Lingua 32,239-253.0 North-Holland Publishing Company 1973

THE ERGATIVE: VARIATIONS ON A THEME

Bernard COMRIE Kings sbllege, Cambridge, Grtx t Britain

Recciwd Not.ember 1972

0.

A number of languages are referred to as ergative languages. In the present paper I want to attempt a characterization of the concept erga- tive construction within the general framework of transformational syntax. For those who are not familiar with this concept at all, the following brief description may serve as an introduction to the prob- lem.

In the most typical European inflected languages, there is one case (nominative) that expresses, basically, the subject of the sentence, and another case (the accusative) that expresses the direct object. Thus in Latin, where puer is boy (nom.), and pueZlam girl (act.), we have:

(1) Puer venit. The boy comes.

(2) Puer puellam amat. The boy loves the girl.

In English the same distinctions may be observed, though it is only within the pronominal system that nominative versus accusative is marked (e.g. nominative he, she; accusative him, her). Basque (examples from de Kijk 1966: l-2) is an ergative language, and the expression of subject and direct object is different from that in Latin or English:

(3) Miren etorri da. Mary came.

(4) Yon-ek Patxi jo du. John hit Bill.

In (3), the subject (Miren) has no overt inflection; in (4), the subject has the inflection -ek, whereas the direct object (Patxi) has no inflec-

240 8. Comrie, The ergative: variations on a theme

tion. In other words, the subject of (3) and the direct object of (4) have the same inflection, while the subject of (4) has a distinct ending. Quite generally, in Basque the subject of an intransitive verb and the direct object of a transitive verb stand m the same case (usually, though rather misleadingly, called the nominative), while there is a special case (the ergative) for the subject of a transitive verb. The nelevant syntactic constructions (irrespective of the order of co:isiituents) are:

(5) Subject - Verb (6) Subject - Verb - Non-direct object (7) Subject - Verb - Direct object

In (5) we have a verb with no object, in (6) a verb with a non-direct object; in Basque the subject would stand in the nominative. In (7) we have a verb with a direct object; in F;lsque the subject would stand illI the ergative. I shall refer to (7) as the ergative configuration, though this wili only be realized with an ergative case in ergative languages. I shall assume (cp. Comrie 197 la: 45-46) that subject and direct object noun phrases can be referred to together as non-oblique, whereas non- direct object noun phrases are oblique.

I have defined ergativity in essentially syntactic terms. This differs from the approach of, e.g., Fillmore (1968: 53--SS), who would assign case rather on the basis of the semantic role of noun phrases in the sentence. Below, I hope to show that in tne instances I treat in detail ergativity is essentially a syntactic phenomenon. From the data given by Fillmore, and his references to work by Sapir, it would seem that in the languages he discusses (they are American-Indian languages) seman- tic factors do intervene, at least in addition to syntactic factors. The fact th:lt in some language semantic factors may play a role in deter- mining the case of some particular noun phrase does not necessarily mean that syntactic criteria are irrelevant, or that they may not be sufficient in some other language. In Finnish, for instance, the direct object will stand in the nominative (plural) or genitive (singular) where the whole of the object is affected, and in the partitive if only part of the object is affected (Aaltio 1969: 154); however, the syntactic char- acterization of direct object is still necessary in order to know to which noun phrase this distinction may be applied (i.e. noun phrases in general are not distinguished as to whether or not they are partitive). In Latin, on the other hand, the direct object goes automatically into the accusative case, irrespective of its semantics.

A similar example involving the ergative is found in the Vejnakhian

B. Comne, The ergative: variations on a theme 241

languages (North-East Caucasian) (M&aninov, 1967: 78-82). Chechen is a typical ergative language, and we havt: for instance:

(8) So w&h. I go.

(9) As begabo palas. 1 shake the carpet.

where as and SO are ergative and nominative of the first person singular pronoun respectively. Bats (Batsbi, Tush) is a closely related language, in fact the forms for the pronouns are identical (as and so). In the ergative configuration, the subject must be in the ergative case:

(10) As jopst axo. 1 slough the land.

In other configurations, either the ergative or the nominative may be used for the subject:

(11) So w&e. (12) As woke.

