Morphological marking, whether realized by nominal case inflections or cross-referencing on the verb, can be either (i) ergative, marking transitive subject [A] function, vs. absolutive, marking intransitive subject [S] and transitive object [O]; or (ii) nominative, marking A and S, vs. accusative, marking O function. Absolutive is always the unmarked term in an absolutive/ergative opposition. Nominative is most frequently the unmarked term in a nominative/accusative system, but there are some languages in which accusative is unmarked. A language whose morphology mixes accusative and ergative marking has the split determined by (a) the semantic content of verbs, (b) the semantic content of NP's, (c) aspect/tense choice, or (d) a combination of these. A, S, and O are universal semantic-syntactic primitives. A universal category of ‘subject’ can be defined as the set {A,S}, and is valid only for the level of deep structure. Language-particular syntactic operations, such as coördination and subordination, work in terms of a (shallow-structure) ‘pivot’; this is most often S/A, but can be wholly or partly S/O (languages of the latter type are said to be ergative at the syntactic level). A major function of antipassive or passive derivations is to place A or O NP's (respectively) in derived pivot function, S. Many languages which have some morphological ergativity are entirely accusative (S/A pivot) at the syntactic level. All languages that show syntactic ergativity have some morphological ergativity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R. M. W. Dixon (1979) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: