Download ERGATIVITY AND UNACCUSATIVITY

ERGATIVITY AND UNACCUSATIVITY
(to appear in the Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics; please see my web
site for publication details)
Edith Aldridge, University of Washington
The main goal of this lemma is to summarize how the term ‘ergativity’ has been used in
analyzing aspects of Chinese syntax. In the typological literature, ‘ergativity’ typically
refers to the patterning of transitive objects with intransitive subjects for the purposes of
case-marking and certain syntactic operations like relative clause formation. The term
‘ergativity’ is also sometimes used to refer to an alternation between the transitive and
intransitive use of a verb in which the argument functioning as the direct object in the
transitive variant is the subject when the verb is used intransitively. It is in this latter sense
that ‘ergativity’ can be observed in Chinese.
1. Ergativity
An ergative-absolutive case-marking system is distinguished from a nominative-accusative
one in that the case of the subject in an intransitive clause receives the same marking as the
object in a transitive clause. This is referred to as ‘absolutive’ case. The subject in a
transitive clause receives a different case, which is termed ‘ergative’. In the Pama-Nyugan
language Dyirbal, absolutive case is phonologically null; the ergative case is realized as the
suffix -nggu.
Dyirbal (Dixon 1994:161)
banaga-nyu
(1) a. yabu
mother.ABS
return-NONFUT
‘Mother returned.’
b. nguma
yabu-nggu
father.ABS mother-ERG
bura-n
see-NONFUT
‘Mother saw father.’
This pattern contrasts with an accusative language like English, in which transitive and
intransitive subjects are marked alike, while the object in a transitive clause is treated
differently. Case in English is indicated by position in the clause: subjects appear in
preverbal position, while objects in transitive clauses follow the verb.
(2) a. Mary saw John.
b. Mary came.
The accusative pattern is confirmed by examining the personal pronouns, which show a
morphological distinction between nominative and non-nominative case. Only the
nominative form of the pronoun is grammatical in the preverbal subject position, while the
non-nominative must be used in post-verbal object position.
(3) a. She/*her saw him/*he.
b. She/*her came.
In addition to the case marking system, some languages also exhibit ‘syntactic ergativity’,
whereby transitive objects and intransitive subjects are eligible to undergo certain syntactic
operations which transitive subjects are not. For example, in many Inuit, Mayan, and
Austronesian languages – as well as the Pama-Nyugan language Dyirbal – a relative clause
can be formed only on the absolutive argument. In the following Dyirbal examples, the gap
position in the relative clause in (4a) is the direct object; in (4b), it is the subject of an
intransitive clause. A relative clause cannot be formed directly on the subject of a transitive
clause. In order to extract a transitive subject, the embedded verb must have the antipassive
suffix –nga. An antipassive is semantically transitive in that the verb takes two arguments.
However, it is formally intransitive, since the object is not marked absolutive but rather has
oblique case. In Dyirbal this case is dative. The external argument is treated as an
intransitive subject and consequently can be extracted.
Dyirbal
(4) a. palan
jukumpil [ ___ ngaja
there. ABS woman. ABS
purangu]
1S.NOM
nyinanyu
see. REL.ABS sit-NONFUT
‘The woman whom I am watching is sitting down.’
b. ngumai
father.ABS
[
(Levin 1983:282)
banaga-ngu]
yabu-nggu
bura-n
return-REL.ABS
mother-ERG
see-NONFUT
‘Mother saw father, who was returning.’
(Dixon 1994:169)
c. yabui
[
mother.ABS
bural-nga-ngu
nguma-gu]
banaga-nyu
see-AP-REL.ABS
father-DAT
return-NONFUT
‘Mother, who saw father, was returning.’
(Dixon 1994:170)
Throughout their attested history, Sinitic languages have exhibited accusative alignment
with respect to both morphology and syntax. Like English, Chinese varieties generally
mark case positionally, placing subjects in clause-initial position and objects after the verb,
as seen in the following Standard Mandarin examples.
(5) a. 李四買了那本書。
Lǐsì
mǎi
le
nà
běn
shū.
Lisi
buy
ASP
DEM
CL
book
‘Lisi bought that book.’
b. 李四來了。
Lǐsì
lái
le.
Lisi
come
ASP
‘Lisi came.’
There is also no asymmetry between transitive subjects and objects in relative clause
formation. Relative clauses can be formed on either subject or object position.
(6) a. 買了那本書的人
[
mǎi
le
nà
běn
shū ]
de
rén
buy
ASP
DEM
CL
book
DE
person
‘person who bought that book’
b. 李四買的書
[Lǐsì
mǎi
Lisi
buy
] de
DE
shū
book
‘book that Lisi bought’
In sum, Standard Mandarin, as well as the other Chinese varieties, is an accusative
language. However, the term ‘ergative’ has been applied in some research in Chinese
syntax to refer to one class of intransitive verbs, which I discuss in the next section.
2. Unaccusativity and ‘ergativity’ in Chinese
Since Perlmutter (1978), it is well known that intransitive verbs come in two varieties:
unergative verbs, which take an external argument like an agent as their sole argument; and
unaccusative verbs, which only take an internal argument like a theme. The term
‘unaccusative’ refers to the lack of canonical accusative licensing for the semantic object,
while ‘unergative’ refers to the lack of special licensing for the semantic subject. In most
languages, the single argument of any type of intransitive verb is marked uniformly as
either nominative (in an accusative language) or absolutive (in an ergative language).
Unaccusative constructions are treated as ergative by some linguists, because of the
mapping from argument structure to grammatical relations. Specifically, the grammatical
subject in these intransitive constructions has the thematic status of a direct object.
It is in this sense that Cikoski (1978) analyzes unaccusative verbs as ‘ergative’ in
Classical Chinese (approximately 500-200 BCE). The ‘ergative’ verbs in Classical Chinese
participate in alternations like that illustrated in (7). The intransitive variant in (7a) merely
asserts the proposition that the subject has escaped from death. The transitive variant in
(7b) is a causative construction which includes an agent (causer) responsible for the
servant’s being saved. Cikoski treats this alternation as a type of ergativity, because the
object in the transitive clause has the same semantic relationship to the verb in (7b) as the
subject does in the intransitive clause in (7a). Both are internal arguments, specifically
themes.
(7)
a. 臣免於死。
(Zuǒzhuàn, Wén 左傳:文 10/3; Cikoski 1978:131)
Chén
miǎn
yú
sǐ.
servant
escape
from
die
‘Your servant has escaped from death.’
b. 君 … 免臣於死。
(Zuǒzhuàn, Chéng 左傳： 成 17/13; Cikoski 1978:130)
Jūn
miǎn
chén
yú
sǐ.
lord
cause.to.escape
servant
from
die
‘Your Lordship has … saved your servant from death.’
Unergative verbs are termed ‘neutral’ verbs in Cikoski’s analysis. These can also often be
either transitively or intransitively. In this alternation, the argument retained in the
intransitive clause is the semantic subject, i.e. the external argument.
(8)
a. 王 … 避風雨。
Wáng bì
king
fēng
(Zuǒzhuàn, Xī 左傳:僖 32/5; Cikoski 1978:131)
yǔ.
avoid wind rain
‘The king … retreated from the storm.’
b. 王 … 避。
(Zuǒzhuàn, Zhāo 左傳 昭公 12/9; Cikoski 1978:132)
Wáng bì.
king
avoid
‘The king … retreated.’
Zhōu Fǎgāo 周法高 (1961), Yáng Bójùn 杨伯峻 and Hé Lèshì 何乐士(1992), Pulleyblank
(1995), and others characterize the alternation in (7) as an active/passive pair. This analysis
is ultimately credited to Mǎ Jiànzhōng 馬建忠 (1898), who classifies passives as
constructions in which the recipient of the action (shòuzhě 受者) functions as the subject.
Wáng Lì 王力 (2004:484) distinguishes this alternation from morphologically marked
passives by referring to it as ‘conceptual passive’ (gàiniàn bèidòngshì 概念被動式). Lǚ
Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 (1992:57) rejects the passive analysis and treats the unaccusative variant
as a stative construction (biǎotàijù 表態句), pointing out that the completion of an action
results in a state. More recently, Ōnishi 大西 (2004) and Wū
巫 (2008) adopt the
approach taken by Cikoski (1978), labeling the unaccusative verb class as ‘ergative’ (zuògé
作格).
Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 (1987) observes that the same two verb classes are found in
Modern Standard Mandarin. In the unergative class (his ‘pattern one’ dìyī géjú 第一格局),
the single argument in the intransitive variant corresponds to the subject in the transitive
version.
(9)
a. 中國隊勝南朝鮮隊。
(Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 1987:1)
Zhōngguó duì
shèng nán
China
win
team
cháoxiān duì.
south Korea
team
‘The Chinese team defeats the South Korean team.’
b. 中國隊勝。
(Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 1987:1)
Zhōngguó duì
shèng.
China
win
team
‘The Chinese team wins.’
In contrast, ‘pattern two’ (dìèr géjú 第二格局) verbs are unaccusative. The single argument
in the intransitive clause corresponds to the object in the transitive version.
(10)
a. 中國隊敗南朝鮮隊。
(Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 1987:1)
Zhōngguó duì
bài
nán
China
lose
south Korea
team
cháoxiān duì.
team
‘The Chinese team defeats the South Korean team.’
b. 南朝鮮隊敗。
nán
(Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 1987:1)
cháoxiān duì
south Korea
team
bài.
lose
‘The South Korean team loses.’
Lǚ considers whether the existence of the unaccusative/transitive alternation classifies
Chinese as an ergative language but quickly dismisses this possibility. He points out first
that Chinese lacks the morphological case alignment found in languages like Dyirbal, as
shown in (1) above. He further notes that only a subclass of Chinese verbs (specifically, the
unaccusatives) participate in the alternation in which a semantic object is the surface
subject.
Huáng Zhèngdé 黃正德 (1989) seconds the conclusion that Chinese is not an ergative
language, pointing out that the ‘ergative’ (i.e. unaccusative) type of verb is found in
accusative languages as well. As demonstrated by Burzio (1986), Italian unaccusative verbs
(which he terms ‘ergative’) behave very much like those in Standard Mandarin. The direct
object of the transitive verb in (11a) surfaces as the subject when the same verb is used
intransitively, as in (11b).
Italian (Burzio 1986:25)
(11)
a. L’artiglieria
the.artillery
affondò
due
navi
nemiche.
sank
two
ship
enemy
The artillery sank two enemy ships.’
b. Due
navi
nemiche
affondarono.
two
ship
enemy
sank
‘Two enemy ships sank.’
A vast body of literature has explored the unaccusative/transitive alternation in Standard
Mandarin. Among those who do not use the term ‘ergative’ are Sybesma (1992, 1999),
Cheng and Huang (1994), Yu (1995), Gù Yáng 顾阳 (1996), Yuan (1999), Xú Jié 徐杰
(1999, 2001), Yáng Sùyīng 杨素英 (1999), Hán Jǐngquán 韩景泉 (2001), Tāng Tíngchí 湯
廷池 (2002), and Pān Hǎihuá 潘海华 and Jǐngquán 韩景泉 (2005). Here, I briefly
introduce some of the approaches which use the term ‘ergative’ to refer to unaccusative
verbs.
Y.-H. Li (1990) and Zhou (1990) examine existential and presentational verbs in
Standard Mandarin. These verbs are unaccusative (‘ergative’) and hence take an internal
argument as their subject. Interestingly, this argument can surface in its post-verbal base
position when it is indefinite, as in (12a). The subject may also appear in pre-verbal
position, but in this case it is interpreted as definite, as in (12b).
(12)
a. 來了客人。
Lái
le
kèrén.
come
ASP
guest
‘There came some guests.’
b. 客人來了。
Kèrén
lái
le.
guest
come
ASP
‘The guests came.’
(Y.-H. Li 1990:137)
In contrast, only preverbal position is possible for the subject of an unergative verb. This is
because the sole argument of an unergative verb is an external argument, which never
occupies a VP-internal position during the course of the derivation.
(13)
a. 客人哭了。
Kèrén
kū
le.
guest
cry
ASP
‘The guests cried.’
b. *哭了客人。
*Kū
cry
le
kèrén.
ASP
guest
‘There cried some guests.’
(Y.-H. Li 1990:137)
Another type of unaccusative construction which has been labeled ‘ergative’ in the
literature is the type which alternates with causative constructions, as in the following pair
of examples from Cheng and Huang (1994:188). As a theme internal argument, the subject
in the intransitive clause in (14a) merely undergoes the action expressed by the predicate.
In the transitive (causative) variant in (14b), this participant (now the direct object) is made
to undergo this action by the subject. This alternation is parallel to that observed in (7)
above for Classical Chinese.
(14)
a. 張三嚇了一跳。
Zhāngsān xià-le
yī
Zhangsan shock-ASP one
tiào.
jump
‘Zhangsan was taken by surprise.’
b. 李四嚇了張三一跳。
Lǐsì
xià-le
Zhāngsān
Lisi
shock-ASP Zhangsan
yī
tiào.
one
jump
‘Lisi surprised Zhangsan.’
Dèng Sīyǐng 邓思颖 (2004) discusses an asymmetry between unaccusative and unergative
verbs in the ability to undergo passivization, which he terms ‘ergativization’ (zuògéhuà 作
格化). Specifically, ergativization derives a passive (unaccusative) verb from a transitive
verb and promotes the thematic object to subject status. The internal argument must then
occupy preverbal subject position.
(15)
a. *被殺了張三。
Bèi
shā
le
Zhāngsān.
PASS
kill
ASP
Zhangsan
‘Zhangsan was killed.’
b. 張三被殺了。
Zhāngsān bèi
shā
le.
Zhangsan
kill
ASP
PASS
‘Zhangsan was killed.’
Contrary to this, unergative verbs cannot be passivized, because there is no internal
argument in their argument structure to be promoted.
(16) *張三被哭了。
Zhāngsān bèi
kū
le.
Zhangsan
cry
ASP
PASS
‘*Zhangsan was cried.’
Shěn Yáng 沈阳 and Rint Sybesma (2010) analyze what they refer to as ‘middle
constructions’ (zhōngdòng jiégòu 中动结构) employing the auxiliary gěi 给. They show
that the main verb in this construction must be unaccusative fēibīngé 非宾格 (which they
also term ‘ergative’ zuògé 作格). (17a) shows that gěi can precede an unaccusative verb but
not an unergative verb (17b).
(17)
a. (犯人)给跑了.
Fànrén
gěi
pǎo
le.
criminal
GEI
run
ASP
‘(The criminal) was allowed to escape.’
b. *(她)给哭了.
Tā
gěi
kū
le.
she
GEI
cry
ASP
‘She was made to cry.’
(Shěn and Sybesma 2010:226)
Interestingly, they show that there is a difference between middle constructions and pure
unaccusative/ergative constructions in that the former has a causative sense that the latter
does not. Specifically, the middle construction has an implicit agent, while the
unaccusative/ergative construction is a simple intransitive.
(18)
a. 米饭煮糊了.
Mǐfàn zhǔ
hú
le.
rice
burn
ASP
cook
‘The rice burned.’
b. 米饭给煮糊了.
Mǐfàn gěi
zhǔ
hú
le.
rice
cook
burn
ASP
GEI
‘The rice was burned (by someone).’
(Shěn and Sybesma 2010:231)
To summarize the discussion in this section, the term ‘ergative’ is often employed to refer
to unaccusative verbs in Classical Chinese and Modern Standard Mandarin. I have also
pointed out, however, that having an unaccusative verb class does not suffice to classify a
language as ergative. The next section considers an attempt in the literature to claim that
Standard Mandarin has ergative characteristics beyond the existence of an unaccusative
verb class.
3. Ergativity beyond unaccusativity?
Building on earlier work by Zēng Lìyīng 曾立英 and Yáng Xiǎowèi 杨小卫 (2005), Zēng
Lìyīng 曾立英 (2009) proposes that the surface positioning of subjects in unaccusative
constructions in Standard Mandarin provides evidence for split-ergativity in the language.
Specifically, she claims that case-marking in Standard Mandarin is sensitive to the animacy
hierarchy first proposed by Silverstein (1976) and expanded on by Dixon (1994).
According to this hierarchy, pronouns and NPs referring to humans are more likely to be
marked according to an accusative pattern, while common nouns, especially those referring
to non-humans, are more compatible with an ergative pattern.
