Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The two faces of animacy

ORCiD logo with link | Public University of Navarre (UPNA/NUP)
Published online: 26 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19089.san
Abstract
As pointed out by Corbett ( 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), 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.
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
References (51)
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: [URL] (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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: iconicity vs economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax morphology interface: a study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berg, René van den. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht & Providence, RI: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2004 [1994]. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams. 1997. The structure of Dagaare. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 31. 13–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989 [1981]. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91. 77–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1972. Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartzler, Margareth. 1994. Sentani. In Peter Kahrel & René van den Berg (eds.), Typological studies in negation, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayward, Richard J. & Greville G. Corbett. 1988. Resolution rules in Qafar. Linguistics 26(2). 259–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2005. Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ji, Jie & Maocheng Liang. 2018. An animacy hierarchy within inanimate nouns: English corpus evidence from a prototypical perspective. Lingua 2051. 71–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology 121. 245–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & John Peter Lucius Gwynn. 1985. A Grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 21. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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: [URL] (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Press, Ian. 1986. A Grammar of modern Breton. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Animacy effects in inflectional morphology: A typological survey. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schapper, Antoniette. 2009. Bunaq: A Papuan language of Central Timor. Canberra: The Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, Ana. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society 101. 657–661.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Swart, Peter de & Helen de Hoop. 2018. Shifting animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1–2). 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swart, Peter de, Monique Lamers Lamers & Sander Lestrade. 2008. Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118(2). 131–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. 2003. Bhojpuri. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 515–537. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 1988. Topics in Tepehua grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Krajewska, Dorota
2022. The marking of spatial relations on animate nouns in Basque. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue