Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-mk7jb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T02:06:29.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Set-Based Semantics for Person, Obviation, and Animacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Christopher Hammerly
Christopher Hammerly*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, 2613 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 Canada, [chris.hammerly@ubc.ca]
Get access

Abstract

This article provides a general analysis of the semantics of person, broadly construed, through a case study of Ojibwe (Central Algonquian). Ojibwe shows person-like distinctions based on whether an entity is living or nonliving (i.e. animacy) and, within living things, whether a being is prominent or backgrounded in the discourse (i.e. obviation). The central principle of the account is contrast: the activation and interpretation of a feature is driven by the requirement that it makes a cut to derive the proper categories within a given inventory. With this principle, I show that a small set of bivalent features denoting first-order predicates can capture Ojibwe as well as a wider typology of person, animacy, obviation, and noun classification distinctions.

Keywords

obviationanimacypersonAlgonquianOjibweφ-features

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 38 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2018. Features of person: From the inventory of persons to their morphological realization. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 78.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11145.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David, and Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10. 2–37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17. 673–711. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006335629372.10.1023/A:1006335629372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, Nicholas B. 2018. Anti-agreement. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2n162261.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather. 2005a. Formalizing point-of-view: The role of sentience in Blackfoot's direct/inverse system. Calgary: University of Calgary master's thesis. DOI: 10.11575/PRISM/2496.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather. 2005b. Topic, focus, and point of view in Blackfoot. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24. 61–69. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/24/abstract1207.html.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather. 2013. The Blackfoot configurationality conspiracy: Parallels and differences in clausal and nominal structures. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/45645.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25. 203–30. DOI: 10.1515/TLIR.2008.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 1991. The morphology and syntax of determiner phrases in Kiswahili. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2008. DP in Bantu and Romance. The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure, ed. by de Cat, Cécile and Demuth, Katherine, 131–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2010. Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features. Exploring crash-proof grammars, ed. by Putnam, Michael T., 31–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.3.03carCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 2001. Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. Distinctive feature theory, ed. by Hall, T. Alan, 71–146. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110886672.71.10.1515/9783110886672.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Keine, Stefan. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52. 655–710. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-6932-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2017. The rise of contrastive modality in English: A neoparametric account. Linguistic Variation 17. 68–97. DOI: 10.1075/lv.17.1.04cow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2019. Scope variation in contrastive hierarchies of morphosyntactic features. Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition, ed. by Lightfoot, David and Havenhill, Jon, 27–41. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199254125.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 409–42. DOI: 10.1162/002438902760168554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10822/553142.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511642005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2018. Contrastive hierarchy theory and the nature of features. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 35. 18–29. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/35/abstract3371.html.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1994. The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse. Voice and inversion, ed. by Givón, T., 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Obviation across clause boundaries in Kutenai. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 33–52. DOI: 10.17161/KWPL.1808.334.Google Scholar
Foley, Steven, and Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2022. Extending the person-case constraint to gender: Agreement, locality, and the syntax of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 53. 1–40. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00395.10.1162/ling_a_00395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantz, Donald. 1991. Blackfoot grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Grafstein, Ann. 1984. Argument structure and the syntax of a non-configurational language. Montreal: McGill University dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/jq085p15q.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation. Online: https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6497.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2020. Contrast in syntax and contrast in phonology: Same difference? Contrast and representations in syntax, ed. by Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. and Hall, Daniel Currie, 247–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198817925.003.0009.Google Scholar
Hammerly, Christopher. 2019. Limiting gender. Gender and noun classification, ed. by Mathieu, Éric, Dali, Myriam, and Zareikar, Gita, 93–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198828105.003.0005.Google Scholar
Hammerly, Christopher. 2020. Person-based prominence in Ojibwe. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation. DOI: 10.7275/18867536.Google Scholar
Hammerly, Christopher. 2021a. A set-based representation of person features: Consequences for AGREE. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 51.Google Scholar
Hammerly, Christopher. 2021b. A verb-raising analysis of the Ojibwe VOS/VSO alternation: Lessons for feature copying and movement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, ms.Google Scholar
Hammerly, Christopher, and Göbel, Alex. 2019. A new perspective on obviation in Ojibwe from attitude contexts. Poster presented at the 93rd annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262034739.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Gender in Amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences 43. 102–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.004.10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, Hunter T., and Macaulay, Monica. 2012. Prominence hierarchies. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 431–46. DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2005. On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81. 699–718. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehlbauer, Jeffrey. 2012. The relation of switch-reference, animacy, and obviation in Plains Cree. International Journal of American Linguistics 78. 203–38. DOI: 10.1086/664480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple Agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 939–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4.10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, Will. 2019. Inverse marking and multiple Agree in Algonquin: Complementarity and variability. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37. 955–96. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9428-x.10.1007/s11049-018-9428-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, Jonathan. 2019. Animacy is a presupposition in Swahili. Theory and description in African linguistics: Selected papers from the 47th annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. by Clem, Emily, Jenks, Peter, and Sande, Hannah, 555–70. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3367184.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3. 279–316. DOI: 10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279.10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Řezáč, Milan. 2008. Phi-agree and theta-related case. Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. by Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Syntax and semantics 25), ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 37–62. Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004373198_004.10.1163/9789004373198_004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. Where's gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24. 795–803. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178843.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 2014. Featuring animacy. Nordlyd 41. 103–24. DOI: 10.7557/12.3315.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. The discourse potential of underspecified structures, ed. by Steube, Anita, 581–600. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110209303.4.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, Robert M. W., 112–71. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4688087.Google Scholar
Stegovec, Adrian. 2020. Taking case out of the person-case constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 261–311. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-019-09443-0.10.1007/s11049-019-09443-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treuer, Anton (ed.) 2001. Living our language: Ojibwe tales and oral histories. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina, Marshall, Valerie, Matheson, Andy; and Vincent, Audra. 2015. Independent pronouns in Blackfoot. Papers of the Forty-Third Algonquian Conference, 266–88. Online: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/ALGQP/article/view/2289/2063.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1977. Hierarchies of person. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 714–33.Google Scholar