Discover

'Animacy' is a grammatical category, usually of nouns, which influences the form a verb takes when it is associated with that noun.
Usually, animacy has to do with how alive or how sentient the referent of a noun is. In general, personal pronouns have the highest animacy, the first-person being the highest among them. Other humans follow them, and animals, plants, natural forces such as winds, concrete things, and abstract things follow in this order; however, according to the spiritual beliefs of the people whose language possesses an animacy hierarchy, deities, spirits, or certain types of animal or plant may be ranked very highly in the hierarchy.

Contents

Examples

Apachean

Japanese

Russian

Sinhala

Animacy hierarchy and split ergativity

References

See also

Examples

The distinction between ''he/she'' and ''it'' is a distinction in animacy; some languages, such as Turkish and spoken Finnish do not distinguish between ''s/he'' and ''it''. English, on the other hand, shows a similar lack of distinction between ''they'' animate and ''they'' inanimate.
Animacy plays some roles in English, as in any other language. For example, the higher animacy a referent has, the less preferable it is to use the preposition ''of'' for possession, as follows:

★ ''My face'' is correct, while
★ ''the face of me'' is not.

★ ''The man's face'' and ''the face of the man'' are both correct, and the former is preferred.

★ ''The clock's face'' and ''the face of the clock'' are both correct, and the latter is preferred.
Examples of languages in which an animacy hierarchy is important include the Mexican language Totonac and the Southern Athabaskan languages (such as Western Apache and Navajo), whose animacy hierarchy has been the subject of intense study. The Tamil language has a noun classification based on animacy.

Apachean

Like most Athabaskan languages, Southern Athabaskan languages show various levels of animacy in their grammar, with certain nouns taking specific verb forms according to their rank in this animacy hierarchy. For instance, Navajo nouns can be ranked by animacy on a continuum from most animate (a human) to least animate (an abstraction) (Young & Morgan 1987: 65-66):
Human > Infant/Big Animal > Medium-sized Animal > Small Animal > Natural Force > Abstraction
Generally, the most animate noun in a sentence must occur first while the noun with lesser animacy occurs second. If both nouns are equal in animacy, then either noun can occur in the first position. So, both example sentences (1) and (2) are correct. The ''yi-'' prefix on the verb indicates that the 1st noun is the subject and ''bi-'' indicates that the 2nd noun is the subject.

(1)	'Ashkii'	'at’ééd'	'yiníł’į́'
	boy	girl	''yi''-look
	'The boy is looking at the girl.'

(2)	'At’ééd'	'ashkii'	'biníł’į́'
	girl	boy	''bi''-look
	'The girl is being looked at by the boy.'

But example sentence (3) sounds wrong to most Navajo speakers because the less animate noun occurs before the more animate noun:

(3)	' ★ Tsídii'	'at’ééd'	'yishtąsh'
	bird	girl	''yi''-pecked
	★ 'The bird pecked the girl.'

In order to express this idea, the more animate noun must occur first, as in sentence (4):

(4)	'At’ééd'	'tsídi'	'bishtąsh'
	girl	bird	''bi''-pecked
	'The girl was pecked by the bird.'

Japanese

Although nouns in Japanese are not marked for animacy, it has two existential/possessive verbs; one which for implicitly animate nouns (usually humans and animals) and one for implicitly inanimate nouns (usually non-living objects and plants, etc.) The verb ''iru'' (いる also written 居る）is used to show the existence or possession of an animate noun. The verb ''aru'' (ある, sometimes written 在る when existential or 有る when possessive) is used to show the existence or possession of an inanimate noun.
An animate noun, in this case 'cat,' is marked as the subject of the verb with the subject particle ''ga'' (が), but no topic and no location are marked. This implies the noun is indefinite and merely exists.

(1)	'Neko'	'ga'	'iru.'
	猫	が	いる
	cat	SUBJECT	to exist/to have
	'There is a cat.'

In the second example, a topic is introduced, in this case "I", with the topic particle ''ha'' (は). The animate noun is again marked with a subject particle, and no location is denoted. This implies that the topic owns, or perhaps is holding onto, the noun.

(2)	'Watashi'	'ha'	'neko'	'ga'	'iru.'
	私	は	猫	が	いる
	I	TOPIC	cat	SUBJECT	to exist/to have
	'I have a cat.'

