Article in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 46:2 (2022) ► pp. 352–375

A typology of Goal-Source marking in transfer events

| University of Helsinki
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.
Keywords: animacy, argument marking, goal, source, typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining the roles
  • 3.The typology
    • 3.1Goal vs. Source-languages (GA = GI ≠ SA = SI)
    • 3.2Animacy-based types
      • 3.2.1Pure animacy-type (GA=SA≠GI=SI)
      • 3.2.2Animacy and affectedness-type (GA = SA ≠ GI ≠ SI)
      • 3.2.3Animacy and direction-type (GA ≠ SA ≠ GI ≠ SI)
    • 3.3Variable types
      • 3.3.1Variable Goal marking-type (GA ≠ GI ≠ SA = SI)
      • 3.3.2Variable Source marking-type (GA = GI ≠ SA ≠ SI)
  • 4.Theoretical implications
  • 5.Summary
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 16 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20020.kit
References
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R.
1997 Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of case-markers. Studies in Language 21(2). 313–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1986 Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jesica R. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness, 85–106. New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denghani, A.
2002 Iranian Azari. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen
1997 Camling. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2012 Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate Agents: A cross-linguistic study. University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2011 Differential Object Marking. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
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 at http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/49, Accessed on 2020-03-17.)
Kittilä, Seppo
2008 Animacy effects on Differential Goal Marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2). 245–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klavan, Jane
2012 Evidence in linguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Bhuvana Narasimhan
(eds.) 2012 Events of putting and taking: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Næss, Åshild
2003 What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 1141. 1186–1212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang
1997 Tsakhur. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2001 Linguistic typology. Morphology and syntax. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar M.
1997 Basic verb types and argument structures in Shipibo-Conibo. Eugene: University of Oregon MA thesis.Google Scholar
2003 Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Watters, David
2003 Kham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar