Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access December 13, 2018

Animacy and Affectedness in Germanic Languages

  • Jens Fleischhauer EMAIL logo
From the journal Open Linguistics


This paper deals with the influence of animacy on affectedness. German, like other Germanic languages, requires oblique marking of the inanimate undergoer argument of verbs of contact by impact (e.g. hit, kick, bite), whereas the animate undergoer argument takes non-oblique marking. Inanimacy does not necessarily result in oblique marking; undergoer arguments with inanimate referents are realized in a non-oblique construction if a change of state or location is explicitly predicated, as in resultative constructions. This suggests that the marking of inanimate undergoer arguments is conditioned by two factors: animacy and affectedness. The basic claim is that animate and inanimate entities are affected differently by hitting, kicking and similar activities. Inanimates can only be physically affected, whereas animates can be psychologically affected as well. Since verbs of contact by impact do not entail a change of state/location, they do not represent their undergoer arguments as being (necessarily) physically affected. Hence, the potential psychological effect of hitting, kicking and the like on animate beings gives rise for interpreting animate undergoer arguments of those verbs as being affected.


Ackerman, Farrel, John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21,435-483.Search in Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335-370.10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6Search in Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2012. Lexical Aspect and Multiple Incremental Themes. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, 23-59.Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 51 (4): 681-706.10.1515/ling-2013-0024Search in Google Scholar

Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden. 2012. Manner and Result in the Roots of Verbal Meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43 (3): 331-369.10.1162/LING_a_00093Search in Google Scholar

Bielec, Dana. 1998. Polish. An Essential Grammar. London, New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7Search in Google Scholar

Cruse, D. A. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9: 11-23.10.1017/S0022226700003509Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, Osten. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118: 141-150.Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, Osten & Kari Fraurud. 1998. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.). Reference and referent accessibility, 65-88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen. 2015. Against affectedness. In Sander Lestrade, Peter de Swart & Lotte Hogeweg (eds.). Addenda. Artikelen voor Ad Foolen, 169-176. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Search in Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. PhD thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Search in Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2014. Prepositional inanimates in Dutch: A paradigmatic case of Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 445-468.10.1515/ling-2013-0069Search 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

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67 (3): 547-619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Tova Rapoport. 2010. Contact and Other Results. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.). Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, 59-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1970. The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120-133. Ginn: Waltham, Mass.Search in Google Scholar

Fleischhauer, Jens. 2013. Interaction of telicity and degree gradation in change of state verbs. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke & Rafael Marin (eds.), Studies in Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates, 125-152. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_6Search in Google Scholar

Fleischhauer, Jens. 2016. Degree Gradation of Verbs. Dusseldorf: Dusseldorf University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fleischhauer, Jens & Thomas Gamerschlag. 2014. We are going through changes: How change of state verbs and arguments combine in scale composition. Lingua 141, 30-47.Search in Google Scholar

Gillmann, Melitta. 2016. Perfekt-Konstruktionen mit „haben“ und „sein“. Eine Korpusuntersuchung im Althochdeutschen, Altsächsischen und Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110492170Search in Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, Anja, Thomas Gamerschlag, Wiebke Petersen, Ekaterina Gabrovska & Wilhelm Geuder. 2017. Towards Verb Modification in Frames. A Case Study on German Schlagen (to hit). In Helle Hvid Hansen, Sarah E. Murray, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh & Henk Zeevat (eds.), Selected papers of the 11th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation. LNCS 10148, 18-36. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-54332-0_2Search in Google Scholar

Grewendorf, Gunther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110859256Search in Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Salt IX, 127-144. Ithaca: CLC Publications.10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg A. Kaiser. 2011. Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Morphology 21: 593-617.10.1007/s11525-010-9177-ySearch in Google Scholar

Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995. O- and D-Predicates: A Semantic Approach to the Unaccusative-Unergative Distinction. Journal of Semantics 12 (4): 377-427.10.1093/jos/12.4.377Search in Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjective - The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates. Language 81 (2): 345-381.10.1353/lan.2005.0071Search in Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher & Beth Levin. 2008. The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Louise McNally & ChristopherSearch in Google Scholar

Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse, 156-182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1986. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Munchen: Fink.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Bentham & Peter van Emde (eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783110877335-005Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2009. Case syncretism in German feminines: Typological, functional and structural aspects. In Patrick Steinrkuger & Manfred Krifka (eds.), On inflection, 141-172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Kulikov, Leonid. 2006. Case systems in a diachronic perspective. In Leonid Kulikov & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 23-47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.77.04kulSearch in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 2015. Verb classes within and across languages. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. II, 1627-1670. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110429343-019Search in Google Scholar

Lundquist, Bjorn & Gilian Ramchand. 2012. Contact, animacy, and affectedness in Germanic. In Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn & Caroline Heycock (eds.), Comparative Germanic Syntax, 224-248. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.191.08lunSearch 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

Nass, Ashild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.72Search in Google Scholar

Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8Search in Google Scholar

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19 (5-6): 389-438.10.1515/ling.1981.19.5-6.389Search in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66 (2): 221-260.10.2307/414886Search in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578.001Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-10-17
Accepted: 2018-04-02
Published Online: 2018-12-13
Published in Print: 2018-12-01

© by Jens Fleischhauer, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Downloaded on 22.2.2024 from
Scroll to top button