Relational typology

The relational typology deals with how languages morphologically and syntactically express the two actants , who function as agents and patients , in transitive and intransitive sentences , i.e. H. with the fundamental grammatical relations. However, the terms of types of morphosyntactic alignment (English alignment ).

Types of sentence relations

With the relational typology or the types of morphosyntactic alignment, the following distribution is found: Neutral (without an explicit morphological case) [51.6%], nominative-accusative [S / A, P] (standard: accusative or nominative) [24, 2%], only nominative [3.2%], ergative - absolute [S / P, A] [16.8%], active-inactive language [SP / P, SA / A] [2.1%] and ergative - Accusative language [S, A, P] [2.1%].

Alignment of the monotransitive constructions

In monotransitive constructions, the verb of the sentence is connected with two arguments ( agent and patient ). Depending on which of the two arguments has the properties of the single intransitive argument, a distinction is made between three main types of alignment:

Accusative languages such as B. almost all European languages
Ergative languages such as B. Basque or almost all Caucasian languages
Active languages such as B. Dakota or Guaraní

Furthermore, one differentiates

neutral alignment, such as B. in nominal inflection in English
tripartite alignment
hierarchical alignment, such as B. Plains Cree

Alignment of the transitive constructions

A similar distinction is proposed for ditransitive constructions, i.e. constructions in which the verb is obligatorily connected with three arguments. This is usually determined based on the behavior of the verb "give". The one who gives, it is the agent , what is given is the issue , and the one to whom something is given, which is target (English goal , sometimes recipient or recipients ). The ditransitive type indicates which of the two object - arguments of a ditransitive set behaves as the object of a transitive set.

indirect alignment , d. That is, the patient of the transitive sentence is marked in the same way as the subject of the ditransitive, e.g. B. in German
secondary orientation , d. That is, the patient of the transitive sentence is marked in the same way as the destination of the ditransitive, e.g. B. in Yoruba
neutral orientation , d. That is, the two object arguments of the ditransitive set are not marked

Split systems

There are languages in which several types of alignment can be identified. In these languages it usually depends on certain properties of the arguments or the predicate which of the possible types of alignment is used. This change in the alignment of the argument marking is known as split (or more restrictively as split ergativity ).

In many cases, the position of the arguments on a scale based on the parameters animatedness and definiteness is decisive. This scale is also known as the animation hierarchy . If, for example, the object of a transitive sentence is higher in the hierarchy than the subject, a different orientation is used in these languages than in the reverse case, in which the subject is higher in the hierarchy than the object.

In other languages, a change in orientation can also be caused by other formal characteristics. In Hindi, for example, the aspect or tense controls the orientation .

literature

Hadumod Bußmann (Ed.) With the collaboration of Hartmut Lauffer: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th, revised and bibliographically supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 .
Helmut Glück (Ed.): Metzler Lexicon Language . 4th edition; Verlag JB Metzler, Stuttgart / Weimar 2010, ISBN 3-476-02335-4
Martin Haspelmath : Ditransitive constructions . In: Annual Review of Linguistics . tape 1 , 2015, p. 19-41 , doi : 10.1146 / annurev-linguist-030514-125204 .
Frans Plank (Ed.): Relational typology. Mouton, Berlin 1985.

Individual evidence

↑ Thomas Stolz: Ergativ for the bloodiest beginners. University of Bremen, pp. 1–12
^ Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil: The World Atlas Of Language Structures. Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-925591-1 .
↑ Martin Haspelmath : Argument Marking in Ditransitive Alignment Types . In: Linguistic Discovery . Vol. 3, No. 1 , 2005, p. 1–21 ( dartmouth.edu [accessed November 26, 2010]).

[1] Thomas Stolz: Ergativ for the bloodiest beginners. University of Bremen, pp. 1–12

[2] Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil: The World Atlas Of Language Structures. Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-925591-1 .

[haspelmath2005-3] Martin Haspelmath : Argument Marking in Ditransitive Alignment Types . In: Linguistic Discovery . Vol. 3, No. 1 , 2005, p. 1–21 ( dartmouth.edu [accessed November 26, 2010]).