Absolutive case
In linguistics, the absolutive case (abbreviated ABS) is a grammatical case used in ergative–absolutive languages to mark the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the direct object of a transitive verb (P), while the subject of a transitive verb (A) is typically marked by the ergative case.[1][2] This alignment contrasts with the more common nominative–accusative pattern found in languages like English, where the subject of both transitive and intransitive verbs (S and A) shares the nominative case, and the object (P) takes the accusative.[3] The absolutive is often the unmarked or default form for nouns in these systems, lacking an overt affix in many languages, which highlights its role as the baseline argument in ergative constructions.[4] Ergative–absolutive languages employing the absolutive case include Basque, various Australian Aboriginal languages such as Dyirbal, and some Caucasian languages like Lezgian, where it facilitates syntactic patterns that treat S and P similarly in processes like coreferentiality or extraction.[2][4] For instance, in Basque, the sentence "Maria lotan dago" ("Maria is sleeping") places "Maria" in the absolutive as the intransitive subject, mirroring its use as the object in transitive clauses like "Gizonak Maria ikusi du" ("The man saw Maria").[2] In Lezgian, the absolutive marks both the subject in "ruš-Ø aluqʰ-na" ("the girl fell") and the object in "ruš-a zi perem-Ø gazun-na" ("the girl tore my shirt").[3] The absolutive case is a comparative concept in typological linguistics, not always a distinct morphological category in every language, and it often interacts with animacy hierarchies or split-ergativity systems where pronouns or high-animacy nouns may follow nominative–accusative patterns instead.[3][4] Historically, ergative–absolutive systems, including the absolutive, may derive from nominalized or passive constructions in ancestral languages, as seen in the evolution of Indo-Iranian or Polynesian tongues.[4] This case underscores the diversity of argument encoding across human languages, influencing syntactic behaviors like agreement and control in clauses.[1]Definition and Alignment
Definition
The absolutive case is a grammatical case that marks the subject of an intransitive verb (often denoted as S) and the object of a transitive verb (denoted as O) in languages exhibiting ergative-absolutive alignment.[1][5] This case highlights the patient-like or thematic role in verb arguments, unifying the single core argument of intransitive clauses with the more affected participant in transitive clauses.[5] The term "absolutive" derives from Latin absolutivus and was introduced in the linguistic analysis of Eskimo languages by William Thalbitzer in his 1911 study of Eskimo grammar, where it described the basic, unmarked form of nouns.[6][7] It was subsequently extended to describe similar patterns in other language families, such as Caucasian languages.[6] In contrast to agentive or ergative cases, which mark the agent (A) of transitive verbs to indicate volitional action or causation, the absolutive typically functions as the unmarked or default case, lacking overt morphological marking in many systems.[8][9] This unmarked status underscores its role as the baseline form for core arguments aligned with the verb's patient or undergoer semantics.[8] To illustrate, consider an abstract intransitive sentence like "The dog runs," where "dog" bears the absolutive case as the sole argument (S). In a transitive counterpart, "The cat chases the dog," the "dog" again takes the absolutive as the object (O), while "cat" would receive a distinct agentive marking.[1][5] This pattern demonstrates how the absolutive unifies non-agentive roles across clause types.[9]Ergative-Absolutive vs. Nominative-Accusative
In nominative-accusative alignment, the subjects of both intransitive verbs (S) and transitive verbs (A) are treated similarly, typically marked with the nominative case, while the objects of transitive verbs (O) receive a distinct accusative marking.[9] This pattern groups the agent-like arguments together, emphasizing the role of the subject across verb types in syntactic and morphological processes.[10] In contrast, ergative-absolutive alignment treats the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) alike, both receiving the absolutive case, whereas the subject of a transitive verb (A) is marked separately with the ergative case.[9] This configuration aligns patient-like or affected arguments (S and O), distinguishing the agentive transitive subject.[10] The following table summarizes the core argument markings in these alignment systems, assuming the absolutive and nominative as the default unmarked forms:| Argument | Nominative-Accusative | Ergative-Absolutive |
|---|---|---|
| S (intransitive subject) | Nominative (unmarked) | Absolutive (unmarked) |
| A (transitive subject) | Nominative (unmarked) | Ergative (marked) |
| O (transitive object) | Accusative (marked) | Absolutive (unmarked) |
Core Usage in Ergative Systems
Morphological and Syntactic Roles
In ergative-absolutive languages, the absolutive case is frequently realized through zero-marking, appearing as the unmarked or default form of nouns without overt morphological affixation.[8] This unmarked status positions the absolutive as the most morphologically accessible case for processes like agreement, often preceding ergative or oblique cases in accessibility hierarchies.[12] However, morphological expression can vary, incorporating suffixes, prefixes, or clitics to denote the absolutive in certain contexts, such as in polysynthetic structures where it integrates with verbal morphology.[13] Syntactically, absolutive arguments serve as the primary pivots in constructions involving coordination, relativization, and control, functioning as the unmarked or default participant eligible for extraction and movement operations.