No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Discourse Basis of Ergativity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 March 2026
Abstract
This paper examines the phenomenon of ergativity and its relation to patterns of surface grammar and information flow in discourse. Corresponding to the grammatical pattern of ergativity (exemplified in the A vs. S/O distribution of verbal cross-referencing morphology in Sacapultec Maya) there is an isomorphic pattern of information flow: information distribution among argument positions in clauses of spoken discourse is not random, but grammatically skewed toward an ergative pattern. Arguments comprising new information appear preferentially in the S or O roles, but not in the A role—which leads to formulation of a Given A Constraint. Evidence from other languages suggests that the ergative patterning of discourse extends beyond the ergative type to encompass accusative languages as well. Given the linguistic consequences of a type-independent Preferred Argument Structure, it is argued that language-internal phenomena as fundamental as the structuring of grammatical relations can be shaped by forces arising out of discourse, viewed as the aggregate of instances of language use.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1987 Linguistic Society of America
Footnotes
*
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the West Coast Mayan Symposium, Santa Barbara, April 15, 1981; the American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles, December 4, 1981; the UCLA Linguistics Colloquium, February 12, 1982; the Berkeley Linguistics Society (monthly meeting), April 13, 1982; the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, October 4, 1984; and Helsinki University, December 13, 1984. (An earlier brief paper—presenting, in outline, many of the key concepts of the present work—was circulated as Du Bois 1981a; cf. also Du Bois 1981b:285–6.) I wish to thank members of the various audiences for their many helpful and often challenging comments. I especially wish to thank Judith Aissen, Wallace Chafe, Jon Dayley, Mark Durie, Barbara Edmonson, Charles Fillmore, John Haiman, Paul Hopper, Ed Keenan, Tom Larsen, Marianne Mithun, Tony Naro, Johanna Nichols, Will Norman, Doris Payne, Janine Scancarelli, Michael Silverstein, Sandy Thompson, and Alan Timberlake for comments on earlier versions of this work. I also thank my students in my Winter 1984 UCLA proseminar, ‘Preferred clause structure in discourse and grammar’; through their questions and comments, often quite challenging, they have improved both my understanding and my exposition of several of the matters treated below. I thank Stephan Schuetze-Coburn and Marian Shapley for statistical advice. Any remaining failings are of course my responsibility.
Special thanks go to my Sacapultec assistants Manuel Lancerio, Petronila Gómez Alecio, and Jacinto Mutás, for help in gathering the Sacapultec materials; and to the many other individuals from Sacapulas who made this study possible. The field research reported here was partially supported by a series of grants from the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages during 1974–1979; additional research support was received during 1981–84 from the UCLA Academic Senate.
References
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970a. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970b. A semantically based sketch of Onondaga. (Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, Memoir 25.) Bloomington.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, ed by Charles N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. Discourse and syntax (Syntax and semantics, 12), ed. by Givón, Talmy, 159–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980a (ed.) The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980b. The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In Chafe 1980a:9–50.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. To appear in Tomlin (ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia. 1980. Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe 1980a: 127–202.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic typology, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P., 329–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cooreman, Ann. 1982. Topicality, ergativity, and transitivity in narrative discourse: Evidence from Chamorro. Studies in Language 6.343–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann; and Givón, Talmy. 1984. The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8.1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1987. The Rama language: A text with grammatical notes. To appear in Journal of Chibchan Studies 5.Google Scholar
Cumming, Susanna, and Wouk, Fay. 1987. Is there ‘discourse ergativity’ in Austronesian languages? To appear in Lingua (Special issue on ergativity, ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayley, Jon P. 1981. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2.3–82.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Lg. 57.626–57.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1987. Introduction to special issue of Lingua on ergativity, to appear.Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela. 1985. Classifier constructions and referentiality marking in Japanese. Paper presented at the Conference on Japanese Language and Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1980a. The search for a cultural niche: Showing the Pear Film in a Mayan community. In Chafe 1980a: 1–7.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1980b. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe 1980a:203–74.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1981a. Ergativity and preferred argument structure in Sacapultec discourse. University of California, Santa Barbara, ms.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1981b. The Sacapultec language. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1985a. Competing motivations. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, John, 343–65. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1985b. Mayan morpheme structure and the final vowel question in Quichean. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 5.1–71.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987a. Absolutive zero: Paradigm adaptivity in Sacapultec Maya. To appear in Lingua. (Special issue on ergativity, ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987b. Constraint and strategy: Transitivity in the management of information flow. UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987c. The pear story in Sacapultec: A case study of information flow in narrative. To appear in Mayan Voices: Maya text and discourse, ed. by Louanna Furbee (Mayan Texts 4, Native American Texts Series.) Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dutra, Rosalia. 1987. The hybrid S category in Brazilian Portuguese: Some implications for word order. To appear in Studies in Language 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeg-Olofsson, Mats, and Svartvik, Jan. 1984. Four-level tagging of spoken English. Corpus linguistics, ed. by Aarts, Jan and Meijs, Willem, 53–64. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, Nora C. 1986. Mamean voice: Syntactic and narrative considerations. University of Iowa, MS.Google Scholar
Feldman, Heidi, Goldin-Meadow, Susan; and Gleitman, Lila. 1978. Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children. Action, gesture, and symbol, ed. by Lock, Andrew, 351–414. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals of linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current issues in linguistic theory, ed. by Cole, Roger W., 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 1984. Discourse structures and anaphora in written and conversational English. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics 6.185–205.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983a (ed.) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy; and Yee, P. 1985. The tracking of automated referents in discourse: Automated vs. attended processes. (Technical Report 85–3.) Eugene: Cognitive Science Program, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Introduction. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, J. (Typological studies in language, 6), 1–7. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1979a. Some discourse sources of ergativity. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawaii, 11.137–53.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1979b. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Discourse and syntax, ed. by Givón, Talmy (Syntax and semantics, 12), 213–41. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1983. Ergative, passive, and active in Malay narrative. Discourse perspectives on syntax, ed. by Klein-Andreu, Flora, 67–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987a. How ergative is Malay? Papers from the Third Eastern Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, OH: Southeast Asian Center, Ohio University.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987b. Emergent grammar and the A-Priori Postulate. To appear in a volume edited by Deborah Tannen.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Lg. 56.251–99.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1985. The ‘Given A Constraint’ and the Japanese particle ga. Proceedings of the First Annual Pacific Linguistics Conference, ed. by DeLancey, Scott and Tomlin, Russell S., 152–67. Eugene: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Kalmar, Ivan. 1979. The antipassive and grammatical relations in Eskimo. In Plank, 117–43.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1984. Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction. Linguistics 22.197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse. To appear in Tomlin (ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Thomas W. 1981. Functional correlates of ergativity in Aguacatec. Berkeley Linguistics Society 7.136–153.Google Scholar
Larsen, Thomas W., and Norman, William M. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. In Plank, 347–70.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 457–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham, and Blake, Barry J. 1982. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 1978. Ergativity, case and transitivity in Eastern Pomo. IJAL 44.1–9.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1985. Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. Grammar inside and outside the clause, ed. by Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony C., 324–62. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1986. When zero isn't there. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12.195–211.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45.223–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela, and Gordon, Lynn. 1982. Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean. Lg. 58.81–115.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1985. The grammatical marking of theme in literary Russian. Issues in Russian morphosyntax, ed. by Flier, Michael S. and Brecht, Richard D. (UCLA Slavic studies, 11), 170–86. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1977. The One Clause at a Time Hypothesis. University of Auckland, ms.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1983. Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 7.551–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 1987. Information structuring in Papago narrative discourse. Lg. 63.783–804.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1979 (ed.) Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Regamey, Constantin. 1954. À propos de la ‘construction ergative’ en indo-aryen moderne. Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung: Festschrift Albert Debrunner, 368–87. Bern.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1984. Whither radical pragmatics? Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 139–49. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of ‘Het passieve karakter …‘, by C. C. Uhlenbeck. IJAL 1. 82–6.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1982. Subjektprominenz. Fakten und Theorien: Festschrift für H. Stimm, 267–86. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Scancarelli, Janine S. 1985. Referential strategies in Chamorro narratives: Preferred clause structure and ergativity. Studies in Language 9.335–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan. 1987. Topic management and the lexicon: A discourse profile of three-argument verbs in German. Los Angeles: UCLA master's thesis.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, Robert M. W., 112–71. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1980. Cognitive implications of a referential hierarchy. Unpublished paper presented at the Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen, Holland.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1981. Case-marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1.227–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Wendy. 1987. Preferred Argument Structure in spoken Hebrew discourse. UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions. Papers in Mayan Linguistics, ed. by England, Nora C. (Miscellaneous publications in anthropology, 6; Studies in Mayan linguistics, 2), 169–87. Columbia, MO: Museum of Anthropology, University of Missouri.Google Scholar
Stewart, Anne. 1984. A glance at Preferred Argument Structure in Conchucos Quechua. UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1982. The segmentation of impromptu speech. Impromptu speech, ed. by Enkvist, Nils Erik (Publications of the Research Institute of the Abo Akademi, 78), 131–45. Åbo, Finland.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan, et al. 1982. Survey of spoken English: Report on research, 1975–1981. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1987 (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. To appear, Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhaar, John. 1983. Ergativity, accusativity, and hierarchy. (Sophia linguistica, 11.) Tokyo: Sophia University.Google Scholar
- 474
- Cited by