Abstract
We examine the effects of morphosyntactic marking and selectional restrictions of predicates on conceptual and grammatical animacy. We argue in favour of animacy as an ontological category with human, animate and inanimate entities representing discrete subtypes in the domain of entities. We distinguish between conceptual animacy, which is a gradient notion, and grammatical animacy, for which discrete, binary oppositions are needed. The main aim of this paper is to argue for a distinction between overt and covert type shifts in animacy. On the one hand, overt shifts are linguistic solutions to type mismatches in the grammar. Crucially, these type shifts do not involve a shift in conceptual animacy. Covert animacy shifts, on the other hand, brought about by selectional restrictions or by the linguistic context in general, do involve a proper type shift in conceptual animacy. By making explicit the relation between the gradience of conceptual and the discreteness of grammatical animacy, and by exploring the distinction between covert and overt type shifts that involve animacy, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of animacy and its effects on language.
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. econonmy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S. 1997. On “animacy maximization” in Fox (Mesquakie). International Journal of American Linguistics 63. 227–247.10.1086/466320Search in Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1996. The relationship between dative and locative: Kuryìowicz’s argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13. 207–224.10.1075/dia.13.2.02ariSearch in Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1997. Marking and hierarchy: Types and the grammaticalization of case-markers. Studies in Language 21. 313–368.10.1075/sl.21.2.04ariSearch in Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje. 2011. Who’s first and what’s next? Animacy and word order variation in Dutch language production. Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Bernaerts, Lars, Marco Caracciolo, Luc Herman & Bart Vervaeck. 2014. The storied lives of non-human narrators. Narrative 22. 68–93.10.1353/nar.2014.0002Search in Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Andrej Malchukov & Marc Richards. 2015. Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110344134Search in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1984. Animacy and markedness in Universal Grammar. Glossologia 2/3. 7–20.Search in Google Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2011. ‘And’ and ‘with’ conjunctive strategies in some Austronesian languages: Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Language and Linguistics 12. 239–272.Search in Google Scholar
Bugaiska, Aurélia, Alain Méot & Patrick Bonin. 2016. Do healthy elders, like young adults, remember animates better than inanimates? An adaptive view. Experimental Aging Research 42. 447–459.10.1080/0361073X.2016.1224631Search in Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2006. Some remarks on markedness hierarchies: A reply to Aissen 1999 and 2003. In D. Siddiqi & B. V. Tucker (eds.), Coyote Papers: Working papers in linguistics, 37–50. Arizona: University of Arizona.Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405.10.1023/A:1008324218506Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Implicational hierarchies. In J.J. Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 190–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0011Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William H. 1994. Semantic universals in classifier systems. WORD 45. 145–171.10.1080/00437956.1994.11435922Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William H. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118. 141–150.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.008Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J.K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 65–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.04dahSearch in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause (2nd revised edition, edited by K. Hengeveld). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110218367Search in Google Scholar
Donohue, Cathryn. 1999. Optimizing Fore case and word order. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Egger, Julia. 2016. Asking the magic mirror: Fairytales and animacy in Malayalam. Nijmegen: Radboud University term paper.Search in Google Scholar
García García, Marco. 2014. Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110290974Search in Google Scholar
García García, Marco, García. 2007. Differential object marking with inanimate objects. In G.A. K. & M. Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages” (=Arbeitspapier des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft 122), 63–84. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan A. & John E. Opfer. 2002. Development of the animate–Inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development, 151–166. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.10.1002/9780470996652.ch7Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2011. Ute Reference Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/clu.3Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al. (eds.), Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective, 45–58. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110344134.45Search in Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic materials in Ritharngu: Grammar. texts, and dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta theory. In I. M. Roca (ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, 145–174. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872613.145Search in Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 2009. On (in)animate noun phrases. In A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness & Nominalization, 234–250 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 2012. Type shifting. In C. Maienborn et al. (eds.), Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. 3, 2259–2271. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110253382.2259Search in Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Erica Kemperman. 2015. ‘A relieved Obama’ won’t last long. In B. Köhnlein & J. Audring (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 32, 75–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/avt.32.06hooSearch in Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Andrej L. Malchukov. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 565–587.10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565Search in Google Scholar
van der Horst, Luuc. 2007. De markering van kwantoren in het Nederlands: Taalnorm vs. taalgebruik. Nijmegen: Radboud University BA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Kathryn, Bock, J. & Richard K. Warren. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21. 47–67.10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-XSearch in Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2012. A linguistic ontology of mode: The use of locations in spatial language. In C. Stachniss et al. (eds.), Spatial Cognition VIII, 319–337. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-32732-2_21Search in Google Scholar
Looser, Christine E. & Thalia Wheatly. 2010. The tipping point of animacy: How, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychological Science 21. 1854–1862.10.1177/0956797610388044Search in Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Where do noun phrases come from? In D.D. Steinberg & L.A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 217–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Minkoff, Seth. 2000. Animacy hierarchies and sentence processing. In A. Carnie & E. Guilfoyle (eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages, 201–209. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2001. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2002. Optimality and functionality: A critique of Functionally-based Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 43–80.10.1023/A:1014290005775Search in Google Scholar
Nicol, Janet L. 1998. The production of agreement in English and Japanese: Animacy effects (or lack thereof). In D. Hillert (ed.), Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective (Syntax and Semantics 31), 113–130. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.10.1108/S0092-4563(1998)0000031009Search in Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S, J Jos & A. Van Berkum. 2006. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18. 1098–1111.10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098Search in Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S., Andrea E. Martin & Manuel Carreiras. 2013. Event-related brain potential evidence for animacy processing asymmetries during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 126. 151–158.10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.005Search in Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 143–184.10.1007/BF00126509Search in Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12. 109–132.10.3115/981574.981599Search in Google Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 1998. The role of [+/-animate] in inflection. In R. Fabri et al. (eds.), Models of inflection, 60–84. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110919745.60Search in Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783112420027-006Search in Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2012. Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking. In M. Lamers & P. de Swart (eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_4Search in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17. 409–441.Search in Google Scholar
Radanović, Jelena & Petar Milin. 2011. Morpho-semantic properties of Serbian nouns: Animacy and gender pairs. Psihologija 4. 343–366.10.2298/PSI1104343RSearch in Google Scholar
Radanović, Jelena, Chris Westbury & Petar Milin. 2016. Quantifying semantic animacy: How much are words alive? Applied Psycholinguistics 37. 1477–1499.10.1017/S0142716416000096Search in Google Scholar
de Schepper, Kees & Joost Zwarts. 2009. Modal geometry. Remarks on the structure of a modal map. In L. Hogeweg et al. (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, 245–269. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.148.10schSearch in Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B. 2011. The hepatitis called … : Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. In J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics, 199–219. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.175.10schSearch in Google Scholar
Scott, Graham K. 1978. The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1988. Word Order Rules. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In M. Robert & W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte, Yoad Winter & Joost Zwarts. 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 195–222.10.1007/s11049-006-9007-4Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2014. Prepositional inanimates in Dutch: A paradigmatic case of differential object marking. Linguistics 52. 445–468.10.1515/ling-2013-0069Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter & de Hoop. Helen 2007. Semantic aspects of differential object marking. In E. Puig Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 568–581. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter, Monique Lamers & Sander Lestrade. 2008. Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118. 131–140.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009Search in Google Scholar
Trompenaars, Thijs, Lotte Hogeweg, Wessel Stoop & de Hoop. Helen 2016. The language of an inanimate narrator. Unpublished manuscript (submitted). Radboud University Nijmegen.Search in Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2014. Thematic prominence and animacy asymmetries. Evidence from a cross-linguistic production study. Lingua 143. 129–161.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Vogels, Jorrig, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes. 2013. When a stone tries to climb up a slope: The interplay between lexical and perceptual animacy in referential choices. Frontiers in Psychology 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00154.Search in Google Scholar
Welch, Nicholas. 2016. Propping up predicates: Adjectival predication in Tłįchǫ Yatıì. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 1. 1–23. doi: 10.5334/gjgl.7.Search in Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to Typology: The unity and diversity of language. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781452233437Search in Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina & Elizabeth Ritter. 2015. Animating the narrow syntax. The Linguistic Review 32. 869–908.10.1515/tlr-2015-0011Search in Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.46Search in Google Scholar
Yoshida, Hanako & Linda B. Smith. 2003. Shifting ontological boundaries: How Japanese- and English-speaking children generalize names for animals and artifacts. Developmental Science 6. 1–34.10.1111/1467-7687.00247_1Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
