1887
image of The two faces of animacy
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

As pointed out by Corbett ( ), animacy manifests itself in the grammar of languages in two ways: as a feature and as a condition for the realization of other features. In this work I explore this dual behavior by adding further crosslinguistic evidence. I provide examples affecting number, person, case, and gender, and show that, regarding this distinction, they cannot be analyzed in the same way. Moreover, I examine more closely the relation between these manifestations of animacy and show that they can operate simultaneously not only within the same language but also in the same phenomenon. For these cases, I establish a hierarchy between them that can be crossed with the equally hierarchical relation between the animate/inanimate and the human/nonhuman distinction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19089.san
2020-08-26
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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. InRobert 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
    2005The 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
    1989A 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
    1997The 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. 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. InRobin 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.
    1991Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2000Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2006Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139206983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139206983 [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, William
    1990Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud
    1996 Animacy in grammar and discourse. InThorstein 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
    1953The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111562704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111562704 [Google Scholar]
  20. Givón, Talmy
    1972Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haiman, Jon
    1980Hua: 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. InPeter 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. InJoseba 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
    2005Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jespersen, Otto
    1924The 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. InSeppo 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
    1985A Grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki
    1975 Empathy and syntax. InSusumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, Vol.1, 1–73. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, 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.
    1991Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol.2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Marlett, Stephen A.
    2010 Personal pronouns: inventory. InCheryl 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. InRay 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
    1986A 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. InMikel 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. 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
    2004Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  43. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InRobert 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. InSandrin 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. InGeorge 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.
    1997Introduction 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
    1999Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19089.san
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19089.san
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: animacy; feature; condition; hierarchy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error