Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:4 (2020) ► pp. 812–830

The two faces of animacy

| Public University of Navarre (UPNA/NUP)
As pointed out by Corbett (2006, 2012), 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.
Keywords: animacy, condition, feature, hierarchy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Animacy effects
  • 2.Feature and condition
  • 3.Examples of animacy effects
    • 3.1Person
    • 3.2Number
    • 3.3Case
    • 3.4Gender
  • 4.Animacy: Condition or feature
  • 5.The relation of AnimF and AnimC
    • 5.1One language, two animacies
    • 5.2One language, two animacy splits
    • 5.3Two animacies within the same construction
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 26 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19089.san
References
Aguas, Estrella F.
1968 Gudandji. Estrella F. Aguas & Darrel T. Tyron. Papers in Australian Linguistics, Vol. 31, 1–20. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Available at: https://​openresearch​-repository​.anu​.edu​.au​/bitstream​/1885​/144553​/1​/PL​-A14​.pdf (last access 16 July 2020).
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
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential Object Marking: iconicity vs economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett
2005 The syntax morphology interface: a study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Alton L. & I. Gusti Ngurah Oka
1974 Person in Kawi: exploration of an elementary semantic dimension. Oceanic Linguistics 13(1–2). 229–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg, René van den
1989 A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht & Providence, RI: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
2004 [1994] Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams
1997 The structure of Dagaare. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1979 Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 31. 13–21.Google Scholar
1989 [1981] Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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
Corbett, Greville G.
1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012 Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena
2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91. 77–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul
1953 The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1972 Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Haiman, Jon
1980 Hua: A Papuan language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, Margareth
1994 Sentani. In Peter Kahrel & René van den Berg (eds.), Typological studies in negation, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Richard J. & Greville G. Corbett
1988 Resolution rules in Qafar. Linguistics 26(2). 259–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván
2005 Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1924 The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ji, Jie & Maocheng Liang
2018 An animacy hierarchy within inanimate nouns: English corpus evidence from a prototypical perspective. Lingua 2051. 71–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2008 Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology 121. 245–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & John Peter Lucius Gwynn
1985 A Grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki
1975 Empathy and syntax. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, Vol. 11, 1–73. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 21. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
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 access 16 July 2020).
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Press, Ian
1986 A Grammar of modern Breton. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
2019 Animacy effects in inflectional morphology: A typological survey. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Schapper, Antoniette
2009 Bunaq: A Papuan language of Central Timor. Canberra: The Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Ana
2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric
1974 The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society 101. 657–661.Google Scholar
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 the International Journal of Language and Culture 5(2), 133–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swart, Peter de & Helen de Hoop
2018 Shifting animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1–2). 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swart, Peter de, Monique Lamers Lamers & Sander Lestrade
2008 Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118(2). 131–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K.
2003 Bhojpuri. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 515–537. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watters, James K.
1988 Topics in Tepehua grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J.
1997 Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi
1999 Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar