Ergative–absolutive alignment¶

A morphosyntactic alignment grouping an intransitive subject with a transitive object and treating the transitive agent differently.

Version: v2 · 2026-09-19 · History
Domain-specific #: 4411
Domain group: Humanities
Origin domain: Linguistics & Semiotics
Subdomain: Linguistic Typology → Linguistics & Semiotics
Aliases: Ergative alignment

Core Idea¶

Alignment may appear in case marking, agreement or syntax and may split by tense, aspect, person or clause type; the labels S, A and P avoid importing an English subject category. The grammar assigns the same absolutive coding or behavior to S and P while A receives ergative coding, and constructions such as coordination or relativization may reveal deeper syntactic alignment. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

How would you explain it like I'm…

The Doer Gets a Special Tag

In some languages, words get little tags that show who is doing what. In 'the boy sleeps' and in 'the dog chases the boy,' the boy gets the same tag both times. Only the one doing the chasing gets a special different tag.

Sleeper and Kicked-Thing Match

Sentences can have one main person, like 'The girl ran,' or two, like 'The girl pushed the box.' English treats 'the girl' the same in both sentences. Ergative languages group things differently. The runner in the one-person sentence and the box that got pushed get the same marking. The pusher gets a special marking called ergative. This grouping can show up in word endings, in how verbs agree, or in how sentences are built.

S-and-P Grouping Alignment

Linguists label three roles: S, the only argument of an intransitive verb; A, the agent-like argument of a transitive verb; and P, the patient-like argument of a transitive verb. These neutral labels avoid assuming that every language has an English-style 'subject.' In nominative–accusative languages like English, S and A are treated alike ('she ran', 'she saw him'). In ergative–absolutive alignment, S and P share the same 'absolutive' coding, while A gets a distinct 'ergative' coding. This pattern can appear in case endings, in verb agreement, or in syntax. Many languages are split, using ergative patterns only in certain tenses, aspects, persons or clause types.

Ergative–absolutive alignment is a typological pattern in how a language groups its core arguments. Using the role labels S (sole intransitive argument), A (transitive agent), and P (transitive patient), the grammar gives S and P the same absolutive coding or behavior and singles out A with ergative coding. That coding may be case morphology, verbal agreement, or syntactic behavior. Syntactic diagnostics such as coordination or relativization can reveal whether the alignment goes deeper than morphology. Many languages have ergative morphology but largely accusative syntax. Alignment is often split, conditioned by tense/aspect, by person, or by clause type. Claims should be made for a specific language and construction. They should be supported by glossed examples, should state which form is morphologically marked, and should explicitly contrast the pattern with nominative–accusative alignment, where S groups with A.

Scope of Application¶

Ergative–absolutive alignment belongs to linguistic typology and is useful where the analyst can specify the typed linguistic typology carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, then evaluate the language and construction, S A and P arguments, morphological case or agreement markers, syntactic diagnostics, split conditions, markedness pattern, examples with glosses and comparison with nominative-accusative alignment are explicit. The scope is broad within that domain but bounded by the need for the language and construction, S A and P arguments, morphological case or agreement markers, syntactic diagnostics, split conditions, markedness pattern, examples with glosses and comparison with nominative-accusative alignment are explicit.

Clarity¶

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making the language and construction, S A and P arguments, morphological case or agreement markers, syntactic diagnostics, split conditions, markedness pattern, examples with glosses and comparison with nominative-accusative alignment are explicit the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test.

Manages Complexity¶

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to Ergative–absolutive alignment. Ergative–absolutive alignment compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

Abstract Reasoning¶

Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: the typed linguistic typology carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem.
Lock the constitutive rule. Express the language and construction, S A and P arguments, morphological case or agreement markers, syntactic diagnostics, split conditions, markedness pattern, examples with glosses and comparison with nominative-accusative alignment are explicit independently of one notation or implementation.

Knowledge Transfer¶

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of linguistic typology because they reuse the typed linguistic typology carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, The grammar assigns the same absolutive coding or behavior to S and P while A receives ergative coding, and constructions such as coordination or relativization may reveal deeper syntactic alignment., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the language and construction, S A and P arguments, morphological case or agreement markers, syntactic diagnostics, split conditions, markedness pattern, examples with glosses and comparison with nominative-accusative alignment are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction Ergative–absolutive alignment Domain-specific

Parents (1) — outgoing typed relations

Ergative–absolutive alignment is a kind of Classification Prime

It remains its own entry because its identity is fixed by the language and construction, S A and P arguments, morphological case or agreement markers, syntactic diagnostics, split conditions, markedness pattern, examples with glosses and comparison with nominative-accusative alignment.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Ergative–absolutive alignment → is a kind of Classification

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

Ergative–absolutive alignment sits in a crowded region of the domain-specific corpus (14^th percentile for distinctiveness): several abstractions share nearly its structure, so a description that fits it tends to fit its neighbors too.

Family — Grammatical Case & Syntactic Structure (18 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

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