2008 | 44 | 4 | 433-447
Article title

Proto-Indo-European Ergativity… Still to be Discussed

Selected contents from this journal
Title variants
Languages of publication
Since Uhlenbeck's seminal article ("Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen", 1901) many scholars have accepted the hypothesis of an ergative case in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) given the light it could shed on obscure facts discovered by the comparatist school inside the IE family. The Soviet linguistic school has been particularly active on ergativity in relation with their interests for living languages of the Caucasus and for ancient languages of the Middle East. More recent works on ergativity have shifted the focus to Australian languages. When the theory of language universals took ergativity into consideration, scholars began to seek an explanation of the so-called "split ergativity" in relation with Silverstein's animacy hierarchy. A sequel of this was that the kind of split ergativity demonstrated by PIE seemed contrary to the accepted universals and, consequently, discarded. This paper challenges the way language universals have been used to refute the PIE ergativity hypothesis. Indeed, the influence of the animacy hierarchy is known to be effective in many languages, but more as a tendency than as an absolute universal. Also, PIE is not a fully-fledged language, but rather a field of experimentation. I also present the viewpoint that PIE could have had no split at all, but solely a semantic impossibility to use inanimate noun phrases in an agent role, which seemed backed up by similar "embarrassments" in modern languages and by the so-called "Hittite ergative".
Physical description
  • Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
  • Bauer, B. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bossong, G. 1998. "Le marquage différentiel de l'objet dans les langues d'Europe". In: Feuillet J. (ed.), Actance et valence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 193-258.
  • Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Dixon, R. 2002. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Filimonova, E. 2005. "The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence". Linguistic Typology 9(1). 77-113.
  • Hjelmslev, L. 1971. Essais linguistiques. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
  • Katznelson, S. D. 1947a. "K proizxoždeniju èrgativnoj konstrukcii". In: Žirmunskij V. M. (ed.), Èrgativnaja konstrukcija i èrgativnoje predloženije v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". 33-41.
  • Katznelson, S. D. 1947b. "Èrgativnaja konstrukcija i èrgativnoe predloženie". Izvestija AN SSSR VI(1). 43-49.
  • Kilarski, M. 2007. "Algonquian and Indo-European gender in a historiographic perspective". Historiographia Linguistica 34(2). 333-349.[Crossref]
  • Kortlandt, F. 1983. "Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax". Journal of Indo-European Studies 11. 307-324.
  • Kuryłowicz, J. 1946. "Èrgativnost' i stadial'nost' v jazyke". Izvestija AN SSSR V(5). 387-393.
  • Laroche, E. 1962. "Un ‘ergatif’ en indo-européen d'Asie Mineure". Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 57. 23-43.
  • Ledo-Lemos, F. 2003. Femininum Genus: A study on the origins of the Indo-European feminine grammatical gender. Munich: Lincom-Europa.
  • Lehmann, W. 1995. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.
  • Lehmann, W. "Proto-Indo-European syntax"
  • Meillet, A. 1931. "Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes - La théorie du féminin". Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 32. 1-28.
  • Meillet, A. 1937. Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
  • Meščaninov, I. I. 1967. Èrgativnaja konstrukcija v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".
  • Rumsey, A. 1987. "The chimera of Proto-Indo-European ergativity". Lingua 71. 297-318.
  • Sánchez-Lafuente André, Á. 2006. "El género gramatical en latí: teorís ergativistas". In: Valverde Sánchez, M., E. A. Calderó Dorda and A. Morales Ortiz (eds.), Koinós lógos: Homenaje al profesor José García López. Murcia: Unniversidad de Murcia. 945-952.
  • Savčenko, A. N. 1967. "Èrgativnaja konstrukcija predloženija v praindoevropejskom jazyke". In: Žirmunskij V. M. (ed.), Èrgativnaja konstrukcija i èrgativnoje predloženije v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". 74-90.
  • Seriot, P. Cours de linguistique russe: Verbes pronominaux. (Université de Lausanne.)
  • Szemerényi, O. 1999. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Tchekhoff, C. 1978. "Le double cas sujet des inanimés: Un archaïsme de la syntaxe hittite?". Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 77. 225-241.
  • The Universals Archive.
  • Tronskij, I. M. 1967. "O donominativnom prošlom indoevropejskix jakykov". In: Žirmunskij V. M. (ed.), Èrgativnaja konstrukcija i èrgativnoje predloženije v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". 91-94.
  • Uhlenbeck, C. 1901. "Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen". Indogermanische Forschungen 12. 170-172.
  • Vaillant, A. 1936. "L'ergatif indo-européen". Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 37. 93-108.
  • Villar, F 1984. "Ergativity and animate/inanimate gender in Indo-European". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97. 167-196.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.