Active–Stative Alignment¶

A morphosyntactic alignment pattern in which some intransitive arguments receive the coding used for transitive A arguments and others receive the coding used for transitive P arguments, conditioned by predicate class or event semantics.

Version: v2 · 2026-09-19 · History
Domain-specific #: 1235
Domain group: Humanities
Origin domain: Linguistics & Semiotics
Subdomains: Linguistic Typology, Morphosyntactic Alignment → Linguistics & Semiotics
Aliases: Active-stative alignment, Active-inactive alignment, Agent-patient alignment

Core Idea¶

Active–stative alignment is a morphosyntactic alignment pattern in which the sole argument of an intransitive predicate is not coded uniformly. Some intransitive arguments are treated like the more agent-like argument of a transitive clause; others are treated like the more patient-like argument. In standard typological notation, let A be the transitive agent-like argument, P (or Dixon's O) the transitive patient-like argument, and S the sole argument of an intransitive clause. Active–stative alignment contains both

\[ S_A=A \qquad\text{and}\qquad S_P=P \]

How would you explain it like I'm…

Doer Words and Done-To Words

In some languages, the little word for 'me' changes shape depending on what's happening. In 'I jump,' it looks like the 'me' who does the kicking in 'I kick the ball.' But in 'I fall,' it can look like the 'me' who gets bumped in 'the ball bumps me.' That's active–stative alignment.

Doer-Like or Done-To

Every language has sentences where someone does something to someone else, like "The dog chased the cat," and sentences with just one person or thing, like "The cat slept." Many languages mark that one person the same way every time. But in languages with active–stative alignment, it depends on the verb: sometimes the one person gets the "doer" marking and sometimes the "done-to" marking. The split often lines up with things like doing something on purpose versus something just happening, but not perfectly, because each verb's choice is partly a matter of habit. In some of these languages, a speaker can pick either marking to show whether something was done on purpose or by accident.

Split Intransitive Marking

Linguists compare how languages mark three kinds of participants: A, the more agent-like participant of a transitive (two-participant) clause; P, the more patient-like one; and S, the only participant of an intransitive (one-participant) clause. In active–stative alignment, S is split: some S arguments are coded like A, and others like P, in the same case, agreement, or person-marking system. In split-S systems, each intransitive verb is conventionally assigned to one class, and the classes tend to line up with meaning, such as control, volition, or change of state, though history leaves exceptions. In fluid-S systems, some verbs allow either coding depending on how the event is construed, for example whether the participant acted on purpose or by accident. The pattern is construction-specific: a language may use it in verb agreement but not in noun case marking, so calling a whole language 'active' is shorthand.

Active–stative alignment is a morphosyntactic pattern in which the sole argument of an intransitive predicate (S) is not coded uniformly: within a given case, agreement, or indexing subsystem, some intransitive arguments pattern with the transitive agent-like argument (S_A = A) and others with the transitive patient-like argument (S_P = P). The split is semantically motivated but not always transparent. In split-S systems, lexical predicate classes fix which coding S receives, and these classes correlate with volition, control, instigation, affectedness, change of state, stativity, or inherent aspect, with exceptions from lexicalization and historical change. In fluid-S systems, some predicates allow both codings, and the choice tracks a constrained construal of the event or participant, such as controlled versus accidental involvement, not free stylistic choice. The identity belongs to specific constructions: a language can be active–stative in verbal person indexing yet have another alignment in nominal case, or only in some tense-aspect forms. A and P are comparison positions defined by transitive coding and need not be literal agents and patients. The A/P/S comparison and the split-S/fluid-S diagnostic are what make this a distinct typological category.

Scope of Application¶

The abstraction belongs to linguistic typology, descriptive grammar, morphosyntax, lexical semantics, and historical linguistics. It is used to compare language-specific systems, to decide whether an apparent “subject” category is uniform, to document pronominal or agreement paradigms, and to reconstruct how semantic motivations become lexicalized or grammaticized. The Oxford volume The Typology of Semantic Alignment includes general chapters and case studies from Eurasia, eastern Indonesia, and the Americas, including Tundra Nenets, Basque, Amis, Lakota, Otomi, Guaraní, Arawak languages, and Pilagá. This breadth establishes recurrence without implying that all those systems are structurally identical.

Clarity¶

A reliable analysis begins with four tables rather than with English translations. First, establish how A and P are coded in the target subsystem. Second, inventory the coding of S across underived intransitive predicates. Third, test whether the S forms match the A and P series. Fourth, model the distribution using lexical class and contextual semantic variables. Only then assign the alignment label.

Manages Complexity¶

The abstraction compresses a potentially disorderly inventory of agreement prefixes, clitics, cases, and verb classes into a comparison with three grammatical positions and a conditioning rule. Instead of memorizing that dozens of intransitive predicates take one of two series, an analyst asks which share A coding, which share P coding, and which semantic or lexical features predict the distribution. Exceptions then become diagnosable as lexicalization, competing features, historical residue, or misanalysis rather than undifferentiated irregularity.

Abstract Reasoning¶

Several inferences follow from the signature. If an alleged active marker never occurs with transitive A, its analysis as \(S_A=A\) requires additional justification. If P-like S marking appears only on derived passives, voice may explain it better than active–stative alignment. If the same intransitive predicate alternates with a stable contrast in control, affectedness, or event viewpoint, fluid-S is supported; if it does not alternate, a split-S lexical analysis is safer.

Knowledge Transfer¶

The abstraction transfers literally among case-marking studies, agreement and indexing analyses, lexicon–grammar interface research, field grammar, and diachronic typology. In each practice the analyst identifies A, P, and S; verifies two S coding patterns; and determines whether lexical class or event semantics conditions the selection. This common procedure supports comparison even when one language uses suffixal case and another uses verbal pronominal prefixes.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction Active–Stative Alignment Domain-specific

Parents (1) — outgoing typed relations

Active–Stative Alignment presupposes Function (Mapping) Prime

Active–Stative Alignment presupposes prime:function_mapping: a grammar maps a fully specified predicate-and-context input to an A-like or P-like coding output.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Active–Stative Alignment → presupposes Function (Mapping)

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

Active–Stative Alignment sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (91^st percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.

Family — Unclustered & Miscellaneous (2769 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-25