Cover not available
Review article published In:
From Culture to Language and Back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Sandrine Sorlin
[International Journal of Language and Culture 5:2] 2018
► pp. 133–162

Introduction

Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and the notion of Animacy Hierarchy

 | Université Grenoble-Alpes | LIDILEM
 | Aix-Marseille Université, LERMA
Article outline
  • 1.Origins of the notion of ‘Animacy Hierarchy’
  • 2.The ‘Animacy Hierarchy’ as a deceptively simple concept
  • 3.Is Animacy the most relevant vantage point? A look at competing hierarchies
  • 4.The relevance of the Animacy Hierarchy for grammar
  • 5.Further relevance of the Animacy Hierarchy for language and culture
    • 5.1Beyond grammar
    • 5.2Exploiting the Animacy and Agency Hierarchies: A cross-genre (and culture) perspective
  • 6.Specific issues explored in the following papers
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00004.gar
References (84)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Audring, J. (2009). Reinventing pronoun gender. Dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Auerbach, J. S., Levy, K. N., & Schaffer, C. E. S. (2005). Relatedness, self-definition and mental representation. Essays in honor of Sidney J. Blatt. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auster, P. (2012). Winter’s journal. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
(2013). Report from the interior. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2005). The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 109. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, W. (1863). A grammar and glossary of the Dorset dialect, with the history, outspreading, and bearings of south-western English. Berlin: Asher & Co.Google Scholar
Becker, M. (2014). The acquisition of syntactic structure: Animacy and thematic alignment. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 141. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (2004). Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chevalier, Y., de Chanay, H. C., & Gardelle, L. (2017). Bases linguistiques de l’émancipation : système anglais, système français. Mots, les langages du politique, 113, Ecrire le genre, 9–36.Google Scholar
Cockburn, P., & Cockburn, H. (2011). Living with schizophrenia: a father’s and son’s story. New York City: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language nniversals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Number. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Number. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals / Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien / La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques: An international handbook / Ein internationales Handbuch / Manuel international, Vol. 11 (pp. 816–831). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012). Features. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
(2003). Typology and universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Dahl, O., & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1971). Agency. In R. Binkley et al. (Eds.), Agent, action, and reason (pp. 3–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delconte, M. (2003). Why You can’t speak: Second-person narration, voice, and a new model for understanding narrative. Style, 37(2), 204–219.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z., & Semino, E. (2015). Henry’s voices: the representation of auditory verbal hallucinations in an autobiographical narrative. Medical Humanities, 411, 57–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 551, 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elworthy, F. T. (1877). An outline of the grammar of the dialect of West Somerset, illustrated by examples of the common phrases and modes of speech now in use among the people. London: Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
England, N. (1991). Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 571, 446–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forchheimer, P. (1953). The category of person in language. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. (1977). Linguistics and the novel. London: Arrowsmith.Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. (2013). Gender/sex discrepancies in pronominal references to animals: a statistical analysis. English Language and Linguistics, 17(1), 181–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Sex-indefinite references to human beings in American English: effective uses and pragmatic interferences. A case study of your child . In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns (pp. 69–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Golding, W. (1961 [1955]). The inheritors. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Grasserie, R. de la (1886–1887). Etudes de grammaire comparée: de la catégorie du nombre. Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée 191 (1886), 87–105, 113–46, 232–53; and 201 (1887), 57–67.Google Scholar
Guéguen, N. (2014). Psychologie de la manipulation et de la soumission. Paris: Dunod. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Psychologie du consommateur. Third edition. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Haddon, M. (2003). The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science. New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2013). Occurrence of nominal plurality. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]>, accessed on 22/08/2017.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, T. (2015). The tusk that did the damage. London: Harvill Secker.Google Scholar