(19)
Nominal Hierarchy (Dixon 1994:85)
1st/2nd person pronoun
3rd person pronoun
Proper noun
Common noun
Nom/Acc marking ========================= Erg/Abs marking
This type of ‘NP split-ergativity’ is found in a number of ergative languages, including
Pama-Nyungan languages like Dyirbal. As shown above in (1), 3rd person NPs are marked
with ergative and absolutive case in Dyirbal. But marking on 1st and 2nd person pronouns
follows a nominative/accusative pattern. In (20), both intransitive and transitive subjects
appear without an overt case-marker, while the transitive object in (20c) takes the
accusative suffix -na. Morphologically, the null nominative marker is identical to the
absolutive marker shown in (1). The difference between (1) and (20) is the distribution of
this form, marking absolutives in (1) and subjects in (20).
(20)
Dyirbal (Dixon 1994:161)
a. ŋana
banaga-nyu
we.NOM
return- NONFUT
‘We returned.’
b. nyurra
banaga-nyu
you.PL.NOM
return- NONFUT
‘You all returned.’
c. ŋana
we.NOM
nyurra-na
bura-n
you.PL-ACC
see- NONFUT
‘We saw you all.’
Zēng (2009) claims that case-marking in Standard Mandarin is subject to a similar animacy
hierarchy. As discussed previously for (12), the subject of an unaccusative verb can surface
in post-verbal position when it is indefinite. Zēng assumes that the post-verbal NP in an
unaccusative clause like (21b) functions as an object in the syntax. Since the intransitive
‘subject’ is treated as an object, the clause can be said to display an ergative pattern.
(21)
a. 電報來了。
Diànbào
lái
le.
telegram
come
ASP
‘The telegram arrived.’
b. 來電報了。
Lái
diànbào
come telegram
le.
ASP
‘A telegram arrived.’
(Zēng 2009:319)
In contrast to the alternation in (21), pronouns and personal names are restricted to
preverbal position when selected as the single argument of an intransitive verb. In other
words, this type of NP can only function as a subject in intransitive clauses. Since personal
names and pronouns are marked the same way (i.e. in preverbal position) in both transitive
and intransitive clauses, Zēng (2009) claims that they follow a nominative/accusative
pattern.
(22)
a. 我來了。
Wǒ
lái
le.
I
come
ASP
‘The telegram arrived.’
b. *來了我。
Lái
wǒ
come I
le.
ASP
‘A telegram arrived.’
(Zēng 2009:319)
Further consideration, however, reveals that the asymmetry between (21b) and (22b) does
not provide evidence for split-ergativity in Mandarin. Rather, it is merely an instantiation of
the definiteness restriction discussed for (12) in the previous section. Given that subjects in
post-verbal position must be indefinite, pronouns and personal names will never surface in
this position because they are inherently definite.
5. Concluding remarks
This lemma has introduced the two main ways in which the term ‘ergativity’ is used in the
field of linguistics. An ‘ergative’ language is uncontroversially a language which aligns
transitive objects with intransitive subjects in its case-marking system and possibly other
aspects of its grammar. Less commonly, the term ‘ergative’ is used interchangeably with
‘unaccusative’. This is the sense in which the term ‘ergative’ has been appropriately applied
in research on Chinese. In all other respects, Sinitic varieties are accusative languages.
References
Burzio, Luigi, Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding approach, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1986.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and C.-T. James Huang “On the argument structure of resultative
compounds”, in: Matthew Y. Chen and Ovid J. L. Tzeng, eds., In honor of William S-Y
Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, Taipei: Pyramid
Press, 1994, 187-221.
Cikoski, John, “Three essays on Classical Chinese grammar: (1) An outline of word-classes
and sentence structure in Classical Chinese”, Computational Analysis of Asian and
African Languages, 8, 1978, 17-152.
DeLancey, Scott, “Ergativity: Functional and formal issues”, Language 57, 1981, 626-657.
Dèng Sīyǐng 邓思颖 [Tang Sze-Wing], “Zuogehua he Hanyu beidongju 作格化和汉语被
动句 [Ergativization and Chinese passive sentences]”, Zhōngguó Yǔwén 中国语文, 301,
2004, 291-301.
Dixon, R.M.W, Ergativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Gù Yáng 顾阳, “Shēngchéng yǔfǎ jí cíkù zhōng dòngcí de yīxiē tèxìng 生成语法及词库中
动词的一些特性 [Generative grammar and lexical properties of verbs]”, Guówài
Yǔyánxué 国外语言学 1996, 3, 1-16.
Hán Jǐngquán 韩景泉, “Yīng Hàn yǔ cúnxiànjù de shēngchéng yǔfǎ yánjiū 英汉语存现句
的生成语法研究 [Existential sentences in English and Chinese: Towards a generative
analysis]”, Xàndài Wàyǔ 现代外语, 24, 2, 2001, 143-158.
Huáng ZhèngDé 黃正德, “Zhōngwén de liǎngzhǒng jíwù dòngcí hé liǎngzhǒng bùjíwù
dòngcí 中文的兩種及物動詞和兩種不及物動詞 [Two kinds of transitive verbs and
intransitive verbs in Chinese]”, in Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress of Chinese
Language Studies 第二屆世界華文教學研究會議論文集, Taipei: World Chinese
Language Association, 1989,39-59.
Levin, Beth, On the nature of ergativity, Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation, 1983.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey, Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.
Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘,“Shūo ‘shèng’ hé ‘bài’ 说 ‘胜’和‘败’ [On ‘shèng’ and ‘bài’]”,
ZhōngguóYǔwén 中国语文, 196, 1987, 1-5.
Lǚ Shūxiāng 呂叔湘 (1942), Zhōngguó wénfǎ yàolüè 中國文法要略 [Outline of Chinese
grammar]. Reprinted in Taipei 台北: Wénshǐzhé 文史哲出版社, 1992.
Mǎ Jiànzhōng 馬建忠, Mǎ Shì wéntōng 馬氏文通 [Ma’s Guide to the written language],
Shànghǎi 上海: Shāngwù 商务印書館, 1898.
Ōnishi, Katsuya 大西, “Shīshòu tóngcí chúyì: Shǐjì zhōng de zhōngxìng dòngcí hé zuògé
dòngcí 施受同辭芻議: 《史紀》中的’中性動詞’和’作格動詞 [On transitivity
alternations: Neutral and ergative verbs in the Shiji]”, in: Ken-ichi Takashima and
Jiang Shaoyu, eds., Meaning and Form: Essays in Pre-Modern Chinese Grammar,
2004, 375-394.
Pān Hǎihuá 潘海华 and Jǐngquán 韩景泉, Xǐanxìng fēibīngé dòngcí jiégòu de jùfǎ yánjiū
显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究 [The surface syntax of unaccusative constructions]”,
Studies in Language and Linguistics 语言研究 25, 3, 2005, 1-13.
Perlmutter, David, “Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis”, in: Proceedings
of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1978, 157-190.
Pulleyblank, Edwin, Outline of Classical Chinese grammar, Vancouver: UBC Press, 1995.
Shěn Yáng 沈阳 and Rint Sybesma, “Jùfǎ jiégòu biāojì gěi yǔ dòngcí jiégòu de yǎshēng
guānxi 句法结构标记”给”与动词结构的衍生关系 [The derivational relation between
the syntactic marker gei and several verbal constructions]”, Zhōngguó Yǔwén 中国语文
2010, 3, 222-237.
Silverstein, Michael, “Hierarchy of features and ergativity”, in: R.M.W. Dixon, ed.,
Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Canberra: Australian Institute of
Aboriginal Studies, 1976, 112-171.
Sybesma, Rint, Causatives and Accomplishments: The case of Chinese ba, Doctoral
dissertation, Leiden University, 1992.
Sybesma, Rint, The Mandarin VP, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
Tāng Tíngchí 湯廷池, “Hànyǔ fùhé dòngcí de shǐdòng yǔ qǐdòng jīaotì 漢語復合動詞的使
動與起動交替 [The causative-inchoative alternation in Chinese compound verbs]”,
Language and Linguistics 3, 3, 2002, 615-644.
Wáng Lì 王力 (1958), Hànyŭ shǐgǎo 漢語史搞 [Lectures on the history of Chinese].
Reprinted in Běijīng 北京: Zhōnghuá 中華書局, 2004.
