Shifting from animacy to agentivity

Marco García García 1 , Beatrice Primus 2 , and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann 3
  • 1 Romance Department, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany
  • 2 Institute for German Language and Literature, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany
  • 3 Department of Linguistics, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany
Marco García García
  • Corresponding author
  • Romance Department, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Beatrice Primus
  • Institute for German Language and Literature, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Asher, Nicholas. 2014. Selectional restrictions, types and categories. Journal of Applied Logic 12. 75–87.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Asher, Ronald E. & T.C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. London/New York: Routledge.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Cruse, Donald A. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–23.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dahl, Östen. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118. 141–150.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Delbecque, Nicole. 2002. A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. In K. Davidse & B. Lamiroy (eds.), The nominative & accusative and their counterparts, 81–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Egger, Julia. 2016. Asking the magic mirror: Fairytales and animacy in Malayalam. Unpublished term paper, Radboud University Nijmegen.

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • García García, Marco. 2007. Differential object marking with inanimate objects. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages” (Arbeitspapier des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft 122), 63–84. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.

  • García García, Marco. 2014. Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • García García, Marco. in press. Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of DOM in Spanish. In I. A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 207–239. Berlin: Language Science Press.

  • Haiden, Martin. 2012. The content of semantic roles: Predicate-argument structure in language and cognition. In M. Everaert et al. (eds.), The theta system: Argument structure at the interface, 52–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kabatek, Johannes. 2016. Wohin strebt die differentielle Objektmarkierung im Spanischen? Romanistisches Jahrbuch 67. 211–239.

  • Katz, Jerrold J. & Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 2. 170–210.

  • Katz, Jerrold J. & Paul M. Postal. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Laca, Brenda. 2006. El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In C. Company (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal, 423–475. México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional de México.

  • Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 236–287.

  • Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Müller, Bodo. 1971. Das morphemmarkierte Satzobjekt der romanischen Sprachen (Der sogenannte präpositionale Akkusativ). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 87. 477–519.

  • Perlmutter, David M. 1979. Working 1s and inversion in Italian, Japanese and Quechua. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistic Society, 277–324.

  • Primus, Beatrice. 2012. Animacy, generalized semantic roles and differential object marking. In M. Lamers & P. de Swart (eds.), Case, word order, and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Russell, Stuart J. & Peter Norvig. 2003. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

  • de Swart, Peter. 2014. Prepositional inanimates in Dutch: A paradigmatic case of differential object marking. Linguistics 52. 445–468.

  • Thorne, James. 1988. “What is a poem?” in the taming of the text. In W. Van Peer (ed.), Explorations in language, literature and culture, 280–291. London: Routledge.

  • Tomasello, Michael, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne & Henrike Mol. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28. 675–691.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Van Valin, Robert D. & Wendy Wilkins. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Weissenrieder, Maureen. 1991. A functional approach to the accusative a. Hispania 74. 146–156.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Zaenen, Annie, Jean Carletta, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O’Connor & Tom Wasow. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In D. Byron & B. Webber (eds.), Proceedings of the ACL workshop on discourse annotation, 118–125. Barcelona: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Zwaan, Rolf A. 1994. Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20. 920–933.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Search