In Robert Pensalfini & Norvin Richards (eds.), MITWPEL 2: Papers on Australian Languages. Dep. Linguistics, MIT (2000)

Maria Bittner
Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Ergative languages make up a substantial percentage of the world’s languages. They have a case system which distinguishes the subject of a transitive verb from that of an intransitive, grouping the latter with the object — that is, the object of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb are in the same case, which we refer to as the nominative. However, ergative languages differ from one another in important ways. In Greenlandic Eskimo the nominative, whether it is a subject or an object, is syntactically prominent in the clause, much like a subject in English; but in Warlpiri, the nominative is not prominent, more like an object. The variable prominence of the nominative manifests itself as well in the semantics, e.g., default scope of indefinite and quantified nominals. Using data from Greenlandic Eskimo and Warlpiri, and from Hindi, which represents a split ergative system, this paper develops a general theory of case which explains the observed differences amongst ergative languages. In addition, the theory is designed to account for the accusative language type, represented by English.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Barriers.Noam Chomsky - 1986 - MIT Press.
The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English.Richard Montague - 1973 - In Patrick Suppes, Julius Moravcsik & Jaakko Hintikka (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht. pp. 221--242.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On the Semantics of the Greenlandic Antipassive and Related Constructions.Maria Bittner - 1987 - International Journal of American Linguistics 53:194–231.
From Ergative Case Marking to Semantic Case Marking.Gontzal Aldai - 2008 - In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford University Press.
The Prereflective Cogito as Contaminated Opacity.Merold Westphal - 2007 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (S1):152-177.
Quantification in Eskimo: A Challenge for Compositional Semantics.Maria Bittner - 1995 - In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 59--80.
Remarks on Definiteness in Warlpiri.Maria Bittner & Ken Hale - 1995 - In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Concerning the Ergative.Georges Dumézil - 1979 - Diogenes 27 (105):4-7.
The Puzzle of the Subject as Subject in Lonergan.Frederick E. Crowe - 2003 - International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (2):187-205.
Formal and Existential Analysis of Subject and Properties.Marek Rosiak - 2006 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):285-299.
Overt Nominative Subjects in Infinitival Complements in Hungarian.Anna Szabolcsi - 2009 - In Marcel den Dikken & Robert Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11. John Benjamins. pp. 251–276.


Added to PP index

Total views
172 ( #60,514 of 2,445,678 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #87,366 of 2,445,678 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes