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software76(1). 1–32. 10.18637/jss.v076.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (ed.) 1980 The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. InRussell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  17. 1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Comrie, Bernard
    1981 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cooreman, Ann
    1988 Ergativity in Dyirbal discourse. Linguistics26(5). 717–746. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.5.717
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.5.717 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cooreman, Ann, Barbara A. Fox & Talmy Givón
    1984 The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language8(1). 1–34. 10.1075/sl.8.1.02coo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.1.02coo [Google Scholar]
  21. Croft, William A.
    2022 Morphosyntax. Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316145289
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289 [Google Scholar]
  22. DeLancey, Scott
    1981 An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 626–657. 10.2307/414343
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414343 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1972 The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084987
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084987 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1979 Ergativity. Language55(1). 59–138. 10.2307/412519
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dowty, David
    1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language67(3). 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  26. Du Bois, John
    1987a Absolutive zero. Lingua71(2). 203–222. 10.1016/0024‑3841(87)90072‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90072-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1987b The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63(4). 805–855. 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2003a Argument structure. InJohn Du Bois, Lorraine Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure, 11–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.14.04dub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.04dub [Google Scholar]
  29. 2003b Discourse and grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol.21, 47–88. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017 Ergativity in discourse and grammar. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa D. Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 23–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.2
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Du Bois, John W.
    1980 The search for a cultural niche: Showing the Pear Film in a Mayan community. InWallace L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 1–7. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Duranti, Alessandro
    1994 From grammar to politics: Linguistic anthropology in a western Samoan village. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520354852
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520354852 [Google Scholar]
  33. Egurtzegi, Aitor, Damián E. Blasi, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Itziar Laka, Martin Meyer, Balthasar Bickel & Sebastian Sauppe
    2022 Cross-linguistic differences in case marking shape neural power dynamics and gaze behavior during sentence planning. Brain and Language2301. 105127. 10.1016/j.bandl.2022.105127
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2022.105127 [Google Scholar]
  34. Egurtzegi, Aitor, Sebastian Sauppe, Arrate Isasi-Isasmendi, Gillen Martinez de la Hidalga, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Matthias Schlesewsky, Itziar Laka, Martin Meyer & Balthasar Bickel
    2025 The effect of animacy on the agent preference: Self-paced reading evidence from Basque. Memory & Cognition. 10.3758/s13421‑025‑01698‑w
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01698-w [Google Scholar]
  35. Etxepare, Ricardo
    2003 Valency and argument structure in the Basque verb. InJose Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque, 363–425. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Evans, Nicholas
    1997 Role or cast? Noun incorporation and complex predicates in Mayali. InAlex Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex predicates, 397–430. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Everett, Caleb
    2009 A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language33(1). 1–24. 10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve [Google Scholar]
  38. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1977 The case for case reopened. InPeter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368866_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_005 [Google Scholar]
  39. Foley, William A.
    2007 A typology of information packaging in the clause. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 362–446. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
    1984 Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Givón, Talmy
    1976 Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1979 From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 81–112. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004368897_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_005 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1983 Topic continuity in discourse. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse, Vol.31, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3.01giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.01giv [Google Scholar]
  44. 2001 Syntax, Vol.11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi & Scott Weinstein
    1995 Centering. Computational Linguistics21(2). 203–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2). 274–307. 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  47. Haig, Geoffrey
    1998 On the interaction of morphology and syntactic ergativity. Lingua105(2). 149–173. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(98)00014‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00014-X [Google Scholar]
  48. Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell
    2016 The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language92(3). 591–618. 10.1353/lan.2016.0049
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0049 [Google Scholar]
  49. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Haspelmath, Martin
    2006 Review of Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, byJohn Du Bois, Lorraine Kumpf, and William Ashby. Language82(4). 908–912. 10.1353/lan.2006.0203
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0203 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2021 Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries. Journal of Linguistics57(3). 605–633. 10.1017/S0022226720000535
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000535 [Google Scholar]
  52. Haude, Katharina & Marc Allassonnière-Tang
    . Forthcoming. Lexical, pronominal and zero argument encoding in Movima. InClaudine Chamoreau & Enrique Palancar eds. Topicality and the shaping of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Heath, Jeffrey G.
