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

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 2.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.343

CiteScore 2017: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.318

Online
ISSN
1613-4060
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 1-2

Issues

Possible and impossible animacy shifts

Elizabeth Ritter
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Languages, Linguistics, Literatures & Cultures, University of Calgary, Craigie Hall D 310, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary AB T2N 1N4, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-05-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0006

References

  • Aristar, Anthony R. 1997. Marking and hierarchy: Types and the grammaticalization of case- markers. Studies in Language 21. 313–368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bliss, Heather. 2010. Argument structure, applicatives and animacy in Blackfoot. In H. Bliss & R. Girard (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th and 14th Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 26). Vancouver: UBC Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Bliss, Heather. 2013. The Blackfoot configurationality conspiracy: Parallels and differences in clausal and nominal structures. Vancouver: UBC dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bloomfield, Leonard. 1946. Algonquian. In H. Hoijer (ed.), Linguistic structures of native America, 85–129. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6.Google Scholar

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

  • Dahl, Östen. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118. 141–150.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dahlstrom, Amy. 1995. Motivation vs. predictability in Algonquian gender. In D. H. Pentland (ed.), Papers of the Twenty-Sixth Algonquian Conference, 52–66. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.Google Scholar

  • Darnell, Regna & Anthony L. Vanek 1976. The semantic basis of the animate/inanimate distinction in Cree. Papers in Linguistics 9. 159–180.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frantz, Donald G. & Norma Jean Russell. 2017. Blackfoot grammar, 3rd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

  • Goddard, Ives. 2002. Grammatical gender in Algonquian. In H.C. Wolfard (ed.), Papers of the 33rd Algonquian Conference, 195–231. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.Google Scholar

  • Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Hockett, Charles F. 1966. What Algonquian is really like. International Journal of American Linguistics 32. 59–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johansson, Sara. 2008. The status of nominal gender in Algonquian: Evidence from psych verbs. In S. Jones (ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Johansson.pdf (accessed 26 February 2018).

  • Kim, Kyumin. 2015. Spatial PPs and the structure of motion verbs in Blackfoot. In N. Weber & S. Chen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas, 35–49 (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 39). Vancouver: UBC Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Kramer, Ruth. 2012. Gender in Amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences 43. 102–115.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Louie, Megan. 2008. Atemporal anchoring of individuals, events and subevents in Blackfoot: Consequences for the syntax-semantics interface. Toronto: University of Toronto MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mathieu, Éric. 2012. Flavours of division. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 650–679.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mithun, Marianne. 2001. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ritter, Elizabeth. 2014. Featuring animacy. Nordlyd 41. 103–124.Google Scholar

  • Ritter, Elizabeth. 2015. Selection for [m] in Blackfoot: Consequences for event structure. Workshop on contrast in syntax, Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, April 24–25, 2015.Google Scholar

  • Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2016. Humanness as an alternative to case licensing. In L. Hracs (ed.), Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://cla-acl.ca/wp-content/uploads/actes-2016/Ritter_Wiltschko_CLA2016_proceedings.pdf (accessed 26 February 2018).

  • Wiltschko, Martina. 2012. Decomposing the count-mass distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it. In D. Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 146–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-05-23

Published in Print: 2018-05-25


Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 44, Issue 1-2, Pages 71–79, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0006.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in