Active–stative alignment

In linguistic typology, active–stative alignment (also split intransitive alignment or semantic alignment) is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument ("subject") of an intransitive clause (often symbolized as S) is sometimes marked in the same way as an agent of a transitive verb (that is, like a subject such as "I" or "she" in English) but other times in the same way as a direct object (such as "me" or "her" in English). Languages with active–stative alignment are often called active languages.

The case or agreement of the intransitive argument (S) depends on semantic or lexical criteria particular to each language. The criteria tend to be based on the degree of volition, or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant.

For example, if one tripped and fell, an active–stative language might require one to say the equivalent of "fell me." To say "I fell" would mean that the person had done it on purpose, such as taking a fall in boxing. Another possibility is empathy; for example, if someone's dog were run over by a car, one might say the equivalent of "died her." To say "she died" would imply that the person was not affected emotionally.

If the core arguments of a transitive clause are termed A (agent of a transitive verb) and P (patient of a transitive verb), active–stative languages are languages that align intransitive S as S = P/O∗∗ ("fell me") or S = A ("I fell"), depending on the criteria described above.

Active–stative languages contrast with accusative languages such as English that generally align S as S = A, and with ergative languages that generally align S as S = P/O; that is, there are two types of S in active-stative languages. In ergative languages, some types of O/P can similarly be O/P=A.

For most such languages, the case of the intransitive argument is lexically fixed for each verb, regardless of the actual degree of volition of the subject, but often corresponding to the most typical situation. For example, the argument of swim may always be treated like the transitive subject (agent-like), and the argument of sleep like the transitive direct object (patient-like). In Dakota, arguments of active verbs such as to run are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, and arguments of inactive verbs such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. In such language, if the subject of a verb like run or swallow is defined as agentive, it will be always marked so even if the action of swallowing is involuntary. This subtype is sometimes known as split-S.

In other languages, the marking of the intransitive argument is decided by the speaker, based on semantic considerations. For any given intransitive verb, the speaker may choose whether to mark the argument as agentive or patientive. In some of these languages, agentive marking encodes a degree of volition or control over the action, with the patientive used as the default case; in others, patientive marking encodes a lack of volition or control, suffering from or being otherwise affected by the action, or sympathy on the part of the speaker, with the agentive used as the default case. These two subtypes (patientive-default and agentive-default) are sometimes known as fluid-S.

If the language has morphologicalcase, the arguments of a transitive verb are marked by using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object. The argument of an intransitive verb may be marked as either.^[1]

Languages lacking case inflections may indicate case by different word orders, verb agreement, using adpositions, etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede the verb, and the agentive argument might follow the verb.

Cross-linguistically, the agentive argument tends to be marked, and the patientive argument tends to be unmarked. That is, if one case is indicated by zero-inflection, it is often the patientive.

Additionally, active languages differ from ergative languages in how split case marking intersects with Silverstein's (1976) nominal hierarchy:

pronouns (1st>2nd>3rd person) > proper nouns > common nouns (human > animate > inanimate)

Specifically, ergative languages with split case marking are more likely to use ergative rather than accusative marking for NPs lower down the hierarchy (to the right), whereas active languages are more likely to use active marking for NPs higher up the hierarchy (to the left), like first and second person pronouns.^[2] Dixon states that "In active languages, if active marking applies to an NP type a, it applies to every NP type to the left of a on the nominal hierarchy."

Active languages are a relatively new field of study. Active morphosyntactic alignment used to be not recognized as such, and it was treated mostly as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive). Also, active languages are few and often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal).^[3]

Thus, the terminology used is rather flexible. The morphosyntactic alignment of active languages is also termed active–stative alignment or semantic alignment. The terms agentive case and patientive case used above are sometimes replaced by the terms active and inactive.

(†) = extinct language

• verbo ambitransitivo
• Caso
• alternancia de diátesis
• Lenguaje ergativo-absolutivo
• verbo lábil
• Alineación morfosintáctica
• Lenguaje nominativo-absolutivo (alineación nominativa marcada)
• Lenguaje nominativo-acusativo
• verbo inacusativo
• verbo inergativo

• Andréasson, Daniel. Active languages(PDF) (BA thesis). Stockholm University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2008-03-02.
• Bauer, Brigitte (2000). Archaic Syntax in Indo- European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs. Vol. 125. de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110825992. ISBN 978-3-11-016723-8.
• Blake, Barry J. (1994). "Survey of Case Marking". Case. Cambridge University Press. pp. 118–160. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164894.007. ISBN 978-0-521-80761-6.
• Benveniste, Emile (1971). Origines de la Formations des Noms en Indoeuropéen. Paris: Adrien- Maissonneuve. pp. 171–172.
• Cunha de Oliveira, Christiane (2003). "Lexical categories and descriptives in Apinajé". International Journal of American Linguistics. 69: 243–274. doi:10.1086/381336. S2CID 224805397.
• de Castro Alves, Flávia (2010). "Evolution of Alignment in Timbira". International Journal of American Linguistics. 76 (4): 439–475. doi:10.1086/658054. S2CID 224806935.
• Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). "Ergativity". Language. 55 (1): 59–138. doi:10.2307/412519. JSTOR 412519.
• Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44898-0.
• Donohue, Mark; Wichmann, Søren, eds. (2005). The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199238385.
• Gamkrelidze, Thomas V.; Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. (1995) [1984]. "El protoindoeuropeo como lengua de tipo activo". Los indoeuropeos y los indoeuropeos . Traducido por Nichols, Johanna. Mouton de Gruyter. págs. 233–276 . doi : 10.1515/9783110815030.1.233 . 
• Gamkrelidze, Thomas V.; Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. (1995) [1984]. "La sintagmática gramatical del protoindoeuropeo en perspectiva tipológica". Los indoeuropeos y los indoeuropeos . Traducido por Nichols, Johanna. Mouton de Gruyter. págs. 277– 324. doi : 10.1515/9783110815030.1.277 . 
• Gante, Christiane (2007). Objektkasus im Indogermanischen (tesis de Magisterarbeit). Universidad de Hamburgo.
  • Gante, Christiane (2008). Objektkasus im Indogermanischen . Grin Verlag. ISBN 978-3-640-18143-8.
• Haas, Mary R. (1946). "Un esbozo gramatical de Tunica". En Hoijer, Harry (ed.). Estructuras lingüísticas de los nativos americanos . Nueva York: Viking. pp. 337–366 . 
• Harris, Alice (1981). Sintaxis georgiana: un estudio de gramática relacional . Estudios de lingüística de Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-10971-0.
• Harris, Alice C. (1985). Sintaxis diacrónica: el caso kartveliano . Orlando: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-613518-3.
• Hoijer, Harry (1946). "Charicahua Apache". En Hoijer, Harry; Osgood, Cornelius (eds.). Estructuras lingüísticas de los nativos americanos . Nueva York: Viking. pp. 55–84 . LCCN 46007600 .  
• Holisky, Dee Ann (1987). "El caso del sujeto intransitivo en Tsova-Tush (Batsbi)". Lingua . 71 ( 1– 4): 103– 32. doi : 10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6 .
• Iliev, Ivan G. (2007). Caso y vocatividad (en ruso e inglés). Plovdiv: Pygmalion. ISBN 978-954-9402-19-3.
• Ivanova, Natalia (2008). Construcciones impersonales como residuo de un lenguaje activo (Magisterarbeit). Universidad de Hamburgo.
• Klimov, Georgij A. (1973). Očerk obščej teorii ergativnostiОчерк общей теории эргативности[ Esquema de una teoría general de la ergatividad ] . Moscú: Nauka.
• Klimov, Georgij A. (1974). "On the Character of Languages of Active Typology". Linguistics. 12 (131): 11–25. doi:10.1515/ling.1974.12.131.11. S2CID 144143087.
• Klimov, Georgij A. (1977). Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo StrojaТипология Языков Активного Строя[Typology of Active Languages]. Moscow: Nauka.
• Klimov, Georgij A. (1983). Principy kontensivnoj tipologiiПринципы контенсивной типологии[On Contentive Typology]. Moscow: Nauka.
• Langemann, Katrin (2004). Morphologie und Syntax der Nominativ- und Akkusativkasus im Indogermanischen (Magisterarbeit). Universität Hamburg.
• Lehmann, Winfred P. (2002). Pre-Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph. Vol. 41. ISBN 978-0-941694-82-7. LCCN 2002102266.
• Lehmann, Winfred P. (1995). Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects. Innsbruck.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Lehmann, Winfred P. (1993). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge.
• Mithun, Marianne (1991). "Active/agentive case marking and its motivation". Language. 67 (3): 510–546. doi:10.2307/415036. JSTOR 415036.
• Seki, Lucy (1990). "Kamaiurá (Tupí-Guaraní) as an active–stative language". In Payne, Doris L. (ed.). Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 367–391.
• Suda, Junichi (2025). “TheLate-Klimov Model for Typological Classification of Active, Ergative, and Nominative Languages ― Re-evaluation of the Five Macroroles Model, et al.”. Typological Studies 7: 83–109.

• Bentley, D. (2011) Split intransitivity in Italian. De Gruyter Mouton.