Austronesian alignment
Posted: 20 May 2015 19:49
My main reference for this is Wikipedia, for the record (I don't know if this means I have to license it the same or not). If anybody who knows more about this than I do notices an error, please don't hesitate to correct me.
I think the main thing about Austronesian alignment is that you can think about it as basically the verb sharing the work of case-marking. In other sorts of languages, case-marking or word order tends to tell you the jobs that nouns fulfill in the sentence. In Austronesian alignment, though, the job of the word in focus is marked on the verb (the convention that the article uses is to call these "triggers"). The appropriate noun is marked in the direct case; how other nouns are handled depends on the language. From Wikipedia there seem to be two possibilities.
Abbreviations used:
3 – third-person
A – agent
ACC – accusative
BEN – benefactive
DEF – definite
DIR – direct
ERG – ergative
IND – indirect
LOC – locative
M – masculine
P – patient
PREP – prepositional case
PST – past
SG – singular
The first is that other nouns typically end up in the indirect case. Context seems to be the thing that determines which indirect noun is which in cases of ambiguity. Tagalog seems to use this; examples from the article over at Wikipedia:
Binasa ng tao ang aklat.
b<in>asa ng tao ang aklat
<PST.P>read IND person DIR book
The book was read by a person.
Bumasa ng aklat ang tao.
b<um>asa ng aklat ang tao
<PST.A>read IND book DIR person
A person read the book.
Binilhán ng tao ng aklat ang tindahan.
b<in>il-hán ng tao ng aklat ang tindahan.
<PST.P>buy-LOC IND person IND book DIR store
The store is where the person bought the book.
Bumilí ang tao ng aklat sa tindahan.
b<um>ilí ang tao ng aklat sa tindahan
<PST.A>buy DIR person IND book at store
The person bought the book at the store.
The other is that either the corresponding triggers or (at least) the agent and patient triggers have separate case-marking that is only used when they are not in focus (i.e., when the trigger does not apply to them). The former variation is the one I've used in Çuvvaccoçim, with all four triggers having a corresponding case that is used when the referent is not in focus:
Çičeu⅁ avec hogëǧ hae⅁ ǧëǵïm.
çi-čeu⅁ avec ho-gëǧ hae⅁ Ø-ǧëǵ=ïm
PST.A-apply 3SG.M.DIR ACC.SG-paint to PREP.SG-surface=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Mičeu⅁ çogëǧ aveh hae⅁ ǧëǵïm.
mi-čeu⅁ ço-gëǧ aveh hae⅁ Ø-ǧëǵ=ïm
PST.P-apply DIR.SG-paint 3SG.M.ERG to PREP.SG-surface=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Ģičeu⅁ ɂuǧëǵ aveh hogëǧïm.
ģi-čeu⅁ ɂu-ǧëǵ aveh ho-gëǧ=ïm
PST.LOC-apply DIR.SG-surface 3SG.M.ERG ACC-paint=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Ćiččeu⅁ ɂuǧëǵ aveh hogëǧïm.
ći:-čeu⅁ ɂu-ǧëǵ aveh ho-gëǧ=ïm
PST.BEN-apply DIR.SG-surface 3SG.M.ERG ACC-paint=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Going by the article, the typical triggers present seem to be agent, patient, and possibly locative and benefactive. You probably could have other triggers if you wanted to, for example a dative.
It may be useful to think of it like a game of paintball: The verb selects a color of paint (trigger) and fires at a noun (direct); other nouns in the sentence get splattered as a result (indirect).
I think the main thing about Austronesian alignment is that you can think about it as basically the verb sharing the work of case-marking. In other sorts of languages, case-marking or word order tends to tell you the jobs that nouns fulfill in the sentence. In Austronesian alignment, though, the job of the word in focus is marked on the verb (the convention that the article uses is to call these "triggers"). The appropriate noun is marked in the direct case; how other nouns are handled depends on the language. From Wikipedia there seem to be two possibilities.
Abbreviations used:
3 – third-person
A – agent
ACC – accusative
BEN – benefactive
DEF – definite
DIR – direct
ERG – ergative
IND – indirect
LOC – locative
M – masculine
P – patient
PREP – prepositional case
PST – past
SG – singular
The first is that other nouns typically end up in the indirect case. Context seems to be the thing that determines which indirect noun is which in cases of ambiguity. Tagalog seems to use this; examples from the article over at Wikipedia:
Binasa ng tao ang aklat.
b<in>asa ng tao ang aklat
<PST.P>read IND person DIR book
The book was read by a person.
Bumasa ng aklat ang tao.
b<um>asa ng aklat ang tao
<PST.A>read IND book DIR person
A person read the book.
Binilhán ng tao ng aklat ang tindahan.
b<in>il-hán ng tao ng aklat ang tindahan.
<PST.P>buy-LOC IND person IND book DIR store
The store is where the person bought the book.
Bumilí ang tao ng aklat sa tindahan.
b<um>ilí ang tao ng aklat sa tindahan
<PST.A>buy DIR person IND book at store
The person bought the book at the store.
The other is that either the corresponding triggers or (at least) the agent and patient triggers have separate case-marking that is only used when they are not in focus (i.e., when the trigger does not apply to them). The former variation is the one I've used in Çuvvaccoçim, with all four triggers having a corresponding case that is used when the referent is not in focus:
Çičeu⅁ avec hogëǧ hae⅁ ǧëǵïm.
çi-čeu⅁ avec ho-gëǧ hae⅁ Ø-ǧëǵ=ïm
PST.A-apply 3SG.M.DIR ACC.SG-paint to PREP.SG-surface=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Mičeu⅁ çogëǧ aveh hae⅁ ǧëǵïm.
mi-čeu⅁ ço-gëǧ aveh hae⅁ Ø-ǧëǵ=ïm
PST.P-apply DIR.SG-paint 3SG.M.ERG to PREP.SG-surface=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Ģičeu⅁ ɂuǧëǵ aveh hogëǧïm.
ģi-čeu⅁ ɂu-ǧëǵ aveh ho-gëǧ=ïm
PST.LOC-apply DIR.SG-surface 3SG.M.ERG ACC-paint=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Ćiččeu⅁ ɂuǧëǵ aveh hogëǧïm.
ći:-čeu⅁ ɂu-ǧëǵ aveh ho-gëǧ=ïm
PST.BEN-apply DIR.SG-surface 3SG.M.ERG ACC-paint=DEF
'he applied paint to the surface'
Going by the article, the typical triggers present seem to be agent, patient, and possibly locative and benefactive. You probably could have other triggers if you wanted to, for example a dative.
It may be useful to think of it like a game of paintball: The verb selects a color of paint (trigger) and fires at a noun (direct); other nouns in the sentence get splattered as a result (indirect).