Wū Xuěrú
巫雪如, “Cóng rènzhī yǔyìxué de jiǎodù kàn Shànggǔ Hànyǔ de ‘zuògé
dòngcí’ 從認知語義學的角度看上古漢語的「作格動詞」 [An investigation on the
‘ergative verbs’ in Pre-Qin Chinese from the viewpoint of cognitive semantics]”,
Qīnghuá Zhōngwén Wuébào 清華中文學報 2008, 2, 161-198.
Xú Jié 徐杰, “Liǎngzhǒng bǎoliú bīnyǔ jùshì jí xiāngguān jùfǎ lǐlùn wèntí 两种保留宾语
句式及相关句法理论问题 [Some theoretical issues of the two types of Chinese
‘retained object’ constructions], Dāngdài Yǔyánxué 当代语言学 1999, 1, 16-29.
Xú Jié 徐杰, “’Jíwùxìng tèzhēng yǔ xiāngguān de sìlèi dòngcí ‘及物性’特征与相关的四类
动词 [‘Transitivity’ and four classes of relevant verbs]”, Yǔyán Yánjiū 语言研究 2001,
3, 1-11.
Yáng Bójùn 杨伯峻 and Hé Lèshì 何乐士, Gǔ Hànyǔ yǔfǎ jí qí fāzhǎn 古汉语语法及其发
展 [Old Chinese Grammar and its development], Běijīng 北京: Yǔwén 语文出版社,
1992.
Yáng Sùyīng 杨素英, “Cóng fēibīngé dòngcí xiànxiàng kàn yǔyì yǔ jùfǎ jiégòu zhī jiān de
guānxi 从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系 [On the relationship
between syntax and semantics from the perspective of unaccusative verbs]”, Dāngdài
yǔyánxué 当代语言学 1999, 1, 30-62.
Yu, Ning, “Towards a definition of unaccusative verbs in Chinese”, in: Jose Camacho and
Lina Choueiri, eds., Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese
Linguistics, vol. 1, 1995, 339-353.
Yuan, Boping, “Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language:
Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese”, Linguistics 37, 2, 275-296,
1999.
ZēngLìyīng 曾立英, Xiàn Dài Hànyǔ Zuògé Xiànxiàng Yánjiū 现代汉语作格现象研究
[Ergativity in Mandarin Chinese], Běijīng 北京: ZhōngyāngMínzúDàxué 中央民族大
学出版社, 2009.
ZēngLìyīng 曾立英 and YángXiǎowèi 杨小卫, “Cóng ‘zuògé’ jiǎodù tán zhǔyǔ xìtǒng de
xuǎnzé 从”作格”角度谈主语系统的选择[On the choice of subject system from the
ergative perspective]”, HànyǔXuébào 12, 4, 2005, 22-30.
Zhōu Fǎgāo 周法高, Zhōngguó gǔdài yǔfǎ: Zàojù biān 中國古代語法: 造句編 [A
Historical grammar of Ancient Chinese, Part 1: Syntax], Taipei 台北: Academia Sinica,
Institute of History and Philology, 1961.
Zhou, Xinping, Aspects of Chinese Syntax: Ergativity and Phrase Structure, Urbana:
University of Illinois dissertation, 1990.
Aldridge, Edith, is associate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University
of Washington. She has published on Old and Middle Chinese syntax in a variety of
journals, including the Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Language and Linguistics
Compass, Studies in Chinese Linguistics, The Linguistic Review, as well as collected
volumes, such as Movement Theory of Control (Benjamins, 2010), and Historical Syntax
and Linguistic Theory (OUP, 2009). Her work on ergativity begins with her (2004)
dissertation from Cornell University and continues in subsequent work published in
Language and Linguistics Compass, Lingua, and numerous collected volumes.
Keywords: alignment, case, causative, ergativity, external argument, internal argument,
passive, transitivity, unaccusative, unergative
Teaser: This lemma summarizes two uses of the term ‘ergativity’ in linguistic research and
shows that’ ergativity’ in Chinese is limited to the mapping of a thematic object to
grammatical subject in unaccusative clauses, a universal syntactic phenomenon which is
unrelated to the typological classification of languages according to their case-marking
pattern.