Cover not available

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

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

A typology of Goal-Source marking in transfer events

ORCiD logo with link | University of Helsinki
Published online: 16 July 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20020.kit
Abstract
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.
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
References (21)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denghani, A. 2002. Iranian Azari. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1997. Camling. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2012. Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate Agents: A cross-linguistic study. University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Differential Object Marking. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 [URL], Accessed on 2020-03-17.)
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on Differential Goal Marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2). 245–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klavan, Jane. 2012. Evidence in linguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.). 2012. Events of putting and taking: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2003. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 1141. 1186–1212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 1997. Tsakhur. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology. Morphology and syntax. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar M. 1997. Basic verb types and argument structures in Shipibo-Conibo. Eugene: University of Oregon MA thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, David. 2003. Kham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue