Bringing the toys to life
Animacy, reference, and anthropomorphism in Toy Story
In the children’s film Toy Story, toys spring to life when their human owners are away, creating an alternative world of transferred animacy relations signalled by visual and linguistic cues. The storylines and characters explore the nature of animacy and relationships between conspecifics and ‘others’. Our analysis focuses on the use of referring expressions over the course of the narrative, as they reflect the animacy of their referents. We relate these findings to well-established scales of animacy which link our perception of the world to the categories imposed by language. We find that, as predicted by models of animacy proposed by Dahl (2008) and Yamamoto (1999), among others, shifts in reference – specifically from common noun to proper noun to pronoun, and from collective to individuated referents – reflect characters’ shifting conceptualisation of, and empathy with, each other. We argue that referring expressions are used at key points in the film script to subtly mediate accessible cues to animacy like eyes, speech and motion, and to guide viewers’ empathies and allegiances, extending our understanding of animacy beyond ordinary anthropocentrism.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Background
- Animacy and reference
- Non-linguistic cues to animacy
- Animacy and referring expressions in Toy Story
- Method
- Anthropomorphic toys
- Animal toys
- Inanimates
- Supernatural beings
- Animacy and the unfolding narrative
- The mutants
- Buzz is a Toy
- Discussion and conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References
Ariel, M.
(
1990)
Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge, Croom Helm.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M.
(
1991)
The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar.
Journal of Pragmatics, 16(5), 443-463.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Atran, S., Medin, D., Lynch, E., Vapnarsky, V., Ek’ Ucan, E. & Sousa, P.
(
2001)
Folkbiology doesn’t come from folkpsychology: Evidence from Yukatek Maya in cross-cultural perspective.
Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1(1), 3–42.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biro, S., Csibra, G., & Gergely, G.
(
2007)
The role of behavioral cues in understanding goal-directed actions in infancy.
Progress in brain research, 1641, 303–322.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carey, S.
(
1985)
Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, M.
(
2012)
Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Affect. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cherry, J.
(
1992)
Animism in Thought and Language. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, B.
(
1989)
Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dahl, Ö.
(
2008)
Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny.
Lingua, 1181, 141–150.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dahl, Ö. & Fraurud, K.
(
1996)
Animacy in grammar and discourse. In
T. Fretheim &
J. K. Gundel (Eds.),
Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeLancey, S.
(
1981)
An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns.
Language, 571, 626–657.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D., Jr.
(
1984)
Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gelman, S. A. & Opfer, J. E.
(
2002)
Development of the animate-inanimate distinction. In
U. Goswami (Ed.),
Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 151–166). Oxford: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R.
(
1993)
Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse.
Language, 69(2), 274–307.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hurford, J. R.
(
2007)
The Origins of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, M. H. & Morton, J.
(
1991)
Biology and Cognitive Development: The Case of Face Recognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klaiman, M. H.
(
1991)
Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(
1980)
Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leopold, D. & Rhodes, G.
(
2010)
A Comparative View of Face Perception.
Journal of Comparative Psycholology, 124(3), 233–251.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lockwood, H. T. & McCaulay, M.
(
2012)
Prominence hierarchies.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 6/71, 431–446.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, J.
(
1977)
Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milne, C.
(
1974/2016)
The Enchanted Places: A Childhood Memoir. London: Pan Macmillan.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Piper, W.
(
1930)
The Little Engine that Could. New York: Platt & Munk.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rakison, D. H. & Poulin-Dubois, D.
(
2001)
Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction.
Psychological Bulletin, 1271, 209–228.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R.
(
1969)
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siewierska, A.
(
1991)
Functional Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siewierska, A.
(
1993)
Subject and object order in written Polish: Some statistical data.
Folia Linguistica, 27(1/2), 147–169.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Trompenaars, T., Hogeweg, L., Stoop, W. & de Hoop, H.
(in review).
The language of an inanimate narrator. (
submitted to Open Linguistics, special issue, ‘Effects of animacy in grammar and cognition’,
D. Nelson &
V. -A. Vihman (Eds.) to appear
2018)
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsutsumi, S., Ushitani, T., Tomonaga, M. & Fujita, K.
(
2012)
Infant monkeys’ concept of animacy: the role of eyes and fluffiness.
Primates, 531, 113–119.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Whedon, J., Stanton, A., Cohen, J. and Sokolow, A.
(
1995)
Toy Story. Original screenplay (unpublished).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Williams, M.
(
1922)
The Velveteen Rabbit (or How Toys Become Real) New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Deaville, James
2019.
The moaning of (un-)life: Animacy, muteness and eugenics in cinematic and televisual representation.
Journal of Interdisciplinary Voice Studies 4:2
► pp. 225 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Macdonald, Ross, Silke Brandt, Anna Theakston, Elena Lieven & Ludovica Serratrice
2020.
The Role of Animacy in Children's Interpretation of Relative Clauses in English: Evidence From Sentence–Picture Matching and Eye Movements.
Cognitive Science 44:8
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.