Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

C” ergativity. Whether Type C ergativity actually corresponds to Type B ergativity to
some degree is actually an interesting question in light of Pylkkänen’s low source
applicative hypothesis: since a low source applicative is equivalent in certain semantic
respects to an ablative postposition and necessarily involves a possessive relation, there
might be the possibility of an encompassing theory, but I will not attempt to come up
with such a theory here (for Garrett’s argument against relating the Hittite possessive
adjective and the ablative endings, see Garrett 1990, 272-273).
Coghill and Deutscher (2002) have recently proposed that ergativity arises in
Sumerian through a Type A process in which demoted agents, i.e., agentive adjuncts,
were marked by the locative-terminative postposition in passive clauses and that the
locative-terminative postposition was subsequently reinterpreted as an ergative
postposition. They then go on to argue that the “inverse” 38 character of the pronominal
agreement markers on the verb in the perfective aspect derives from a reinterpretation of
the locative-terminative as an ergative case-marking postposition. But there are several
problematic components of their proposal that I would like to clarify, and, once the
problematic items are identified, I would like to propose an alternative account that relies
on the Type C grammaticalization process outlined above. The most serious problem
with Coghill and Deutscher’s proposal is their interpretation of the locative-terminative
postposition as regularly corresponding to a demoted agent. As Coghill and Deutscher
freely admit (2002, 282-283), the use of the locative-terminative postposition to refer to a
(demoted) agent is only attested in causative constructions in which the noun phrase
38 Note that Coghill and Deutscher are using “inverse” in a descriptive way that has no connection to what is known as
better known inverse case-marking, see Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, 288-289, 373-376.
322