Morphosyntactic Alignment: Nominative-Accusative vs Ergative-Absolutive (4/4)

This lecture demonstrates that syntactic ergativity (restrictions on argument extraction) can exist independently of morphological ergativity (case or agreement marking), as shown by the Polynesian language Nukoro, which exhibits syntactic ergativity in relativization without any overt ergative case or agreement, thereby supporting the theoretical distinction between abstract case (syntactically necessary for licensing) and morphological case (surface realization).

Both Tongan and Nuan are morphologically ergative, marking subjects differently in intransitive versus transitive clauses. However, only Tongan exhibits syntactic ergativity, where ergative subjects cannot undergo relativization or raising that absolutive arguments can. This difference arises from where absolute case is assigned: in Tongan, absolute case is assigned by T, requiring the object to move past the ergative argument; in Nuan, absolute case is assigned in situ. The Constraint on Crossing Dependencies (CCD) explains why this creates extraction restrictions—extracting the ergative would cross the absolutive's movement path, violating preferences for nested dependencies.

From a syntactic standpoint, there's a reasonably clear distinction between structural and inherent cases in terms of contexts of alternation and ability to undergo movement. The morphological differences are more blended because dependent cases behave syntactically like structural cases but morphologically more like inherent cases. This creates a gradient rather than a clear bifurcation. Agreement can be sensitive to case morphology and correlate with syntactic things like movement. Three options for agreement's location: (1) Agreement is morphological (late in syntax after spell-out); (2) Agreement creation is syntactic but feature transfer happens later in morphology; (3) Agreement is always syntactic, but case discrimination works because you can discriminate between different flavors of KP and DP. The third option makes a clear prediction: case-discriminating agreement should only care about syntactic differences.

Split ergative languages employ diverse mechanisms to implement their systems. Most use verbal agreement affixes with two sets—one for agent-like subjects and one for patient-like subjects. However, alternative systems exist: Yahweh uses postpositions for S=A verbs and verbal prefixes for S=O; Tolai uses word order exclusively (AVO for transitives, SO for S=A intransitives, VS for S=O intransitives); Arawak combines word order with verbal agreement. These variations demonstrate that while the underlying motivation is consistent, languages solve the problem through different structural means, ranging from purely morphological to purely syntactic solutions.

Ergativity is a linguistic phenomenon where transitive verb subjects receive different marking than intransitive verb subjects. Transitive verbs have agents (performers of actions) and patients (receivers of actions), while intransitive verbs only have subjects that typically undergo actions. Ergative languages mark agents differently from patients, treating intransitive subjects similarly to transitive objects. Four types exist: full ergativity (universal application), split ergativity (applies only to perfective/past tense), Filipino/Austronesian alignment (Southeast Asian languages), and syntactic ergativity (extremely rare in Australian Aboriginal languages). Globally, most Australian Aboriginal languages, North Indian Sanskrit-origin languages, Iranian languages like Kurdish and Pashto, Tibetan, Amazonian and Mayan languages, and Basque in Europe exhibit ergativity. This distribution challenges universal grammar theories by showing diverse solutions to similar grammatical problems across unrelated language families.

Alignment systems can be redesigned to reflect specific setting themes. In 'Wretched Apocalypse,' a spaghetti western setting where everyone is an anti-hero, players choose one of the seven deadly sins as their character's main interest rather than traditional alignment categories. This approach ties alignment directly to the moral or immoral credos of the world, making it relevant to the setting's unique themes.

Some role-playing games use alternative alignment systems instead of traditional law/chaos alignments. For example, one system uses pantheons (groups of gods) where characters are guided by the precepts of the god they follow. This system affects characters through positive or negative influences from allies or enemies of that pantheon. The speaker argues that this approach can be more meaningful than traditional alignments because it creates more nuanced character motivations and conflicts.

Traditional D&D alignment systems (lawful/chaotic and good/evil) can be replaced with alternative frameworks like Magic: The Gathering's five-color system (white, green, red, black, blue), where each color represents distinct moral priorities—white for healing and conventional good, green for nature and growth, red for chaos and destruction, black for death and corruption, and blue for intellect and abstraction—allowing characters to be described by their color correspondences and creating more nuanced ethical frameworks for roleplay.

Cohabiting characters with different alignments in a group can create significant conflicts. In a city fallen to evil deities, a Lawful Good paladin might refuse to hide their alignment despite the group's need for secrecy, potentially leading to tragedy. Even characters with the same moral alignment (good) but different ethical positions (lawful vs chaotic) can create group conflicts. For cooperative and fluid sessions, it is recommended that all characters share the same moral alignment, with the same ethical alignment being even better. Alternative alignment systems exist beyond D&D's nine alignments. The OSR scene often uses simplified versions focusing on the ethical axis. Lady Blackbird uses a 'Key' system where character traits with moral connotations can be activated during conflicts for dice bonuses but only once per session. Keys can be redeemed by fulfilling conditions in the fiction, encouraging character evolution. Some systems use gauges like mental health, honor, glory, or humanity that evolve based on character actions. Others distinguish between internal codes of honor and external reputation, creating opportunities for exploring perception versus reality. The Fire and Forget method allows players to justify drastic moral changes between sessions when group frictions become problematic. The game Paladin is designed for characters with strict codes of honor, making it an excellent training ground for understanding how to implement honor codes and moral challenges in other roleplaying games.

Alignment is a tool of role-playing that should enhance character portrayal. It should not be a straightjacket but rather a guidepost that helps players embody their characters more deeply. When done well, alignment systems can significantly enhance role-playing experiences by providing structure and depth to character development. Alternative systems like The Wretched use seven deadly sins as character selection, incentivizing players to lean into their chosen sin with mechanical bonuses and story consequences. These systems include both boons and banes, enhancing flavor and incentivizing players to actually role-play their character's moral orientation.

An alternative approach to semantic shift detection involves creating word vectors from typical context words for each period, then using orthogonal Procrustes alignment to rotate one set of vectors so they align with another set. Words whose vectors align well after rotation are considered to have maintained their meanings, while misaligned words indicate semantic change. This method, based on distributional semantics, achieved approximately 0.3 correlation with human judgments on the Russian diachronic corpus, though it underperformed compared to the definition-based approach.

In diachronic typology of alignment constructions, reanalysis creates innovative constructions with consistent alignment patterns across all grammatical elements (flagging, indexation, word order, control properties), while analogical change modifies individual elements within existing constructions, creating inconsistencies; this distinction is crucial for understanding how different alignment patterns emerge and evolve in language history.

Two types of correlations exist in astrological research: synchronic correlations (meaningful coincidences across different fields of human activity happening simultaneously under the same planetary alignment), and diachronic correlations (historical connections between events under preceding conjunctions and oppositions). For example, the women's suffrage movement began under Uranus-Pluto conjunction (1848 Seneca Falls), became mass movement under opposition, and reached new empowerment under subsequent conjunction. This diachronic pattern shows how planetary alignments create progressive waves of social change that build upon previous cycles.

Diachronic contradictions refer to alleged contradictions across time, such as when critics claim Catholicism contradicts itself by comparing Council of Florence (which taught no salvation outside the church) with Vatican II (which taught salvation is possible for non-Christians). Synchronic contradictions refer to alleged contradictions at the same time, such as when critics claim the Bible contradicts itself by comparing different books written around the same period. Both types of contradictions exist in both Catholic and Protestant traditions.

This section explains the fundamental distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis in linguistics. The speaker explains that synchronic analysis examines language at a single point in time (e.g., morphological analysis of current words), while diachronic analysis examines language change over time (etymology). The speaker emphasizes that proper etymological analysis requires first understanding synchronic word formation before investigating historical origins. The speaker notes that this distinction is fundamental to scientific linguistics and that pseudo-linguists often confuse these approaches.