    1979 Is Dyirbal ergative?Linguistics171. 401–463. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.401
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.401 [Google Scholar]
  54. Martinez de la Hidalga, Gillen, Adam Zawiszewski & Itziar Laka
    2019 Eppur non si muove: Experimental evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis and distinct ϕ-feature processing in Basque. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics4(1). 120.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hopper, Paul
    1998 Emergent grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol.11, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hörberg, Thomas & Johan Sjons
    2023 Speakers balance their use of cues to grammatical functions in informative discourse contexts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience38(2). 175–196. 10.1080/23273798.2022.2102667
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2102667 [Google Scholar]
  57. Isasi-Isasmendi, Arrate, Sebastian Sauppe, Caroline Andrews, Itziar Laka, Martin Meyer & Balthasar Bickel
    2024 Incremental sentence processing is guided by a preference for agents: EEG evidence from Basque. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience39(1). 76–97. 10.1080/23273798.2023.2250023
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2023.2250023 [Google Scholar]
  58. Jäger, Gerhard
    2007 Evolutionary game theory and typology. Language83(1). 74–109. 10.1353/lan.2007.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0020 [Google Scholar]
  59. Karttunen, Lauri
    1976 Discourse referents. InJames D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics71, 363–385. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Keenan, Edward L.
    1976 Towards a universal definition of “subject”. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kehler, Andrew
    2002 Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kruschke, John K.
    2015 Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Kumagai, Yoshiharu
    2006 Information management in intransitive subjects: Some implications for the preferred argument structure theory. Journal of Pragmatics38(5). 670–694. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  64. Kumpf, Lorraine
    2003 Genre and preferred argument structure. InJohn Du Bois, Lorraine Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure, 109–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.14.07kum
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.07kum [Google Scholar]
  65. Laka, Itziar
    2006 Deriving split ergativity in the progressive. InAlana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndariyaije (eds.), Ergativity. Emerging issues, 173–195. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑4188‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  66. Laka, Itziar, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis
    2017 Ergative need not split: An exploration into the TotalErg Hypothesis. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa D. Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 159–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.7
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.7 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  68. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1989 Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Linders, Guido M. & Stefan Schnell
    . preprint 2025 Functional factors predict referential choice similarly across languages: A cross-linguistic computational analysis. Available at: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/23p4m_v1 (last access25 May 2025).
  70. Marantz, Alec
    1984 On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Matter, Florian
    2020 An inspection of Preferred Argument Structure in Mapudungun narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics86(1). 59–93. 10.1086/705754
     https://doi.org/10.1086/705754 [Google Scholar]
  72. Prince, Ellen F.
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InPeter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 1992 The ZPG letter. InWilliam C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description, Vol.161, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  74. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2024 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing Vienna. Available at: www.R-project.org (last access25 May 2025).
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Santazilia, Ekaitz
    2022 Animacy and inflectional morphology across languages. Berlin: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Schiborr, Nils N.
    2023 Lexical anaphora. A corpus-based typological study of referential choice. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. 10.20378/irb‑59773
     https://doi.org/10.20378/irb-59773 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmidt, Annette
    1985 The fate of ergativity in dying Dyirbal. Language61(2). 378–396. 10.2307/414150
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414150 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schnell, Stefan, Nils N. Schiborr & Geoffrey Haig
    2021 Efficiency in discourse processing. Linguistics Vanguard7(s3). pp.20190064. 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0064
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0064 [Google Scholar]
  79. Seifart, Frank, Jan Strunk, Swintha Danielsen, Iren Hartmann, Brigitte Pakendorf, Søren Wichmann, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Nivja H. de Jong & Balthasar Bickel
    2018 Nouns slow down speech across structurally and culturally diverse languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(22). 5720–5725. 10.1073/pnas.1800708115
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800708115 [Google Scholar]
  80. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1991 Grammaticization of topic into subject. InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol.21, 93–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.07shi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.07shi [Google Scholar]
  81. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InRobert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Stoll, Sabine & Balthasar Bickel
    2009 How deep are differences in referential density?InJiansheng Guo, Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura & Seyda Ozcaliskan (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the traditions of Dan Slobin, 543–555. London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Tily, Harry & Steven Piantadosi
    2009 Refer efficiently. InKees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Roger P. G. van Gompel & Emiel J. Krahmer (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference (PRE-CogSci 2009), Amsterdam: University of Tilburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Tsunoda, Tasaku
    1986 Topicality in ergative and accusative languages. Nagoya Working Papers in Linguistics21. 173–258.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 2011 A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110238778
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238778 [Google Scholar]
  86. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997 Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  87. Vollmer, Maria Carina
    2023 Comparing zero and referential choice in eight languages with a focus on Mandarin Chinese. Studies in Language48(2). 351–389. 10.1075/sl.21072.vol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21072.vol [Google Scholar]
  88. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1981 Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics1(1). 43–80. 10.1080/07268608108599266
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608108599266 [Google Scholar]
  89. Zúñiga, Fernando & Beatriz Fernández
    2021 Antipassivization in Basque revisited. InAlena Witzlack-Makarevich & Janic Karatrzyna (eds.), Antipassive constructions in languages of the world, 621–640. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.130.19zun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.130.19zun [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23005.egu
Loading
Discourse ergativity and human reference in Basque
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 49, 682 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23005.egu
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23005.egu
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23005.egu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): animacy; ergativity; information packaging; Preferred Argument Structure; reference production

Most Cited

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