Chapter 72Mixed Alignment and Hierarchical Analyses

72.1 What an alignment description compares

Morphological alignment compares the forms used for an intransitive subject S, a transitive subject A, and an object O. In Ainu, the answer changes with the person row under examination. Bugaeva describes Southern Hokkaido as having mixed alignment Bugaeva (2012: 472). The first- and second-person interaction forms introduce further combinations that a basic three-column table cannot predict.

72.2 The basic Hokkaido patterns

The labels describe compatible parts of one paradigm Bugaeva (2012: 472); Nakagawa (2024: 166–170). Transitive A and O cells here assume a third-person counterpart. The actual forms and the qualifications for combined indexing are given in Chapter 62 (Person Marking and Argument Roles) and Chapter 65 (Eci and Person Interactions).

An English first-person translation does not identify the morphological first-person row. This request uses fourth-person O forms for the narrator, illustrating the distinction between a series' form and its contextual reference Nakagawa (2024: 170, 174–180).

72.3 Interaction forms and proposed hierarchies

Saru/Chitose eci= covers first-person A acting on second-person O across four number combinations. Other dialects have prefix combinations and combinations on both sides of the stem Nakagawa (2024: 171–174); Refsing (1986: 223–225). These patterns show that person interaction affects the forms. Establishing a hierarchy-based analysis additionally requires an account of the ranking and of how each contrasting construction marks its direction.

Dal Corso proposes such an account for Sakhalin. His referentiality hierarchy places speech-act participants above specific third persons, and specific third persons above nonspecific third persons. He explicitly leaves the ranking of first against second person irrelevant to that part of the argument Dal Corso (2025: 199, table 2 and n. 4) ‹speculative›. It therefore cannot be reduced to a claim that Ainu universally ranks “I” above “you.”

72.4 The Sakhalin comparison

Sakaguchi's East Sakhalin description uses a mixed alignment table, including tripartite first-plural and fourth-person rows. He adds that fourth person could be described as nominative–accusative if prefixed and suffixed AN are identified as the same form Sakaguchi (2024: 31, table 3-3 and n. 25). The classification thus depends partly on what counts as formal identity.

Dal Corso instead argues for a historical account of mixed nominative–neutral alignment with a later inverse component, rejecting tripartite classification in his analysis. His proposed development relates indefinite-agent marking to lower-referentiality subjects and extends the account to certain speech-act-participant interactions Dal Corso (2025: 210–214; §7) ‹contested›. He discusses departures from prototypical inverse systems and leaves related voice or focus analyses open for further investigation Dal Corso (2025: 213–214).

This is a Sakhalin proposal. The author explicitly cautions that the account may not apply to Hokkaido Dal Corso (2025: 201 n. 5). It offers a comparison with the Hokkaido patterns without replacing their dialect-specific descriptions.

72.5 Alignment, lexical classes, and voice

Active or inactive meanings raise a different question from the person-conditioned table. An affected participant can still take ordinary S marking in a one-place verb Nakagawa (2024: 129–130). Shibatani's discussion of inactive verbs concerns incorporation and applicative formation Shibatani (1990: 62–67); see Chapter 71 (Intransitive Subjects and Semantic Roles).

Voice analyses also use evidence beyond the shape of a person marker. Shibatani argues for a syntactic passive despite the retained object-looking person forms, while Satō emphasizes the affected participant's object status in an indefinite-subject construction Shibatani (1990: 58–60); Satō (2008: 203–206) ‹contested›. Their diagnostics are considered in Chapter 87 (Middle ci- and the Passive Analysis). A translation with an English passive or an isolated affix does not settle that disagreement.