Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

How Animacy and Natural Gender Constrain Morphological Complexity: Evidence from Diachrony

Iván Igartua / Ekaitz Santazilia
Published Online: 2018-11-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0022

Abstract

In addition to its central role in the organization of gender systems and its numerous effects on different parts of the grammar, animacy reveals itself as a significant, sometimes even determinant factor in diachronic processes like the reduction of morphological complexity. Complexity in the realm of inflection may be defined as the extent to which formal distinctions in paradigms are semantically or phonologically unmotivated and therefore largely unpredictable on extramorphological grounds. Animacy and natural (or sex-based) gender emerge in certain cases as features capable of constraining this kind of complexity by offering a transparent semantic criterion that helps substantiate several formal distinctions in languages, thereby reducing the amount of morphological complexity or unpredictability inherited from earlier stages in the evolution of different linguistic systems.

Keywords: Animacy; natural gender; morphological complexity; allomorphy; diachronic change; marginal gender; gender loss

References

  • Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf. 2009. Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 54−82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ackerman, Farrell & Robert Malouf. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89(3). 429−464.Google Scholar

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Audring, Jenny. 2014. Gender as a complex feature. Language Sciences 43. 5−17.Google Scholar

  • Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2010. Morphological complexity: A typological perspective. Manuscript. Surrey: University of Surrey. Online: http://webilc.ilc.cnr.it~pirrelli/ESF_workshop/materiali/corbett/Pisa%20paper-15a.pdf (accessed 12 June 2017).Google Scholar

  • Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett (eds.). 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Dunstan. 2007. Peripheral functions and overdifferentiation: The Russian second locative. Russian Linguistics 31(1). 61−76.Google Scholar

  • Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1986. Macroclasses and paradigm economy in German nouns. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39(1). 3−11.Google Scholar

  • Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London, New York & Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

  • Coker, Amy. 2009. Analogical change and grammatical gender in ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9. 34−55.Google Scholar

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Gender in Russian: An account of gender specification and its relationship to declension. Russian Linguistics 6. 197−232.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2008. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 1−34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries. Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 69−93. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 2000a. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. I: Approaches to gender (Trends in Linguistics 124), 99−115. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 2000b. Elementary gender distinctions. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. II: Manifestations of gender (Trends in Linguistics 124), 577−593. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dawkins, Richard M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A study of the dialects of Silli, Cappadocia and Pharasa with grammars, texts, translations, and glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2011. Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 55−138.Google Scholar

  • Enger, Hans-Olav & Tore Nesset. 2011 Constraints in diachronic development: The Animacy Hierarchy and the Relevance Constraint. Language Typology and Universals − Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 4(3). 193−212.Google Scholar

  • Herbert, Robert K. 1985. Gender systems and semanticity: Two case histories from Bantu. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics - Historical word formation, 171−197. Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Hovdhaugen, Even. 1976. Some aspects of language contact in Anatolia. Working Papers in Linguistics (Oslo) 7/8. 142−160.Google Scholar

  • Hurch, Bernhard. 1989. Hispanisierung im Baskischen. In Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds.), Vielfalt der Kontakte. Beitrage zum 5. Essener Kolloquium uber ‘Grammatikalisierung: Naturlichkeit und Systemokonomie’ vom 6-8.10.1988 an der Universitat Essen, 11−35. Band I. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

  • Igartua, Iván. 2005. Origen y evolucion de la flexion nominal eslava. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar

  • Igartua, Iván. 2009. Morphological effects of feminine animacy in 16th century Sorbian. Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie 66/1. 61−74.Google Scholar

  • Igartua, Iván. 2015. Feminine animacy in the Slavic languages. Talk delivered at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Leiden, 4 September 2015.Google Scholar

  • Igartua, Iván & Nerea Madariaga. 2018. The interplay of semantic and formal factors in Russian morphosyntax: Animate paucal constructions in direct object function. Russian Linguistics 42(1). 27−55.Google Scholar

  • Janda, Laura A. 1996a. Back from the brink: a study of how relic forms serve as source material for analogical extension. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Janda, Laura A. 1996b. Figure, ground, and animacy in Slavic declension. Slavic and East European Journal 40(2). 325−355.Google Scholar

  • Janse, Mark. 2004. Animacy, definiteness, and case in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialects. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5. 3−26.Google Scholar

  • Janse, Mark. 2009. Greek-Turkish language contact in Asia Minor. Etudes helleniques / Hellenic Studies 17. 37−54.Google Scholar

  • Karatsareas, Petros. 2009. The loss of grammatical gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 107. 196−230.Google Scholar

  • Kastovsky, Dieter. 2000. Inflectional classes, morphological restructuring, and the dissolution of Old English grammatical gender. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. II: Manifestations of gender (Trends in Linguistics 124), 709-727. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Klenin, Emily R. 1983. Animacy in Russian: A new interpretation. Ohio: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.). 2011. Case, animacy, and semantic roles (Typological Studies in Language 99). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Krys´ko, Vadim B. 1994. Razvitie kategorii oduševlennosti v istorii russkogo jazyka [The rise of the category of animacy in the history of the Russian language]. Moscow: Lyceum.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26(1). 79−102.Google Scholar

  • Maho, Jouni. 1999. A comparative study of Bantu noun classes (Orientalia et Africana Gothoburgensia 13). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203−221.Google Scholar

  • McWhorter, John. 2002. What happened to English? Diachronica 9(2). 217−272.Google Scholar

  • McWhorter, John. 2007. Language interrupted. Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mel´chuk, Igor A. 1980. Animacy in Russian cardinal numerals and adjectives as an inflectional category: A problem of agreement. Language 56(4). 797-811.Google Scholar

  • Mikaelian, Irina. 2013. Cardinal numeral constructions and the category of animacy in Russian. Russian Linguistics 37(1). 71-90.Google Scholar

  • Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1968. Gender and the development of the Greek declensions. Transactions of the Philological Society 67(1). 12−36.Google Scholar

  • Olander, Thomas. 2015. Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology. A comparative handbook. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Ortmann, Albert. 1998. The role of +/−animate in inflection. In Ray Fabri, Albert Ortmann & Teresa Parodi (eds.), Models of inflection, 60−84. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Osam, Emmanuel Kweku. 1993 [1996]. Animacy distinctions in Akan grammar. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23(2). 153−164.Google Scholar

  • Rubino, Carl. 1997. A reference grammar of Ilocano. PhD thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara.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

  • Schenker, Alexander. 1995. The dawn of Slavic: An introduction to Slavic philology. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Short, David. 1993. Slovak. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 533−591. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112−171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Smith-Stark, Thomas Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. In Michael W. La Galy, Robert M. Fox & Anthony Bruck (eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 657−671. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Stolz, Thomas. 2012. Survival in a niche. On gender-copy in Chamorro (and sundry languages). In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka (eds.), Morphologies in contact, 93−140. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Stucky, Susan U. 1978. How a noun class system may be lost: Evidence from Kituba (lingua franca Kikongo). Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8(1). 216−233.Google Scholar

  • Stump, Gregory & Raphael Finkel. 2013. Morphological typology. From word to paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop. 2018. Shifting animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1-2). 1-23.Google Scholar

  • Tadmor, Uri. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Indonesian. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 301−328. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Topping, Donald D. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar (with the assistance of Bernadita C. Dungca). Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar

  • Townsend, Charles E. & Laura A. Janda. 1996. Common and comparative Slavic: Phonology and inflection with special attention to Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian. Columbus (Ohio): Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Trask, Robert L. 2003. The noun phrase: Nouns, determiners and modifiers; pronouns and names. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque (Mouton Grammar Library 26), 113−170. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Verkerk, Annemarie & Francesca di Garbo. 2017. Correlates of restructuring in Bantu gender systems. Talk delivered at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zurich, 12 September 2017.Google Scholar

  • Vihman, Virve-Anneli, Diane Nelson & Simon Kirby. 2018. Animacy distinctions arise from iterated learning. Open Linguistics (special issue: Effects of animacy in grammar and cognition).Google Scholar

  • Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1998. Drei Ebenen der Struktur von Flexionsparadigmen. In Ray Fabri, Albert Ortmann & Teresa Parodi (eds.), Models of inflection, 225−243. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-10-31

Accepted: 2018-06-15

Published Online: 2018-11-24

Published in Print: 2018-11-01


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 438–452, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0022.

Export Citation

© by Iván Igartua, Ekaitz Santazilia, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in