1887
image of A typology of Goal-Source marking in transfer events
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper discusses the coding of Goals and Sources from a cross-linguistic perspective and proposes a formal-functional typology based on how animacy and direction affect their coding. The proposed typology comprises three types; Goal vs. Source-languages, animacy and direction-languages, and variable types. The paper shows that the coding of Goals and Sources is primarily conditioned by their semantic roles (by the direction of transfer/motion), but animacy makes an important contribution in some languages as well. Moreover, the paper will also show that animacy affects the coding of Goals more drastically than it affects the coding of Sources. Goals and Sources differ from each other also in that Goals are more often coded by cases, while Sources are usually more peripheral participants and they are thus often marked by adpositions. One of the proposed reasons for this is found in the goal-oriented nature of humans.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20020.kit
2021-07-16
2021-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aissen, Judith
    2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21(3). 435–83. doi:  10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristar, Anthony R.
    1997 Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of case-markers. Studies in Language21(2). 313–368. doi:  10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari [Google Scholar]
  3. Comrie, Bernard
    1986 Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. InFred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jesica R. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness, 85–106. New York: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑5718‑7_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5718-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1989Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Creissels, Denis & Céline Mounole
    2011 Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies, and the case of Basque. In: Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 157–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.06cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.06cre [Google Scholar]
  6. Denghani, A.
    2002Iranian Azari. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ebert, Karen
    1997Camling. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, Stefanie
    2012 Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate Agents: A cross-linguistic study. University of Leuven dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Iemmolo, Giorgio
    2011 Differential Object Marking. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Iggesen, Oliver A.
    2013 Number of Cases. In: Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/49, Accessed on2020-03-17.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kittilä, Seppo
    2008 Animacy effects on Differential Goal Marking. Linguistic Typology12(2). 245–268. 10.1515/LITY.2008.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2008.038 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kittilä, Seppo & Ylikoski, Jussi
    2011 Remarks on the coding of Direction, Recipient and Vicinal Direction in European Uralic. In: Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.02kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.02kit [Google Scholar]
  13. Klavan, Jane
    2012 Evidence in linguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kopecka, Anetta & Bhuvana Narasimhan
    (eds.) 2012Events of putting and taking: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100 [Google Scholar]
  15. Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer
    2009 Typology of case systems: Parameters and variation. In: Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), The Oxford handbook of case, 651–667. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Næss, Åshild
    2003 What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua114. 1186–1212. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  17. Schulze, Wolfgang
    1997Tsakhur. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Song, Jae Jung
    2001Linguistic typology. Morphology and syntax. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Valenzuela, Pilar M.
    1997 Basic verb types and argument structures in Shipibo-Conibo. Eugene: University of Oregon MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003 Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Watters, David
    2003Kham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20020.kit
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: typology ; source ; goal ; argument marking ; animacy
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