THE CATEGORY of ANMACY: a SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCWY? Marija Stefanovic a Thesis Submitted in Confomiity with the Requirements F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CATEGORY OF ANMACY: A SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCWY? by Marija Stefanovic A thesis submitted in confomiity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Depanment of Slavic Languages and Literatwes University of Toronto O Copyright by Manja StefanoMc ZOO0 National Library Bibliotheque nationale 1*1 ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie SeNices servkes bibliqmphiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seii reproduire, prêter, distn'buer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis oor substmtial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. THE CATEGORY OF ANIMACY: A SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCHY? Ph.D. Thesis Manj a Stefanovic Depanment of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Toronto, 2000 This dissertation focuses on variation in the accusative form in Serbian and Russian that in much of the previous research has been ascribed to marking of the category of animacy in Slavic languages that have the case system. Analysis of data fiom these two languages suggests that the accusative-genitive syncretism, which the scholars traditiondly associated with marking of the object's animacy, in fact marks its atypicality. while the accusative-nominative syncretism marks the object's typicality. Since the speaker sees him/herself as the ultimate subject and the most atypical object. every object that has features the speaker usually associates with hirnlherself can be treated as atypical. Whenever an object is animate. has a personal name, is highly referential and possesses features that are associated with a high degree of referentiality (is individuated ador definite). or is in the focus. or is supplied with a large amount of information about it, or provokes a special attitude from the speaker. than this object can acquire the accusative-genitive fom; t his case marking does not necessarily correspond to the object's real-life status and semantically appropriate marking f?om the point of view of animacy. Conversely, when the object is not to be perceived as atypical (individuated and relevant "on its own" for the speaker's particular communicational needs), it can be rnarked with the accusative-nominative form, regardless of its animacy status. The conneetion of choice of the accusative form to the speaker's perception of objects as typicd or atypical makes it possible to eliminate long lists of "exceptions" and semantically inexplicable cases of animacy marking, and to view anbcy as a part ofa more general category of atypical objects. Many factors that can influence the accusative form sometimes occur simultaneou~lyin a sentence. or can overn.de one another. which rnakes it impossible to establish a rigid hierarchy that would govem the choice ofthe accusative form. iii FOREWORD My interest in the category of animacy arose dunng rny graduate studies at the University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The first results of my research based on contemporary Russian and Serbian appeared in my M.A. thesis, written under the supervision of Professor Predrag Piper. That thesis was the starting point for furiher research, which included several studies of different aspects of the category of animacy. The present thesis is my attempt to explain the complexity of this category in a manner that would eliminate as many as possible of the exceptions traditionally ascribed to the category of animacy irregulanties. I wish to express my sincere thanks to ail mernbers of my Cornmittee: Christina E. Kramer, Joseph Schallert, Wayles Browne and Ralph Bogen. 1 am particularly grateful to my advisors Christina Kramer and Joseph Schallen for their constant support, patience and insightfùl comments during al1 phases of this project. In addition, their kindness and understanding made my balancing between work and family less stressful. My parents and in-laws have my special gratitude for their help in taking care of rny son Ivan. Finally, the complet ion of this dissertation would not be possible without my husband Sladjan's consideration and support. I dedicate this work to the memory of rny grandfather Stevan Iovifid (1 9 18- 1998). whose love and trust followed me everywhere. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. MTRODUCTION 1-21 1. 0. introduction .....................................................................................................1 1.1. The Corpus ......................................................................................................6 1.2. Rule 'and Esccpiioiis ...........................................................................................6 f .3. @o!o)typicnl Qljcct': .................................................................................. 11 1.4. Variation - S1wc.i. ;ilid ltciiiitig ............................................................................17 1.5. Chaptcr Oiiiliiic .........................................................................................20 2. DEVELOPMENT OF tIY POTH ESES AND THEORLES ON TBE CATEMDRY OF ANIMACY 22-39 2.1. Gcndcr iiiid Ariiiii;iq ......................................................................................22 2.2. Mcillci's Hgoilicsis .......................................................................................23 th 2.3. Dcvclopriicrii al' 111c Hicon iti tlic 20 Cenhuy .......................................................26 2.3.1. hlorl~lio-S!iii:iciic Approacli .................................................................26 2.3.1. Som-Lirigiiisitc Approacli ................................................................... 29 2.3.3. L;i t c.51 H! pot licscs - Compromises and New Discoveries ................................ 32 2 ; ;. 1 . Hic.r;ircliics Rclated to Animacy ...............................................32 2 . ; ; 1. \.. H . kys'ko's Reaiialysis of Data and Theories ............................34 -' . 7 ; ; 'Ti 111bcrliikc's Research and the Introduction of Contextual Meaning ..... 36 2.4. Concliisioti........................................................................................... 38 3. FEATURES INFLU ESClNC Tt1 E ACCUSATIVEI<;EmACCUSATIVE-NOMMA= SYNCRETISM 40-62 3.1. Invodiictioii .................................................................................................40 3.2. Rolc of tlic Gciiiiivc iri iiic Clioicc of the Accusative-Genitive Syncretism ........................ 42 3.2.1. Verbal Rcctiuti ;ilid Sciii,ui tics ....................................................................... 12 3.2.2. Gcnitivc Objccis iii Non-Ncgated Sentences ......................................................... 45 3.2.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................46 3.3. Markers of Ai>.pic;ilit!. ........................................................................................47 3.3.1. Iiitrodiictioii....................................................................................... 47 3.3.2. Iricli\~idii;iiiori.................................................................................... 50 3.3.3. Dcl?tiiiciic.ss ......................... ., .....................................................52 3.3.4. Rclcrctii~;ilit.................................................................................... 56 3.3.5. Foc.ility . Topic;ility aiid Wordûrder .......................................................... 58 3.3.6. Coricltision ........................................................................................61 1. DESCRIPTION OF LINGUISTIC FACTS TRADITIONAWIY RELATED TO TBE CATEGORY OF ANIM ACU IN SEWWAND RUSSIAN 64-119 4.1. introductioii . ................................................................................ 64 4.2. Variation in L's;igc Rcl;itcd ici Uriccrtninty about the Real-Lifk Statu of the Object ................. 66 4.2.1. introdtict ioii ............................................ 4.2.2. Microor,,"-!111sIIIS ...................................................................................68 4.2.3. Iricoriipleicl! DC\C[OPC~Organisms ................................................................. 70 1.2.4. Iiiiriiobilc Bciiigs ....................................................................................70 1.2.5. LL'SSL)~K;IO\\II -\~~IIII;IIL' Bci~igs ....................................................................... 71 4.2.6.Dcad Bciirgh ............................... .................................................. 73 4.2.7. Fintnsiic Uciiigs ...................................................................................74 4.2.8. Coticliisiciii .......................................................................................75 4.3. Nouns Dcnotirig Aiiiiii;i t c. Bci~igsUscd as Inanimate Objects ............................................ 76 4.3.1. Inirodiict iori ............................................................................................76 4.3.2. Noii-Pol! s~iiii~iisLL'.\CIIICS