[14] This pivot role stems from the absolutive's alignment with the subject of intransitive clauses and the object of transitive ones, enabling it to undergo A'-movement while ergative subjects are often restricted.[12] Additionally, the absolutive tends to be the citation form for nouns, reflecting its status as the baseline case in lexical entries and dictionary representations.[13] In terms of agreement, verbs in many ergative languages show φ-feature agreement primarily with absolutive arguments, particularly in polysynthetic systems where the absolutive incorporates into the verb complex.[12] This pattern underscores the absolutive's syntactic prominence, as it licenses agreement even in the presence of ergative subjects, contrasting with accusative systems.[13] Case stacking occurs in some ergative systems, where the absolutive forms the base layer upon which additional cases (such as locative or possessive) are affixed, especially in complex noun phrases involving adnominal modification.[15] Syncretism may also arise, with the absolutive form merging morphologically with other cases like the nominative in mixed alignments or obliques in certain paradigms, reflecting historical or functional overlaps.[13]Alignment Patterns
In ergative-absolutive systems, alignment patterns are shaped by semantic hierarchies that influence case assignment, particularly through animacy and person scales. Higher-ranking entities on the animacy hierarchy—such as humans or first/second person pronouns—occupying the A (agent) role typically trigger ergative marking, while those in the O (patient) role retain absolutive marking, preserving the core alignment despite potential shifts toward accusative-like patterns for prominent agents.[16] This hierarchy effect, first formalized by Silverstein (1976), ensures that absolutive remains the default for less agentive arguments, as seen in Dyirbal where first/second person objects receive accusative-like treatment but third-person patients stay absolutive. Exceptions arise in hierarchical constraints, where a high-animacy A may demote a low-animacy O, yet the O's absolutive form persists to maintain syntactic unity. Tense-aspect splits further constrain absolutive alignment, with the pattern proving most consistent in perfective aspects, where S (intransitive subject) and O align as absolutive while A takes ergative.[17] In non-perfective contexts like progressives or imperfectives, ergative marking often recedes, yielding neutral or nominative patterns, but perfective clauses universally reinforce absolutive for S and O to encode completed events. For instance, in Basque, perfective transitives mark agents ergatively and patients absolutive (e.g., ehiza-le-k 'hunter-ERG' and otso-a 'wolf-ABS'), whereas progressives adopt a bi-absolutive structure; similarly, Ch'ol Mayan maintains absolutive consistency for S and O in perfectives but extends ergative to S in imperfectives.[17] These splits arise from structural embedding in non-perfectives, reducing transitivity and absolutive's pivot role. Word order correlations in ergative systems often position the absolutive argument prominently, typically in SOV or VSO structures that underscore ergative's peripheral status.[10] In VSO languages like those of the Mayan family, the absolutive (S or O) immediately follows the verb, facilitating its role as a syntactic pivot, while the ergative follows it; SOV orders, common in Australian languages, place absolutive initially or medially, enhancing ergative prominence through post-verbal or oblique placement. This arrangement supports absolutive's morphological neutrality, enabling flexible extraction or agreement without disrupting core alignment.[18] Theoretical models, such as Dixon's (1979) proto-agent/proto-patient framework, explain these patterns semantically: S aligns with O as proto-patients (less agentive, more affected), distinct from proto-agent A, providing a universal basis for absolutive grouping across syntactic variations. This semantic motivation underpins hierarchy effects and splits, viewing ergative alignment as an extension of event structure where absolutive captures non-initiating roles.Variations in Case Systems
Split Ergativity
Split ergativity occurs in languages where the absolutive case and associated ergative-absolutive alignment are restricted to specific subsets of clauses, typically alternating with nominative-accusative or other patterns depending on grammatical or semantic factors. This deviation from pure ergative-absolutive systems allows for hybrid alignments that reflect contextual variations in argument marking.[19] The primary types of splits include tense-based, aspect-based, and animacy-based systems. In tense-based splits, ergative marking on the A argument (transitive subject) and absolutive on S (intransitive subject) and O (transitive object) appears in past tenses, while nominative-accusative patterns—nominative on A and S, accusative on O—emerge in non-past tenses. Aspect-based splits, often termed perfective ergativity, condition the alignment on verbal aspect, with ergative-absolutive patterns in perfective or completed actions and accusative patterns in imperfective or ongoing ones.[20] Animacy-based splits rely on a referential hierarchy of nominals, where higher-ranked arguments (e.g., speech-act participants like first and second person pronouns) follow accusative alignment, while lower-ranked ones (e.g., third-person inanimates) exhibit ergative-absolutive marking, ensuring inanimate O arguments consistently receive absolutive case.[21] These shifts can be illustrated through abstract paradigms, as shown below for a tense-based system:| Tense | A (Transitive Subject) | S (Intransitive Subject) | O (Transitive Object) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past | Ergative | Absolutive | Absolutive |
| Non-Past | Nominative | Nominative | Accusative |
| Aspect | A (Transitive Subject) | S (Intransitive Subject) | O (Transitive Object) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perfective | Ergative | Absolutive | Absolutive |
| Imperfective | Nominative | Nominative | Accusative |