I have known what Halliday calls "ergative" by the term "medio-passive."  I believe it comes from a form in Greek.  In some of the Romance languages and German the reflexive is sometimes used for such pairs.  I also seem to remember that the neuter gender in Latin was originally an ergative so that its "nominative" case is identical to the accusative of the prototypical masculine nouns. 

 

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/1/2005 12:04:26 PM >>>

Johanna,
   My understanding of "ergative" comes through Halliday, and his emphasis seems somewhat different. Perhaps not. He gives clear examples of transitive/ergative pairs:  Mary sailed the boat/ The boat sailed .  The nail tore the cloth/ The cloth tore.  Pat cooked the rice/The rice cooked.  and so on.  In each of these, the one indispensable element is boat, cloth, and rice respectively, and he calls each of these the MEDIUM.  
   It's interesting that each of these has a passive version, though those can seem somewhat awkward.  (The boat was sailed by Mary.  The cloth was torn by the nail.  The rice was cooked by Pat.)  The ergative version allows us to put the medium (not the direct object or, in his terminology goal because the clause is no longer transitive) in subject position without making the sentence passive. The sentence almost seems to be saying that the affected participant (boat, cloth, rice) is the source of its own change.
     He presents this as a pattern of historical change (slow and gradual) within the language, moving toward a textual orientation and away from an experiential one.  I'm still pondering that position.

Craig
Johanna Rubba wrote:

[log in to unmask] type="cite">Bill and Craig,

Thanks for the elucidation of Halliday's view of subjects/actors.

I don't understand the term 'ergative' as you are using it, Craig. Ergative is a case that appears in languages in which an agent-subject  (in a transitive clause) is marked rather than default. This is how the term is used in linguistics. As you rightly point out, the shirt and car are not agents in your examples of tearing and exploding. Those are not transitive clauses.

Halliday's "definition" of subject is just what I use in my classes. It would be nice if we could get a discourse-based definition of the term.

Is anyone else on this list familiar with Givon (or others') work on American functional syntax? I'd be interested in your thoughts on what it might contribute to grammar instruction in the context of writing.

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/