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

Theoretical Linguistics is an open peer review journal. Each issue contains one long target article about a topic of general linguistic interest, together with several shorter reactions, comments and reflections on it. With this format, the journal aims to stimulate discussion in linguistics and adjacent fields of study, in particular across schools of different theoretical orientations.

Search