Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:4 (2020) ► pp.812–830

The two faces of animacy

ORCID logo | Public University of Navarre (UPNA/NUP)
As pointed out by Corbett (2006, 2012), 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.
Keywords: animacy, condition, feature, hierarchy
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
Published online: 26 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19089.san
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
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: iconicity vs economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax morphology interface: a study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, René van den. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht & Providence, RI: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2004 [1994]. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams. 1997. The structure of Dagaare. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 31. 13–21.Google Scholar
. 1989 [1981]. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.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
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91. 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1972. Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Haiman, Jon. 1980. Hua: A Papuan language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, Margareth. 1994. Sentani. In Peter Kahrel & René van den Berg (eds.), Typological studies in negation, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Richard J. & Greville G. Corbett. 1988. Resolution rules in Qafar. Linguistics 26(2). 259–279. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2005. Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ji, Jie & Maocheng Liang. 2018. An animacy hierarchy within inanimate nouns: English corpus evidence from a prototypical perspective. Lingua 2051. 71–89. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology 121. 245–268. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & John Peter Lucius Gwynn. 1985. A Grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.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
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 21. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Press, Ian. 1986. A Grammar of modern Breton. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
. 2019. Animacy effects in inflectional morphology: A typological survey. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Schapper, Antoniette. 2009. Bunaq: A Papuan language of Central Timor. Canberra: The Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Ana. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society 101. 657–661.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
Swart, Peter de & Helen de Hoop. 2018. Shifting animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1–2). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swart, Peter de, Monique Lamers Lamers & Sander Lestrade. 2008. Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118(2). 131–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. 2003. Bhojpuri. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 515–537. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 1988. Topics in Tepehua grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 5 july 2024. 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.