Jeffries, L. (2010). Critical stylistics. The power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mamillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. (2010 [2008]). Persons and things. Cambridge, Mass and London: Harvard UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy – a re-examination of relativization phenomena. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 417–444). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (2007). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
McInerney, J. (1984). Bright lights, Big city. London, Berlin, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor in political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary online. Oxford University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (2000). Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Rospide, M., & Sandrine, S. (Eds). (2015). The ethics and poetics of alterity. New perspectives on genre literature. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ryder, R. D. (2000 [1989]). Animal revolution. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
(2009 [1998]). Speciesism. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Sasse, H-J. (1993). Syntactic categories and subcategories. In J. Jacobs et al. (Eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp. 646–686). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sealey, A., & Oakley, L. (2013). Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series Life . Text & Talk, 33(3), 399–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Why did the Canada goose cross the sea? Accounting for the behaviour of wildlife in the documentary series Life . International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 19–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2014). Language and autism in Mark Haddon’s The curious incident of the dog in the night-time . In M. Fludernik & D. Jacob (Eds), Linguistics and Literary Studies (pp. 279–303). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sewell, A. (2011 [1877]). Black beauty. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.Google Scholar
Siemund, P. (2008). Pronominal gender in English. A study of English varieties from a cross-linguistic perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Linguistic Series 22 (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith, S. (2010). How to do everything, from the man who should know: Red green. Toronto: Doubleday Canada (Random House).Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. C. (1974). The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society, 101, 657–661.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2010). La défamiliarisation linguistique dans le roman anglais contemporain. Montpellier: PULM.Google Scholar
(2014). La stylistique anglaise. Théories et pratiques. Rennes: PUR.Google Scholar
(2017). The second-person pronoun across genres. RANAM, 501, 135–148.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. (1990). Kannada. Descriptive grammars series. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture. A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tillyard, E. M. W. (1959). The Elizabethan world picture: A study of the idea of order in the age of Shakespeare, Donne, Milton. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Trush, T. (2012). The ‘You’ effect. How to transform ego-based marketing into captivating messages that creates customers. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R. (1989). A grammar of the Muna language. Ph. D. dissertation. Leiden.Google Scholar
Virtanen, T. (2015). Referring to oneself in the third person: A novel construction in text-based computer-mediated communication. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds), The pragmatics of personal pronouns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, S. (2003). Gender in English pronouns – myth and reality. PhD dissertation, Freiburg University. 2003. <[URL]>, accessed August 2017.
Wales, K. (2013). Alice in Ego-Land. Babel, 41, 35–37.Google Scholar
(2015). ‘Loquor, ergo sum’; ‘I’ and animateness ee-considered. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp. 95–104). Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolf, V. (2009 [1933]). Flush: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Agency and impersonality: Their linguistic and cultural manifestations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Lobben, Marit & Bruno Laeng
2024. Zooming in and out of semantics: proximal–distal construal levels and prominence hierarchies. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Lubbe, Frederick Curtis & Kenny G. Castillo Alfonzo
2024. Plantness, Animalness, and Humanness: plant placement within animacy and adjacent scales. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 54:2 ► pp. 136 ff. DOI logo
Baumer, Emmanuel, Dominique Dias, Laure Gardelle & Emmanuelle Prak-Derrington
2022. Quelles régularités pour les chaînes de référence dans le genre « nouvelles d’actualité » ? Exploration contrastive allemand / anglais / français. Travaux de linguistique n° 82:1 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Weis, Patrick P., Jan Nikadon, Cornelia Herbert & Magdalena Formanowicz
2022. The verb–self link: An implicit association test study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:5 ► pp. 1946 ff. DOI logo
Laban, Guy
2021. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Trompenaars, Thijs, Teresa Angelina Kaluge, Rezvan Sarabi & Peter de Swart
2021. Cognitive animacy and its relation to linguistic animacy: evidence from Japanese and Persian. Language Sciences 86 ► pp. 101399 ff. DOI logo
SORLIN, Sandrine
2019. Auster’s autobiographical ‘you’ in Report From the Interior: multi-faceted (inter)subjectivities. E-rea :17.1 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Semantic Plurality [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 349], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.