Questions: Alignment Systems and Grammatical Relations

Question 1

In Language X, the single argument of an intransitive verb ('she sleeps') takes the same case marking as the patient of a transitive verb ('the ball' in 'she kicked the ball'), while the agent takes a distinct case. What alignment does Language X exhibit?

• A. Nominative-accusative, because the agent receives the special marked case
• B. Ergative-absolutive, because S groups with P under absolutive marking while the agent takes the ergative case
• C. Tripartite, because all three argument types — S, A, and P — receive different marking
• D. Neutral, because all arguments share a common default case

Answer: (B)

The defining feature of ergative-absolutive alignment is that S (intransitive subject) groups with P (transitive patient) — both take the absolutive case — while A (transitive agent) is specially marked with the ergative case. This is the inverse of nominative-accusative, where S groups with A as the 'subject.' The question describes exactly the ergative-absolutive pattern: the agent is singled out with special marking while intransitive subjects and transitive patients share a form.

Question 2

A student claims that Georgian 'is an ergative language' because it uses ergative case marking. A colleague notes that Georgian shows different alignment patterns depending on verb tense. Which statement best captures the theoretical implication?

• A. If a language has ergative morphological case, it is ergative in all constructions — grammatical tense cannot affect alignment
• B. Georgian's tense-based split shows that alignment is not a single unified property of a language; it can exhibit ergative-absolutive patterns in some contexts (e.g., perfective past) and nominative-accusative in others (e.g., present)
• C. Tense variations in case marking are surface irregularities that don't affect a language's underlying alignment type
• D. Split ergative systems represent languages in mid-transition from ergative to nominative-accusative alignment and have no stable type

Answer: (B)

Split systems are a central finding in alignment typology: a single language can show different alignment patterns in different grammatical subsystems. Georgian shows nominative-accusative in the present/imperfective and ergative-absolutive in the perfective past. Many languages show splits conditioned by person hierarchy, animacy, or aspect. The theoretical implication is that 'alignment' is not a single binary property of a language but a family of related phenomena that can partially decouple — which is why typologists analyze each grammatical subsystem separately.

Question 3

In an ergative-absolutive language, the agent of a transitive clause receives the same grammatical marking as the subject of an intransitive clause.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This describes the nominative-accusative pattern, not the ergative-absolutive pattern. In ergative-absolutive alignment, the intransitive subject (S) groups with the transitive patient (P) — both take absolutive marking. The transitive agent (A) takes the distinct ergative case and is therefore marked differently from S. Students who assume the 'subject' always groups the same way across alignment types are implicitly assuming nominative-accusative as the default — the classic confusion this topic corrects.

Question 4

The S/A/P framework allows precise cross-linguistic comparison by treating the 'subject' of a transitive clause and the 'subject' of an intransitive clause as potentially different argument types that different languages may group differently.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This is the analytical payoff of the S/A/P framework. In English-style (nominative-accusative) thinking, 'subject' means S and A together. But the framework separates them: S is the single argument of an intransitive verb; A is the agent of a transitive verb; P is the patient of a transitive verb. Different alignment systems group these differently. Without this framework, it would be impossible to state clearly that ergative languages 'treat S like P' rather than 'treat subjects differently' — the S/A/P terminology makes the cross-linguistic pattern visible.

Question 5

Why does the distinction between alignment and semantic roles matter? Give an example showing that alignment cannot be read directly off who is performing the action.

Model answer: Semantic roles (agent, patient) describe who causes or is affected by an event — they are the same across all languages. Alignment describes how languages grammatically mark those roles, which varies. In English (nominative-accusative), 'she sleeps' (intransitive) and 'she kicked the ball' (agent) both use the nominative 'she' — S and A group together. In an ergative language like Basque, the same agent 'she' in 'she kicked the ball' takes the ergative case, while 'she sleeps' (intransitive subject) takes the absolutive — grouping with the patient 'the ball.' The person doing the kicking is the agent in both languages; only the grammatical coding differs. Alignment is a property of the morphosyntactic system, not of semantic roles themselves.

The misconception to avoid is thinking that ergative languages 'treat the subject differently' or 'demote the agent' semantically. The semantic roles are identical; what varies is which grammatical groupings the language uses to organize them. This is why cross-linguistic comparison requires the neutral S/A/P terminology rather than importing 'subject/object' from any one language type.