Previously, we have taken a look at the systems of morphosyntactic alignment that are commonly seen in the world’s languages, as well as some of their rarer counterparts. From alignments like nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive to rarer ones like symmetrical voice, we have seen how different languages have taken different approaches to express the relationship between certain elements in a sentence or a clause. Today, we will look at an alignment system predominantly seen in the languages of the Americas, though other examples may be seen in the languages of the Caucasus and East Asia.

The active-stative alignment is a rather special kind of alignment system, as the treatment of the agent or subject of a clause is dependent on the semantics of the main verb itself. This may be why it also goes by another term called semantic alignment or split-intransitivity. Which verbs are treated as active and which verbs are treated as statives depends on the language and the context in which they are used, and would follow, to some extent, certain patterns such as volition, control over the verb in question, and empathy. For example, a person who fell down may follow two different alignments depending on whether or not they did it intentionally or accidentally.

Some linguists disagree in which terminology is the most appropriate in referring to this type of morphosyntactic alignment. Semantic and active-stative alignment both suggest the semantic correlation with the alignment used by the intransitive verb. These terminology have received some criticism over what really influences the manifestation of a split-intransitivity system, such as if this is purely semantic, or if there are some underlying syntactical processes that result in this morphosyntactic alignment. As such, moving forward, we shall use the term ‘split-intransitivity’ alignment, which provides a more descriptive angle to referring to this alignment.

To define some terminology, the subject S refers to the subject of an intransitive clause. In transitive clauses, we have the agent A and the patient or object P. There are some cases in which S aligns with A, from which we will refer to as SA, and similarly, there are some cases in which S aligns with P, from which we will refer to as SP. To illustrate SA, this would be the case where the subject of an intransitive clause is aligned with the agent of the transitive clause, such as “I fell” and “I make food”. This is also seen in the typical nominative-accusative alignment. But for SP, the subject of an intransitive clause is aligned with the patient of the transitive clause, such as “fell me” and “Bob tickles me“. This one is more typically seen in the ergative-absolutive alignment as well.

While we see a case where intransitive verbs appear to use a mix of accusative and ergative alignments, we should note that split-intransitivity alignment is distinct from split-ergativity. What separates this alignment system from split-ergative systems seems to be that the split-intransitivity alignment system has two different subclasses of intransitive verbs which entail different treatment (SA or SP), while split-ergative systems apply different alignments (nominative-accusative vs ergative-absolutive) based on verbal inflections by tense, mood, and aspect.

Generally speaking, there are at least two different types of split-intransitivity alignment systems. These are the split-S and the fluid-S systems. Grossly oversimplifying this by a long shot, there are languages that have distinct subclasses of intransitive verbs, with one subclass taking SA, and the other taking SP. This split in the intransitive verbs is commonly referred to as the split-S. On the other hand, there are languages that may use an intransitive verb to align with SA or SP depending on the context (such as the presence or absence of volition), and this type of intransitive verb would be used in an alignment pattern known as fluid-S. Some languages may also use a mix of these split-S and fluid-S systems as well.

From Baker’s and Creissels publications, one of the underlying theories behind this two-way split in intransitivity (SA vs SP) is the ‘unaccusative hypothesis’, where there are two types of intransitive verbs that differ by how they are related to the subject in the intransitive clause. Subsequent analyses suggest that there are more classes of intransitive verbs that use different alignments depending on various factors such as thematic roles and affectedness.

The split-intransitivity alignment can be predominantly found in the indigenous languages of the Americas, such as the Arawakan languages and the Tupi–Guarani languages in South America, Chibchan in Panama and Colombia, and some Siouan, Iroquoian, and Na-Dene languages in North America. Additionally, there are several languages in the Caucasus which have been proposed to have some verbs that do take on some form of split-intransitivity alignment. For instance, Georgian, a language that is known for its split ergativity alignment system, has been proposed to have some form of active alignment in verb paradigms. In Tsova-Tush, some intransitive verbs always mark the argument as patientive and particularly pertain to verbs or actions in which the subject has no control over, like ‘hunger’. Some intransitive verbs also typically mark the argument as agentive, such as to ‘think’ or to ‘talk’. Other verbs may also follow a fluid-S system, in which the meaning may depend on the alignment in which the verb is used in a sentence.

However, examples of split intransitivity can also be seen in more familiar languages like English, French, and Russian, but do not necessarily align with the split-intransitivity system posited by the unaccusative hypothesis. Instead, there are multiple types of intransitive verbs, providing a development from the original unaccusative hypothesis that gave rise to the split-intransitivity alignment system. Verbs like manquer (to miss) and how they are used in sentences like tu me manques (I miss you, literally ‘you me miss’) versus il manque la cible (He misses the target) are some iconic examples. Other examples may also be seen in the usage of the French verb falloir (must, need), which Creissels discussed with some examples.

It should be noted that this particular type of morphosyntactic alignment is a rather recent development, with some languages still being assessed for the presence of this alignment. One such example is the Southwestern Mande languages of Africa, a continent of languages which has been traditionally thought of as being ‘free of ergativity’. 21st-century studies have increasingly contested this claim. In a study by Valentin Vydrin, published in the journal Studies in Language in 2011, Vydrin proposes that Mende and Liberian Looma, or Western Looma uses some form of split-intransitivity alignment to an extent, while several other Southwestern Mande languages mainly use an ergative-absolutive or split-ergative alignment. Perhaps over time, we could see if the split-intransitivity alignment would be attested by linguists for some languages in Africa, drawing insight on how such alignment systems may develop through comparing these with related languages.

And so, this has been a very oversimplified introduction to the split-intransitivity alignment system. There is so much more to this alignment system, such as the factors that give rise to this split, how the theory behind this alignment system developed (the unaccusative hypothesis, for example), and the extent to which the world’s languages predominantly use this particular system. Reading up on this topic revealed much more than what the Wikipedia entry would explain, and I have linked some of the most comprehensive and accessible readings in the section below. This thousand-word introduction only serves as a brief oversimplification of this topic, and I encourage you to read further into it, and perhaps we will touch on more aspects of this topic in the future.

Further reading

Baker, J. (2016) ‘Split intransitivity in English’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 9(1), pp. 1-34.

Creissels, D. (2007) ‘Remarks on split intransitivity’, CSSP, pp. 1-45.

Donohue, M. (n.d.) ‘Stative-active systems: what’s what, and what’s not(?)’, Centre for Research on Language Change, ANU and National University of Singapore.

Haas, M. R. (1946) ‘A grammatical sketch of Tunica’, Linguistic Structures of North America, pp. 337-366.

Vydrin, V. (2011) ‘Ergative/absolutive and active/stative alignment in West Africa, The case of Southwestern Mande’, Studies in Language, 35(2), pp. 409-443.