1 fell. (11) and (12) are not synonymous. MeslSaninov (1967: 82) explains the meaning difference as follows: (12), with the ergative, implies that it was my own fault that I fell down, whereas (1 1), with the nominative, carries no such implication. Semantic factors, then, are relevant to the choice of case. But these semantic factors are not sufficient to distin- guish nominative from ergative. In the ergative configuraticn we must use the ergative, whether or not the action is the fmlt of the subject, whether or not we wish to imply this. Thus the syntactic characteriza- tion of the ergative configuration is still required. There is a real prob- lem in the offing here, and one to which cannot offer a satisfactory solution at present, namely: what is the rationale behind the tie-up that seems to be felt, and is explicit for instance in Bats, between the erga- tive as syntactic expression of a transitive subject, and semantic cate- gories like agentive, or non-accidental? The purely semantic approach to the ergative is equally unable to account for this syntactic-semantic tie-up in a non-arbitrary way.

In discussing ergative languages, one might conclude that the notions subject and direct object, while useful for outlining the ergative con- struction informally ta those familiar with nominative languages, do not play any role internally to the syntax of ergative languages. Apart

I take this to be the Qtenor of De Rijk (1966), which also attempts a (transformational) syntactic treatment of the ergative, in Basque. As this paper has not been published, 1 do not feel at liberty to discuss it in detail; the line of argument is radically different from that presented here, and does not take account of such variations of the ergative as are found in Chukchee, Georgian, Punjabi, etc.

242 B. Comrie, The ergative: variations on a theme

from the basic point tnat there is no direct morphological expression of subject and direct object, ?or some ergative languages there is other evidence that might seem to point in this same direction. Verbal agree- ment is one instance in point, in a wide range of ergative languages, where the verb agrees with an intransitive subject (i.e. where therti is no direct object), but with the direct object where there is one - i.e. in either case with the nominative noun phrase, and not with the erga- tive. Thus in Punjabi (Shackle 1972: 73, 82) we have:

( 13) d (masc. sg. ) kal lawr gya (masc. sg. ). he yesterday Lahore went (= He went to Lahore yesterday.)

but with transitive verbs:

( 14) on2 (.~?rsc. pl. ) ne api_la k& (??rczsc. sg. ) ka@ya (r~asc. sg. ) si. they erg. part. own house built was (= They had built their own h.ouse )

(15) d&tar (masc. sg. ) ne t! fylmaN (jtim, pl. ) vekhia Cfem. pl.) hoggia. doctor erg. part. these films seen will-be (= The doctor will have seen these films)

The data from many ergative languages, however, indicate that sub- ject and direct object are releva-;lt categories in describing the syntax of these languages. For instance, in Georgian the verb requires affixes mark- ing the person and number of subject, quite irrespective of whether the subject is in the nominative or the ergative, and different affixes mark- ing the person and number of the direct object (TschenkCli 1958: 1.348356). Walbiri, a language of Central Australia, marks full noun phrases as an ergative language, but duplicates them by clitic pronouns on a subject-object basis (Perlmutter 197 1: 89). Basic (unmarked) word-order is determined in many ergative languages on the basis of subject and object, a.lthough the data here are not always watertight, given the possibilitie; for free word-order in the languages under con- sideration. Georgian has a basic word-order S(ubject)-V(erb)-O(bject) (TschenkGli 1958: 1.12); Dargva has SOV (Abdullaev 197 1: 27-29), as has Punjabi (Shackle 1972: 48). According to Lafltte (1967: 46), Basque is SVO; De Rijk (1966:2), on the other hand, claims that the order of maJor constituents in Basque is determined by informational strticture; in either case, the morphological distinction nominativ+- ergative is not held to be the basis of determining word-order.

B. Comrie, The crgative: variations ora a theme 243

1.

Chukchee (Chukothan, Luorawetlan) is spoken by some 11,000 people, mainly iz-$ the Chukothan peninsula (Eastern Siberia) (Skorik 1968: 248). In Chukchee, intransitive verbs regularly take the nomina- tive construction, as in

( 16) Tumg-at jegtel-g?e t. The friends escaped.

whereas transitive verbs require the ergative construction (Skorik 1968: 267):

(17) Tumg-e na-ntawat-an kupre-n. The friends set the net.

