Abstract
Most, if not all, languages exhibit “animacy effects”: grammatical structures interact with the relative animacy of noun referents, as represented on various versions of animacy scales, with human discourse participants at one end and inanimate objects at the other. Cross-linguistic evidence attests to a range of linguistic phenomena conditioned by animacy, with complex effects requiring (a) subtler distinctions than a binary contrast [± animate] and (b) more sophisticated analyses than mapping higher animacy to higher grammatical role.
This paper introduces the Special Issue, “Effects of Animacy in Grammar and Cognition”, in which the linguistic interest in grammatical effects of animacy is aligned with broader questions concerning animacy in cognition, including the origins of animacy in language, the biases underlying how we attend to animacy distinctions and how animacy affects discourse. Recent work in cognitive science and adjacent fields has contributed to the understanding of the role of animacy across linguistic domains. Yet, despite the consensus that sensitivity to animacy is a property central to human cognition, there is no agreement on how to incorporate animacy within linguistic theories. This SI focusses on the cognitive construal of animacy, aiming to extend our understanding of its role in grammar(s) and theory.
References
Aissen, Judith L. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Atran, Scott, Douglas Medin, Elizabeth Lynch, Valentina Vapnarsky, Edilberto Ek’ Ucan, Paulo Sousa. 2001. Folkbiology doesn’t come from folkpsychology: Evidence from Yukatek Maya in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cognition and Culture 1 (1). 3–42.10.1163/156853701300063561Search in Google Scholar
Bittner, Dagmar. 2006. Case before gender in the acquisition of German. Folia Linguistica XL/1‒2. 115‒134.10.1515/flin.40.1part2.115Search in Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1). 19–58.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bortolussi, Marisa, Peter Dixon. 2002. Psychonarratology: Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511500107Search in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In: D. Kibbee, D. Wanner (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.69.14bosSearch in Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly, Martin Pickering, Mikihiro Tanaka. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118 (2). 172-189.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Jennifer Hay. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118(2). 245-259.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007Search in Google Scholar
Buckle, Leone, Elena Lieven, Anna L. Theakston. 2017. The effects of animacy and syntax on priming: A developmental study. Frontiers in Psychology 8:2246.10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02246Search in Google Scholar
Caracciolo, Marco. 2018. The Nonhuman in mind: Narrative challenges to folk psychology. In: Dinnen, Zara, Robyn Warhol (eds.), The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Narrative Theories, 30–42. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474424752-006Search in Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2005. Some remarks on markedness hierarchies: A reply to Aissen 1999 and 2003. In Siddiqi, Dan, Benjamin Tucker (eds.), Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 37-50. University of Arizona.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, Greville Corbett. 2015. Gender-number marking in Archi: Small is complex. In: Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, Greville Corbett (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 93-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723769.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M. 2003. The lexicon in interaction: developmental origins of preferred argument structure in Korean. In: Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf, William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 81–108. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.14.06claSearch in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressSearch in Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressSearch in Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressSearch in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118. 141–150.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In: Fretheim, Thorstein, Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility, 47-64. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.04dahSearch in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57. 626–657.10.2307/414343Search in Google Scholar
Demiral, Şükrü Barış, Matthias Schlesewsky, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition 106. 484–500.10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.008Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084987Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110822939Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547-619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf, William J. Ashby (eds.) 2003. Preferred argument structure: grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.14Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3). 533-547.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.014Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 715-736.10.1006/jmla.1994.1034Search in Google Scholar
Foley, William A.&Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Heidi Harley. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua, 118(2). 190-202.Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Paul Hopper (eds.). 1994. Voice: Form and Function (Typological Studies in Language, 27). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.27Search in Google Scholar
García, Marco García, Beatrice Primus, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2018. Shifting from animacy to agentivity. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 25-39.10.1515/tl-2018-0002Search in Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure, Sandrine Sorlin. 2018. Introduction: Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and the notion of Animacy Hierarchy. International Journal of Language and Culture, 5 (2). (Special issue: From Culture to Language and Back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse). 133-162.Search in Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, Monique Lamers. 2006. Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov, Peter de Swart, (eds.), Case, Valency and Transitivity, 269-287. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.77.17hooSearch in Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, Peter de Swart. 2009. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Hurford, James. 2007. The Origins of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi, Jussi Ylikoski (eds.). 2011. Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles (Typological Studies in Language, 99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.99Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lamers, Monique, Sander Lestrade, Peter de Swart (eds.). 2008. Animacy, argument structure and argument encoding (special issue). Lingua 118(2).10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009Search in Google Scholar
