Animacy and Reference (review)

Without attempting to link the notion of ‘animacy’ to any specific formal model of grammar, Mutsumi Yamamoto constructs a conceptual framework based on general semantic, cognitive, and ontological factors. Y assumes an essentially typological perspective to describe the contrasting ways animacy is reflected in the referential expressions of English and Japanese.

Y explores animacy in terms of several overlapping parameters: the General Animacy Scale, person hierarchy, individuation scale, semantic (thematic) roles, and politeness (or deference; Y draws no distinction between the two concepts). Each of these parameters is defined and briefly discussed in the introduction (1–7). Ch. 1, entitled ‘What is “animacy”?’ (9–39), presents a more detailed conceptual framework that borrows heavily from George Lakoff’s radial categorical model of the General Animacy Scale (Women, fire and dangerous things, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Ch. 2, ‘What does animacy do to human language?’ (41–71), is a cross-linguistic survey that attempts to relate ‘the structural pervasiveness of animacy’ (71) to human psychology. This chapter also reviews much of the relevant literature on the typology of animacy, particularly the discussion in William Croft’s Typology and universals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

The remaining chapters directly address the role of animacy in the referential expressions of English and Japanese. Ch. 3 (73–129) explores the hierarchy of persons and the role of animacy in number distinctions. Ch. 4 (130–46) examines how notions of animacy intersect with degrees of individuation. Ch. 5, (147–75), discusses the interdependence of animacy and agentivity; the referential role of animacy in conveying politeness and deference is also discussed. Y’s comparison of English and Japanese reveals that English tends to accentuate the expression of animacy in referential constructions, whereas Japanese suppresses animacy. Ch. 6, entitled ‘A neverending story of animacy’ (177–82), summarizes the discussion and suggests further points of inquiry (leaving some extralinguistic ramifications of the topic ‘to the anthropologist’). Linguists should note the concluding summary (180–82), where Y states that English tends to use central pronouns to encode animacy specifically while Japanese tends to encode it implicitly through a heavy dependence on ellipsis. The book closes with a list of references (183–95), an appendix listing the human/animate noun phrases used in the six case studies that form the basis of the study (197–268), and a general index (269–78).

This study is useful for its juxtaposition of two typologically very different referential systems (English and Japanese) as well as for its wide-ranging treatment of nonlinguistic considerations in conjunction with the linguistic aspects of animacy. The texts analyzed—which include a passage from Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express in the original and in Japanese translation, as well as Japanese texts of various genres with their English translations— highlight the differences discussed in an interesting way. In this connection, the appendix is useful for its item-by-item listing of animacy-related references in parallel English and Japanese versions of the same texts. Recommended for general typologists and scholars of discourse analysis but also useful for anyone interested specifically in comparing Japanese and English language structures.