MorphologicaJy, Cht: nominative singular ends in --12 or zero, the nomi- native plural in -b, -ti, or --at, the ergative (singular or plural) in -e or -te (for further &tails, not relevant here, cp. Skorik (I 968: 253)).

One of the syntactic characteristics of Chukchee is the ergative con- struction. Another is that known as incorporation, whereby a constitu- ent of the sentence is embedded inside some other constituent: incor- poration is an optional transformation. In ( 17) above we have the verb rztawat with, as its direct object, the noun phrase h-upre, the two con- stituents forming a verb phrase. An alternative way of phrasing (17) would be to incorporate the direct object into the verb itself, forming a new verb stem kopra-ntawat to net-set. Note in particular the change in the vocalism of kuprelkopra: Chukchee has vowel harrnony (Skorik 19&t : 250-25 l), so that when the direct object is incorporated into the verb, forming one phonological word with it, its vocalism must agree with that of the head constituent, namely rztawat (cp. Comrie 197 1 b: 453-454). The syntactic transformation of incorporation (in this particular case) may be illustrated as follows:

(19) S

(18) S

NP-P

I I I I I I tumg ntawat kupre tumg kopra ntawat

So far, I have not indicated how, if at all, the transformation of incorporation effects the case-marking of subject and direct object. TO avoid further suspense, I shall now give the Chukchee version of (17) with incorporation:

(20) Tumg-at kopra-ntawat-gvat. from which it can be seen that the subject is in the nominative, not the ergative. In the derivation of (20), we have a deep structure with the ergative configuration, but a surface structure with the norninative con- figuration. The case-marking in Chukchee is determined., then, not by the deep structure configuration, but by the surface structure con- figuration - in (19) kopra is not direct object of VP, which has only the one immediate constituent V. There is a general Goint to be noted here, one that will recur throughout this article: where a sentence has more than one level of representation (as generally in a transformation- ai anaiysis), the syntactic relations may be different at the various levels. In particular, an ergative configuration may be transformed into a nonergative configuration, as in (18) and (19) above. These transfor- mational possibilities present the variations on d theme of the title. Chukchee has yet a third way of ,bhrasing sentence (17) (Skorik 1968: 2671, namely by putting the direct object into the instrumental (morphologically, always the same as the ergative), as in

(2 1) Tumg-at ena-ntawat-gpat kupre-te. with the subject again in the nominative, not the ergative. (2 1) would appear to be derived from the same deep structure configuration as (17) and (20) (i.e. an ergative configuration), but like (20) at some stage in derivation the ergative configuration is transformed into a nominative configuration (in surface structure, kupre is nDt direct object in (21), for then it would appear in the nominative; rather it has been trans- formed into a non-direct object).

I was surprised and gratified to find, after I had worked with the above data from Chukchee, that there is at least one other language, quite unrelated to Chukchee, that allows the parallel sentence patterns (17) and (21). D argva is a Dagestanian (North-East Caucasian) language; like Chukchee, it is an ergative language, though unlike Chukchee it does not have incorporation (therefore no possibility of sentence type (20)). In the f 11 o owing examples, the ergative-instrumental ending is -rti or 4, the nominative is endingless:

B. Comrie, fie ergative: variations on a theme 245

(22) Nu Ztiz-li uEulra. (23) Nu-ni Zuz duEulra.

1 read the bdok (lit. 1 book read) [Abdullaev 197 1: 261). In Dargva, factor in distinguishing nominative surface structure configuration.

then, it appears that the decisive from ergative constructions is the

2.

Georgian differs from the typical ergative languages in that it uses the ergativc construction in certain tenses only while using the nomina- tive construction in others. In the Present group of tenses (present, future, imperfect, conditional, present and future subjunctive) the sub- Lad

JLUL of the sentence stands in the rlominative (whether the verb is transitive or not) and the direct object in the accusative (which is morphologically identical to the dative). In the Aorist group of tenses (aorist and optative) the subject of an intransitive verb stands in the nominative, as does the direct object of a transitive verb, while the subject of a transitive verb stands in the ergative (which in Georgian is morphologically distinct from all other cases and cases plus postposi- tions). An account of the tense groups in Georgian is given by Tschen- kili (1958: I. 64, 150, 500). The following examples illustrate the vari- ous possibilities. For ease of reference, the following morphological inflections should be noted: nominative -i, ergative -m(a), accusative- dative -s:

(24) Student-i midis. +he &dent goes.

(25) Student-i cers ceril-s. The s&dint &ites a letter.

(26) Siudent-i mivida. The s&dent went.

(27) Student-ma dacera ceril-i. ?he s&dent wrote ;he lette:.

Note that although in the nominative construction the morphological ending of the dire& object is the same as that of the dative case, the different syntactic functions of the two noun phrases are brought out in the ergative construction, where the direct object appears in the nominative, but other datives remain. e.g. (Tschenkkli 1958: I= 157):

246 B. Comrie, The ergative: variations on a theme

(28) Mascevlebel-i aCukebs bavSv+ cign-s. The teacher presents to the child a book.

(29) Mascevlebel-ma aculka bavsv-s qigr-i. The teacher presented to the child a book.

In Georgian, then, the rule that assigns ergativity is sensitive not only to the syntactic configuration of subject and object noun phrases, but also to a tense-group feature on the verb. In what follows I shall take this tense feature for granted, and concentrate on defining more accurately the syntactic configuration(s) that require the ergative. In older stages of the Georgian language? apparently, there *was no requirement of a tense-group feature, and the ergative occurred with all tenses (Cikobava 1967: 15).

The first set of verbs requiring us to go somewhat beyond the charac- terization of the ergative environment outlined above are those which, though generally taking a direct object, may (in the same meaning) occur without any such object. One such verb is qera write, used with an object in (25) and (27) and without an object in

(30) Student-i cers. The student writes.

What happens if we put (30) into the aorist? Although the surface structure of the sentence contains no direct object, the subject must still stand in the ergative:

(31) Student-ma dacera. Thp student wrote.

Let us assume, as has generally been done in transformational syntax, that sentences like (30) and (3 1) are derived from underlying structures with a direct object, this direct object being subsequently deleted. In deep structure, then, (30) and (31) are ergative configuration, whereas in surfa.:e structure they are non-ergative configurations. Georgian ap- pears tc be sensitive to underlying syntactic configurations, as does, for ?tstance, Basque, for similar constructions (Lafitte 1967: 188), and unlike Chukchee. Within a transformational framework, this can readily be captured by ordering the trar&ormation that distinguishes nomina- tive from ergative noun phrases (ergativiration) before object-deletion, in Georgian; in Chukchee, ergativizatior, would follow incorporation. 2

2 For footnote, see next page.

B. Comrie. The ergative: variations on a theme 247

A further point worth noting in this context is that where a normally transitive verb occurs with a sentential object, if the verb is in the amist its subject will still be in the ergative. eg.

(32) Student-i cers, rom mova. The student writes that he will come.

(33) Student-ma dacera, ram mova. The student w;*ote that e would come.

In Comrie (197 la: 105) I pointed out that for certain languages, there is evidence that such sentential objects are noun phrases in deep struc- ture, but not in surface btructure. 1 know of no such evidence for

sting that the noun phrase node dominating ram m~va is pruned in sentences like (32) and (33) - i.e. it is possible that even in surface structure rorn mova is a noun phrase, where it was one m deep structure. If any such evidence were forthcoming, this would be anoth- er point in favour of an analysis of the type outlined, since studer?f would be surface structure subject of (33), and also in the ergative configuration in underlying structure (though not in surface structure). In the absence of such evidence, sentences like (33) do not tell either way. Incidentally, the noun phrase nature of sentential objects to such verbs is not restricted to indirect speech, compare (Tschenkeli 1958: 11.77):

(34) Mela-m tkva: me da mgel-ma aklem-i movkalito. The fox said: 1 and the wolf killed the &nel.

3.

Punj(abi, like Georgian, restricts the ergative construction to certain tenses only (Shackle 1972: 82, 1X), and I sha 1 here be concerned with the relevant tenses, i.e. those formed from the past participle (preterite, perfect, pluperfect, future perfect). In Punjabi, unlike Georgian, nomi- native (and accusative are not distinguished overtly, i.e. in the nomina- tive constr;iction, barring certain exceptions to be- discussed below,

2 In a theory of transformational-generative grammar extended by the inclusion of non-local derMiona.l constraints (Lkoff 197(l), the ergativization rule could operate at the same level in both hwuage-types, but would refer to configurations at different levels in the two cases. In the abench+ of more detailed analyses of other aspects of the syntax of the languages involved, It is not de&a whether this increased descriptive apparatus is required, in this case.