Lamers, Monique, Peter de Swart (eds.). 2012. Case, Word Order, and Prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2Search in Google Scholar
Leopold, David A., Rhodes, Gillian. 2010. A comparative view of face perception. Journal of Comparative Psychology 124(3). 233.10.1037/a0019460Search in Google Scholar
Lockwood, Hunter, Monica Macaulay. 2012. Prominence hierarchies. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/7. 431–446.10.1002/lnc3.345Search in Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2018. Shifting animacy and non-binary options. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 41-45.10.1515/tl-2018-0003Search in Google Scholar
Mak, Willem, Wietske Vonk, Herbert Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 466–490.10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2). 203-221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2018. Animacy shifts and resolution of semantic conflicts: A typological commentary on Shifting animacy by de Swart&de Hoop. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 47-55.10.1515/tl-2018-0004Search in Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Carl Börstell, So-One Hwang, Deniz Ilkbasaran, Itamar Kastner, Ryan Lepic, Adi Lifshitz Ben-Basat, Carol Padden, Wendy Sandler. 2017. The effect of being human and the basis of grammatical word order: Insights from novel communication systems and young sign languages. Cognition 158. 189-207.10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.011Search in Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114(9-10). 1186-1212.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005Search in Google Scholar
Narasimhan, Bhuvana, Nancy Budwig, Lalita Murty. 2005. Argument realization in Hindi caregiver–child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37(4). 461-495.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.005Search in Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane, Virve-Anneli Vihman. 2018. Shifting perspective: Noun classes, voice, and animacy type shifts. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 57–69.Search in Google Scholar
Opfer, John. 2002. Identifying living and sentient kinds from dynamic information: The case of goal-directed versus aimless autonomous movement in conceptual change. Cognition 86(2). 97-122.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00171-3Search in Google Scholar
Opfer, John, Susan Gelman, A. 2011. Development of the animate-inanimate distinction. In: Goswami, Usha (ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (2nd edition), 213-238. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444325485.ch8Search in Google Scholar
Prat-Sala, Mercè, Richard Shillcock, Antonella Sorace. 2000. Animacy effects on the production of object-dislocated descriptions by Catalan-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 27(1). 97-117.10.1017/S0305000999004031Search in Google Scholar
Premack, David, Ann James Premack. 1995. Intention as psychological cause. In: Sperber, Dan, David Premack, Anne Premack (eds.), Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate, 185-199. New York, NY: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2012. Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking. In: Lamers, Monique J.A., Peter de Swart, 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
Rakison, David H., Diane Poulin-Dubois. 2001. Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin 127. 209–228.10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.209Search in Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 2018. Possible and impossible animacy shifts. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 71-79. doi:10.1515/tl-2018-0006.10.1515/tl-2018-0006Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Animacy and grammatical variation: Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118(2). 151-171.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B. 2018. On type composition and agentivity. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 81-91.10.1515/tl-2018-0007Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In: Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 826–46. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Dixon, R.M.W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter. 2009. Texture: a cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748631209Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter, Helen de Hoop. 2018. Shifting animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 1-23.10.1515/tl-2018-0001Search in Google Scholar
Weisman, Kara, Ellen M. Markman, Carol S. Dweck. 2015. Reasoning about sentience and animacy: Children’s and adults’ inferences about the properties of unseen entities. In: Noelle, David, Rick Dale, Anne Warlaumont, Jeff Yoshimi, Teenie Matlock, Carolyn Dicey Jennings,&Paul Maglio (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2625–2630. Pasadena, CA.Search in Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1995. Object agreement in Palauan: Specificity, humanness, economy and optimality. In: Beckman, Jill, N., Laura Walsh Dickey, Suzanne C. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. Animacy Hierarchy Effects on Object Agreement. In: Kotey, Paul (ed.), New Dimensions in African Linguistics. Trends in African Linguistics, No. 3, 203-216. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Fuyun, Elsi Kaiser, Elaine Andersen. 2012. Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(10). 1489-1524.10.1080/01690965.2011.614423Search in Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and Reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.46Search in Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 2006. Agency and Impersonality: Their linguistic and cultural manifestations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.78Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Virve-Anneli Vihman et al., published De Gruyter Open
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
