Alignment (morphosyntactic) - Revision history

Admin at 08:56, 20 July 2023

2023-07-20T08:56:32Z

Admin at 10:49, 9 July 2021

2021-07-09T10:49:12Z

Admin at 06:44, 15 June 2021

2021-06-15T06:44:03Z

Admin at 10:23, 8 March 2021

2021-03-08T10:23:16Z

Admin at 15:17, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T15:17:17Z

Admin at 13:26, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T13:26:43Z

Admin: Created page with "==Translations== Allineamento | structure d’actance | morphosyntaktische Ausrichtung ==Article== Morphosyntactic alignment, or simply alignment, is a morphosyntactic struct..."

2020-12-14T09:20:03Z

Created page with "==Translations== Allineamento | structure d’actance | morphosyntaktische Ausrichtung ==Article== Morphosyntactic alignment, or simply alignment, is a morphosyntactic struct..."

New page

==Translations==
Allineamento | structure d’actance | morphosyntaktische Ausrichtung

==Article==
Morphosyntactic alignment, or simply alignment, is a morphosyntactic structural feature governing the codification of core semantic roles into grammatical relationships (Dixon 1994). It is typologically distributed and is scalar rather than polarized. Two polar configurations are:
# the [[ergative-absolutive]] system, involving the presence of a single codification for the PATIENT and ([[inaccusative]] intranstive) SUBJECT opposed to a different codification for the AGENT. In a formula, it can be expressed as S = O ≠ A (where S indicates the subject case, O the patient case, A the agent case. The AGENT case is called ergative, and it is typically marked. The PATIENT/SUBJECT case is called absolutive, and it is often unmarked (it is not unusual for it to be encoded by a 0-morpheme in inflected and agglutinative languages).
# the [[nominative-accusative]] system, involving the presence of a single codification for the SUBJECT and AGENT roles, and a different one for the PATIENT. In this case, the AGENT/SUBJECT case is called nominative, while the PATIENT role is called accusative. The pattern is: S = A ≠ O.</br>
However, as the opposition is all but polarized, and many languages present a mix of ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative behaviors, producing a range of phenomena that are referred to as “split-ergative” patterns. In systems that base on the A,S,O coordinates, semantically [[inergative]] predicates may pattern with either transitive or inaccusative predicates, often in a hardluy predictable fashion, which contributes to the complexity of the possible outcomes.</br>
Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative]] alignment, in which the semantic core opposition is between stative and non-stative predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that Indo-European patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
In contact scenarios, alignment systems are relevant because it may trigger and/or be affected by [[grammatical interference]].

==Examples==
see: [[ergative-absolutive]] system, [[nominative-accusative]] system, [[split-ergative]] system, [[active-stative]] alignment

==References==
Bauer, B. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European: the spread of transitivity in Latin and French, Berlin.
Dixon, R. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge.
Viti, C. 2014. Reconstructing Syntactic Variation in Proto-Indo-European, in Indo-European Linguistics 2, 73-111.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 # the nominative-accusative system, involving the presence of a single codification for the SUBJECT and AGENT roles, and a different one for the PATIENT. In this case, the AGENT/SUBJECT case is called nominative, while the PATIENT role is called accusative. The pattern is: S = A ≠ O.</br>
 <p>However, as the opposition is all but polarized, and many languages present a mix of ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative behaviors, producing a range of phenomena that are referred to as “split-ergative” patterns. In systems that base on the A,S,O coordinates, semantically inergative predicates may pattern with either transitive or inaccusative predicates, often in a hardly predictable fashion, which contributes to the complexity of the possible outcomes.</p>
-Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative alignment]], in which the semantic core opposition is based on the semantics features of the predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that Indo-European patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
+Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative alignment]], in which the semantic core opposition is based on the semantics features of the predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that [[language family | Indo-European]] patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
 In contact scenarios, alignment systems are relevant because it may trigger and/or be affected by [[grammatical interference]].

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==Article==
 Morphosyntactic alignment, or simply alignment, is a morphosyntactic structural feature governing the codification of core semantic roles into grammatical relationships (Dixon 1994). It is typologically distributed and is scalar rather than polarized. Two polar configurations are:
-# the ergative-absolutive system, involving the presence of a single codification for the PATIENT and (inaccusative intranstive) SUBJECT opposed to a different codification for the AGENT. In a formula, it can be expressed as S = O ≠ A (where S indicates the subject case, O the patient case, A the agent case. The AGENT case is called ergative, and it is typically marked. The PATIENT/SUBJECT case is called absolutive, and it is often unmarked (it is not unusual for it to be encoded by a 0-[[morpheme]] in inflected and agglutinative languages).
+# the ergative-absolutive system, involving the presence of a single codification for the PATIENT and (inaccusative intranstive) SUBJECT opposed to a different codification for the AGENT. In a formula, it can be expressed as S = O ≠ A (where S indicates the subject case, O the patient case, A the agent case. The AGENT case is called ergative, and it is typically marked. The PATIENT/SUBJECT case is called absolutive, and it is often unmarked (it is not unusual for it to be encoded by a 0-[[morpheme]] in [[typological classification|inflected]] and [[typological classification|agglutinative]] languages).
 # the nominative-accusative system, involving the presence of a single codification for the SUBJECT and AGENT roles, and a different one for the PATIENT. In this case, the AGENT/SUBJECT case is called nominative, while the PATIENT role is called accusative. The pattern is: S = A ≠ O.</br>
 <p>However, as the opposition is all but polarized, and many languages present a mix of ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative behaviors, producing a range of phenomena that are referred to as “split-ergative” patterns. In systems that base on the A,S,O coordinates, semantically inergative predicates may pattern with either transitive or inaccusative predicates, often in a hardly predictable fashion, which contributes to the complexity of the possible outcomes.</p>

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 # the nominative-accusative system, involving the presence of a single codification for the SUBJECT and AGENT roles, and a different one for the PATIENT. In this case, the AGENT/SUBJECT case is called nominative, while the PATIENT role is called accusative. The pattern is: S = A ≠ O.</br>
 <p>However, as the opposition is all but polarized, and many languages present a mix of ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative behaviors, producing a range of phenomena that are referred to as “split-ergative” patterns. In systems that base on the A,S,O coordinates, semantically inergative predicates may pattern with either transitive or inaccusative predicates, often in a hardly predictable fashion, which contributes to the complexity of the possible outcomes.</p>
-Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative]] alignment, in which the semantic core opposition is based on the semantics features of the predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that Indo-European patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
+Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative alignment]], in which the semantic core opposition is based on the semantics features of the predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that Indo-European patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
 In contact scenarios, alignment systems are relevant because it may trigger and/or be affected by [[grammatical interference]].

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==Article==
 Morphosyntactic alignment, or simply alignment, is a morphosyntactic structural feature governing the codification of core semantic roles into grammatical relationships (Dixon 1994). It is typologically distributed and is scalar rather than polarized. Two polar configurations are:
-# the [[ergative-absolutive]] system, involving the presence of a single codification for the PATIENT and ([[inaccusative]] intranstive) SUBJECT opposed to a different codification for the AGENT. In a formula, it can be expressed as S = O ≠ A (where S indicates the subject case, O the patient case, A the agent case. The AGENT case is called ergative, and it is typically marked. The PATIENT/SUBJECT case is called absolutive, and it is often unmarked (it is not unusual for it to be encoded by a 0-[[morpheme]] in inflected and agglutinative languages).
+# the ergative-absolutive system, involving the presence of a single codification for the PATIENT and (inaccusative intranstive) SUBJECT opposed to a different codification for the AGENT. In a formula, it can be expressed as S = O ≠ A (where S indicates the subject case, O the patient case, A the agent case. The AGENT case is called ergative, and it is typically marked. The PATIENT/SUBJECT case is called absolutive, and it is often unmarked (it is not unusual for it to be encoded by a 0-[[morpheme]] in inflected and agglutinative languages).
-# the [[nominative-accusative]] system, involving the presence of a single codification for the SUBJECT and AGENT roles, and a different one for the PATIENT. In this case, the AGENT/SUBJECT case is called nominative, while the PATIENT role is called accusative. The pattern is: S = A ≠ O.</br>
+# the nominative-accusative system, involving the presence of a single codification for the SUBJECT and AGENT roles, and a different one for the PATIENT. In this case, the AGENT/SUBJECT case is called nominative, while the PATIENT role is called accusative. The pattern is: S = A ≠ O.</br>
-<p>However, as the opposition is all but polarized, and many languages present a mix of ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative behaviors, producing a range of phenomena that are referred to as “split-ergative” patterns. In systems that base on the A,S,O coordinates, semantically [[inergative]] predicates may pattern with either transitive or inaccusative predicates, often in a hardluy predictable fashion, which contributes to the complexity of the possible outcomes.</p>
+<p>However, as the opposition is all but polarized, and many languages present a mix of ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative behaviors, producing a range of phenomena that are referred to as “split-ergative” patterns. In systems that base on the A,S,O coordinates, semantically inergative predicates may pattern with either transitive or inaccusative predicates, often in a hardly predictable fashion, which contributes to the complexity of the possible outcomes.</p>
-Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative]] alignment, in which the semantic core opposition is between stative and non-stative predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that Indo-European patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
+Other models of alignment also exist, including the [[active-stative]] alignment, in which the semantic core opposition is based on the semantics features of the predication, and a few minor systems that are represented in a very modest amount of observed languages. The active-stative alignment has received a fair amount of attention in historical grammar, because some scholars propose that Indo-European patterned with it (Bauer 2000, recently discussed by Viti 2014).</br>
 In contact scenarios, alignment systems are relevant because it may trigger and/or be affected by [[grammatical interference]].
 ==References==