248 B. Comrie, The ergative: variations on a theme

subject and direct are not morphologically distinct. In the ergative con- struction, the transitive subject requires the postposition pze (Shackle 1972: 82). In the nominative construction, the past participle and auxi- liary verb, if any, agree with the subject; in the ergative construction, they agree with the direct object without postposition:

(35) meri ma kade c$ pindi e. my mother sometimes tea drinks My mother sometimes drinks tea.

(36) tiv?uem. sg.) kal l&r gai (fem. sg. ). woman yesterday Lahore went The woman went to Lahore yesterday.

(37) tivY ne kvirj ky t5 bg Cfem. pl. ) mez te rakkhig vern. yl. ). woman erg. part. so me boo ks table on put The woman put some books on the table.

In general, the direct object in Punjabi takes no postposition? where . 1 n71 as the hdirect object takes the postposition ni2 (Shackle I 7 I L : 47).

Sometimes, however, the direct object is constructed with nM (only where there is not also an indirect object): this happens when the direct object is a pronoun (obligatorily), and may happen when it is a definite noun phrase (Shackle ! 972: 69-70). The precise rules are not relevant, though the existence of the phenomenon is:

(38) e nu &he na rakkho ji! it plzrt. here not put please Please put it here.

How does this construction interrelate with the ergative? In the relevant tenses, where the direct object has ni.?, the subject must still stand in the ergative with ne, and the verb may not agree with it. However, the verb may no longer agree with the direct object, instead it stands in the impersonal form (morphologically, third person singular masculine):

(39) tiv? ne dujia kytabgnti mez te rakkya (masc. sg. ). wormyi erg. other books part. table on put The woman put the other books on the table.

Similarly, where the object of an object-deleting verb is deleted, the subject is in the ergative, the past particple impersonal (Shackle 1972: 82-83):

(40) tivY ne vekhya (masc. sg.) :i? *Ivoman erg. seen 1 Qas Had the woman seen?

f3. Corntie, The ergative: variations on a theme 249

The same applies with direct and indirect speech (cp. the examples in Shackle (1972: 102)):

(41) tivr ne kya (ntasc. sg. ) si ky m5y panj5bi X ~82~~~2~1 erg. said ivas that 1 PkIl?;abi am The woman said: Im Punjabi.

(42) tivine kya si ky 6 pairjabi e. The woman said that she was Punjabi.

Let us return to the rule that inserts ~t7i after certain direct objects, comparing it with object-deletion. The effect of n&insertion is to change what would otherwise be morphologically a non-oblique noun phrase into an oblique noun phrase, i.e. make it like a non-direct object, i.e. the transformation brings about a change in the syntactic relatiors of the sentence. Object-deletion also brings about a change in syntactic relations, by deleting the direct object. What the two transformations iaave in common is that they get rid of the direct object, in one case transforming it into something else, in the other case deleting it. Both are direct-object removing transformations. In the underlying struc- ture of (39)-(40) there is a direct object, and it is the presence of this underlying direct object that triggers ergativization, whence the post- position ne in these sentences. In derived structure, however, they have no direct object. The verb agreement rule states that the verb must agree wi;h the direct object noun phrase if the subject is ergative, otherwise with the subject noun phrase; where there is no such noun phrase (i.e. impersonal (subjectless) sentences in the nominative con- struction, and sentences that have undergone direct-object removing in the ergative construction), the verb goes into the third person singular. In other words, as far as verbal agreement goes it is the derived struc- ture that counts. The transformations considered are ordered as fol- lows: (i) Ergativization (ii) Direct-object removrng transformations (iii) Verb agreement . In this way we can account for the apparent discrepancy between erga- tivization and verb-object agreement.

One assumption, theoretical rather than empirical, that has guided my thinking on the ergative is that in the various languages that have

250 B. Comrie, The ergative: variations on a theme

the ergative construction, we are dealing with a unified phenomenon. This does not, of course, mean that there are no differences between ergative constructions in different languages (cp. the tense-group re- quirement in Georgian and Punjabi, influence of semantic factors in Bats, importance of surface structure configuration in Chukchee, but not in Georgian or Basque), but it does imply that the basic framework of the construction should be the same in the various languages.

