The two faces of animacy

References

1. Aguas, Estrella F.
   1968 Gudandji. Estrella F. Aguas & Darrel T. Tyron . Papers in Australian Linguistics, Vol.3, 1–20. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Available at: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/144553/1/PL-A14.pdf (last access16 July 2020).
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. Dixon
   1999 Other small families and isolates. In Robert M. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 341–383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Aissen, Judith
   2003 Differential Object Marking: iconicity vs economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21. 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
4. Baerman, Matthew , Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett
   2005 The syntax morphology interface: a study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486234
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486234 [Google Scholar]
5. Becker, Alton L. & I. Gusti Ngurah Oka
   1974 Person in Kawi: exploration of an elementary semantic dimension. Oceanic Linguistics13(1–2). 229–255. 10.2307/3622745
   https://doi.org/10.2307/3622745 [Google Scholar]
6. Berg, René van den
   1989 A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht & Providence, RI: Foris Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Blake, Barry J.
   2004 [1994] Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bodomo, Adams
   1997 The structure of Dagaare. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Comrie, Bernard
   1979 Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana3. 13–21.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Comrie, Bernard
    1989 [1981] Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Cooper, William E. & John R. Ross
    1975 World order. In Robin E. Grossman , L. James San & Timothy J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism, 63–111. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Corbett, Greville G.
    1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
13. Corbett, Greville G.
    2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
14. Corbett, Greville G.
    2006 Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Corbett, Greville G.
    2012 Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139206983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139206983 [Google Scholar]
16. Croft, William
    1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud
    1996 Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.38.04dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.04dah [Google Scholar]
18. Filimonova, Elena
    2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology9. 77–113. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77 [Google Scholar]
19. Forchheimer, Paul
    1953 The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111562704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111562704 [Google Scholar]
20. Givón, Talmy
    1972 Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Haiman, Jon
    1980 Hua: A Papuan language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.5 [Google Scholar]
22. Hartzler, Margareth
    1994 Sentani. In Peter Kahrel & René van den Berg (eds.), Typological studies in negation, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.29.04har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.29.04har [Google Scholar]
23. Hayward, Richard J. & Greville G. Corbett
    1988 Resolution rules in Qafar. Linguistics26(2). 259–279. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.2.259
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.2.259 [Google Scholar]
24. Igartua, Iván & Ekaitz Santazilia
    2018 Asimetrías gramaticales asociadas a la animacidad en la lengua vasca: una perspectiva tipológica. In Joseba A. Lakarra & Blanca Urgell (eds.), Studia diachronica et philologica in honorem Joakin Gorrotxategi: Vasconica et aquitanica, 381–395. Bilbao: UPV/EHU. 10.1387/asju.20209
    https://doi.org/10.1387/asju.20209 [Google Scholar]
25. Igartua, Iván
    2005 Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Jespersen, Otto
    1924 The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Ji, Jie & Maocheng Liang
    2018 An animacy hierarchy within inanimate nouns: English corpus evidence from a prototypical perspective. Lingua205. 71–89. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.017 [Google Scholar]
28. Kittilä, Seppo , Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski
    2011 Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles. In Seppo Kittilä , Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.01kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.01kit [Google Scholar]
29. Kittilä, Seppo
    2008 Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology12. 245–268. 10.1515/LITY.2008.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2008.038 [Google Scholar]
30. Klamer, Marian & František Kratochvíl
    2006 The role of animacy in Teiwa and Abui (Papuan). Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS)32(2). 59–70. 10.3765/bls.v32i2.3492
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i2.3492 [Google Scholar]
31. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & John Peter Lucius Gwynn
    1985 A Grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki
    1975 Empathy and syntax. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, Vol.1, 1–73. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
34. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol.2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Marlett, Stephen A.
    2010 Personal pronouns: inventory. In Cheryl A. Black , H. Andrew Black & Stephen A. Marlett (eds.), The Zapotec grammar files. Mexico DF: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Available at: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/35298 (last access16 July 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
36. Ortmann, Albert
    1998 The role of [±animate] in inflection. In Ray Fabri , Albert Ortmann & Teresa Parodi (eds.), Models of inflection, 60–84. Tübingen: Max Nyermeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110919745.60
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919745.60 [Google Scholar]
37. Press, Ian
    1986 A Grammar of modern Breton. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110884975
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884975 [Google Scholar]
38. Ross, John R.
    1982 The sound of meaning. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 275–290. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Santazilia, Ekaitz
    2013 Noun morphology. In Mikel Martínez-Areta (ed.), Basque and Proto-Basque: Language-internal and typological approaches to linguistic reconstruction, 223–281. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Santazilia, Ekaitz
    2019 Animacy effects in inflectional morphology: A typological survey. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque CountryPhD dissertation.
41. Schapper, Antoniette
    2009 Bunaq: A Papuan language of Central Timor. Canberra: The Australian National UniversityPhD dissertation.
42. Siewierska, Ana
    2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
43. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Smith-Stark, T. Cedric
    1974 The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society10. 657–661.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Sorlin, Sandrin & Laure Gardelle
    2018 Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and the notion of Animacy Hierarchy. In Sandrin Sorlin & Laure Gardelle (eds.), From culture to language and back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse. Special issue of theInternational Journal of Language and Culture5(2), 133–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Swart, Peter de & Helen de Hoop
    2018 Shifting animacy. Theoretical Linguistics44(1–2). 1–23. 10.1515/tl‑2018‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
47. Swart, Peter de , Monique Lamers Lamers & Sander Lestrade
    2008 Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua118(2). 131–140. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009 [Google Scholar]
48. Verma, Manindra K.
    2003 Bhojpuri. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 515–537. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Watters, James K.
    1988 Topics in Tepehua grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPhD dissertation.
50. Whaley, Lindsay J.
    1997 Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452233437
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233437 [Google Scholar]
51. Yamamoto, Mutsumi
    1999 Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]