One view, well represented in the traditional literature on the erga- tive, but which I slave not so far considered, is that the ergative is in some way intimately connected with the passive construction in lan- guages like English (cp., e.g., Schuchardt 1896; Uhlenbeck 1917; these and several other older essays on the ergative have been collected, in Russian translation, in Bokarev (1950)). There is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence in favour of this view, the main points being as follows (not all of them are true of all ergative languages): (i) In the ergative construction, as in the passive, the (underlying) ob- ject of a transitive verb is treated morphologically the same as the subject of an intransitive verb, and differently from the (underlying) subject of a transitive verb. In Punjabi, even this parallel is not strictly correct, since t!le direct object in an ergative construction may be trans- formed into a non-direct object with nii, whereas tile subject (transitive or intransitive) never takes nti, (ii) In many ergative languages. the verb agrees with an intransitive subject and a transitive object in like manner, and either does not agree, or shows different concord markers, with a transitive subject; this is not true, for instance, of Georgian, where there are specifically subject and object markers, irrespective of nominative or ergative construction (Tschenkeli 1958: 1.348-356); it is true, for instance, of Basque (De Rijk 1966: 6); (iii) The inflection of the ergative is often the sane as that of the instrumental (e.g. Chukchee, Dargva; not Georgian); ill languages that have a passive, the agent noun phrase is often in the same case or takes the same preposition/postposition as the instrument; (iv) Ergative languages tend not to have a passive distinct from active ergative; again, Georgian is an exception (Tschenkbli 1958: 1.254), e.g.

(43) Ceril-i icereba student-is mier. The letter is written by the student.

(44) Ceril-i daicera student-is mier. The letter was written by the student.

B. C?mrie. The ergative: variations on a theme 251

(The subject of (44) is, of course, in the nominative; at no stage of derivation is peril subject of an ergative configuration.) There are also many non-ergative Lnguages that have no passive construction.

The ergative might therefore be construed as a variant of the passive, differing basically in that whereas the passive is typically an optional construction, the ergativl= would carry out the same structural change, but obligatorily. There is some historical evidence that the ergative in modern Indo-Iranian languages is in fact the reflex of an originally optional passive transformation (cp. the arguments in Pirejko 1968; this historical account is not universally accepted).

Nonetheless, and particularly if we want to retain the ergative as a unified phenomenon, I think there are more cogent arguments mili- tating against the obligatory passive as a synchronic solution to the ergative. The solution will obviously not do for languages like Georgian where there is a passive separate from the ergativc, where moreover the verb requires the same concord marker for transitive and intransitive subject, and a different marker for the dir :t object. In general, any rule that requires reference to the concepts of subject and direct object, as defined for nominative ianguages, will become cumbersome if these same definitions are not applicable to ergative languages too. A number of such rules were discussed above. Historically, it may well be true that in (some) ergative languages the ergative construction has developed from a passive at an earlier stage of the language, but this does not seem to be of synchronic relevance. Sync;lronically, the rule assigning ergativity operates on precisely the same kinds of structures as rules assigning nominative and accusative in non-ergative languages. On this basis, it is much easier to handle s of the more marginal uses of the ergative that crop up in some e ive languages. For instance, although most transitive verbs in Punjabi require the ergative construc- tion, there are a few exceptions, like &a- bring, bol- speak, myl- meet (Shackle 1972: 74), requiring the nominative construction:

(45) tivY dnil lai makkhan (masc. sg.) lyai Cfenz. sg.). woman them for butter brought The woman brought butter for them.

In Georgian, most intransitive verbs require the nominative construc- tion, but there is one exception: iarn he went requires its subject in the ergative, although it cannot take a direct object, and although other verbs meaning to go take the nominative construction in the Aorist tense-group (Tschenkeli 1958: 1.169). It is interesting to compare the

252 B. Comrie, The ergative: variations on a theme

different developments of the ergative construction in the related Kartvelian language Zan. In one form of Zan, Megrelian (Mingrelian), the subject of an aorist verb invariably (transitive or intransitive) stands in (what i:: etymologically) the ergatslve; in the other form, Chan (Laz), only the transitive subject stands in the ergative, but in all tenses (i.e. a typical ergative language) Kiziria 1967: 73-74). In certain languages (Bats, cp. (1 1 )-( 12); some American-Indian languages) the choice of the ergative is influenced by semantic factors, which combine with the syntactic-constructional environment of the ergativization rule.

On this analysis, the ergative may appear as a totally arbitrary rule for a language to have - yet the construction turns up in a number of genetically unrelated and geographically separated languages. One pos- sible explanation would be historical - if we accept that diachronically the ergative is a passive made obligatory, then it is not too far-fetched for this change to have occurred independently in different languages. There is a chance that even synchronically the rule is not so unnatural as it might appear, though this suggestion, in terms of a measure of closeness of nodes (Comrie 197 1 a: 273-274), is ctill very tentative. Let us define the closeness of nodes as: A node X is closer to a node Y than to a node x if and only if the lowest node dominating both X and Y is dominated by the lowest node dominating both X and Z.3

(46)

(47)

3 This is a natural relation to deli 23 on hierarchical structure, e.g. the members of a given sub- group are more close than members of the same group belonging to different sub-groups. In Corntie (1971a: 270-273) the measure is used in connection with Equi-W-deletion, It remains to be seen whether the measure does have general linguistic validity.

B. Cornrie, The ergative: variations on a theme 253

Referring to configurations (46) and (47) (cp. (5) and (7) - non-direct objects (oblique noun phrases) are not relevant)? we see that in (47) the non-oblique NP closest to the verb is the direct object. whereas in (46) the non-oblique NP nearest to the verb is the subject. Perhaps, then, ergative languages are putting the non-oblique NP nearest to the verb in the nominative, and other non-oblique NPs (only the transitive subject comes into question) into the! ergative.

Reference 3

Aaltio, M.-H., 1969. Finnish for foreigners. Helsinki: Otava. Abdullaev, Z.G., 1971. OEerki po sintaksisu darginskogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka. Bokarev, E.A. (ed.), 1950. Ergativnaja konstrukcija predlogenija. Moscow: Izd-vo inostrannoj

Iiteratury. Cikobava, A.S., 1967. Problema ergativnoj konstrukcii v iberijsko-kavkazskix jazykax. In: V.M.

Zirmunskij et al. (eds.), Ergativnaja konstrukcija predloZenija v jazykax razlicnyx tipov Leningrad : Nau ka.

Comrie, B., 197la. Aspects of sentence-complementation in Russian. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Ph.D. dissertation.

Comrie, B., 1971 b. Some thoughts on defining the word in phonology. Pap: Linguist. 4.3. De Rijk, R.P.G., 1966. Redefining the ergative. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, unpublished. Fillmore, C.J., 1968. The case for case. In: E. Bach, R.T. Harms (eds.), Unrversals in linguistic

theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kiziria, A.I., 1967. Zanskij jazyk. In: V.V. Vinogradov et al. (eds.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol.

IV (E.A. Bokarev et al. (eds.)). Moscow: Nauka. Lafitte, P., 1967. Grammaire basque. Bayonne: Editions des Amis du musee basque et

I kaS. Lakoff, G., 1970. Global rules. Language 46.3. MeSEaninov, II., 1967. Ergativnaja konstrukcija v jazykax razlicnyx tipov. Leningrad: Nauka. Perlm:ltter, D.M., 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: HoIt,

RiTehart and Winston. Pirejko, L.A., 1968. Osnovnye voprosy krgativnosti na materiale indoiranskix jazykov. MOSCCW:

Nauha. Schuchardt, H., 1896. uber den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen

Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch- historische Klasse, vol 133.

Shackle, C,, 1972. Punjabi. London: Teach Yourself Books. Skorik, P.Ja., 1968. Cukotskij jazyk.. In: V.V. Vinogradov et al. (eds.), Jazyki narodov SSSR,

~01. 5 (PJa. Skorik et al. (eds.)). Leningrad: Nauka. TschenkCli, K., 1958. Einfuhrung in die georgische Sprache. 2 vol. Zurich: Amirani VerIag. UhIenbeck, C.C., 1917. Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van bet verbum

actionis in talen van Noord-Amerika. Verslagen en mededeelingen der Akademie van Weten- schappen, Amsterdam, Afd. Letterkunde, V. 2.