In the third example the noun is marked as the topic (and by default functions as the subject of the verb) while a location, in this case the top of a chair, is marked with the location particle ''ni'' (に). This implies that the noun is both a definite noun and that is located at the specified location.

(2)	'Neko'	'ha'	'isu no ue'	'ni'	'iru.'
	猫	は	椅子の上	に	いる
	cat	TOPIC	chair+NOUNCOORDINATOR+above/on	LOCATION	to exist/to have
	'The cat is on the chair.'

In all these cases if the noun is not animate, such as a stone, instead of a cat, the verb ''iru'' must be replaced with the verb ''aru'' (ある or 有る[possessive]/在る[existential,locative]).

(1)	'Ishi'	'ga'	'aru.'
	石	が	ある
	stone	SUBJECT	to exist/to have
	'There is a stone.'

(2)	'Watashi'	'ha'	'ishi'	'ga'	'aru.'
	私	は	石	が	ある
	I	TOPIC	stone	SUBJECT	to exist/to have
	'I have a stone.'

(3)	'Ishi'	'ha'	'isu no ue'	'ni'	'aru.'
	石	は	椅子の上	に	ある
	stone	TOPIC	chair+NOUNCOORDINATOR+above/on	LOCATION	to exist/to have
	'The stone is on the chair.'

In some cases where 'natural' animacy is ambiguous, whether a noun is animate or not is the decision of the speaker, as in the case of a robot, which could be correlated with the animate verb (to signify sentience or anthropomorphism), or with the inanimate verb (to emphasise that is a non-living thing).

(1)	'Robotto'	'ga'	'iru.'
	ロボット	が	いる
	robot	SUBJECT	to exist/to have
	'There is a robot' (emphasis on its human-like behavior).

(2)	'Robotto'	'ga'	'aru.'
	ロボット	が	ある
	robot	SUBJECT	to exist/to have
	'There is a robot' (emphasis on its status as a non-living thing).

Russian

In Russian, the accusative of animate nouns that are either masculine singular or masculine or feminine plural coincides with the genitive, while the accusative of inanimate nouns in the same cases coincides with the nominative.
For example, animate noun ''брат'' [brat] "a brother" in nominative case, inanimate noun ''кран'' [kran] "a crane" in accusative case:

(1)	''Брат''	''поднимает''	''кран''
	''Brat''	''podnimayet''	''kran''
	A brother	lifts	a crane

And on the contrary, ''брат'' in accusative case, ''кран'' in nominative case:

(2)	''Кран''	''поднимает''	''брат'а'''
	''Kran''	''podnimayet''	''brat'a'''
	A crane	lifts	a brother

Sinhala

In spoken Sinhala there are two existential/possessive verbs: හිටිනවා ''hiţinawā'' / ඉන්නවා ''innawā'' are used only for animate nouns (humans and animals), while තියෙනවා ''tiyenawā'' for inanimate nouns (non-living objects, plants, things, etc.)
For example:

(1)	'minihā'	'innawā'
	මිනිහා	ඉන්නවා
	man	there is/exists ''(animate)''
	''There is the man''

(2)	'watura'	'tiyenawā'
	වතුර	තියෙනවා
	water	there is/exists ''(inanimate)''
	''There is water''

Animacy hierarchy and split ergativity

Animacy can also condition the nature of the morphologies of languages which are split-ergative. In such languages, participants which are more animate are more likely to be the agent of the verb, and therefore are marked in an accusative pattern: unmarked in the agent role and marked in the patient or oblique role. Likewise, less animate participants are inherently more patient-like, and take ergative marking: unmarked when in the patient role and marked when in the agent role. The hierarchy of animacy generally, but not always, is ordered:
The location of the split (the line which divides the inherently agentive participants from the inherently patientive participants) varies from language to language, and in many cases the two classes overlaps, with a class of nouns near the middle of the hierarchy being marked for both the agent and patient roles.

References

★ Frishberg, Nancy. (1972). Navajo object markers and the great chain of being. In J. Kimball (Ed.), ''Syntax and semantics, (Vol. 1)'', (p. 259-266). New York: Seminar Press.

★ Hale, Kenneth L. (1973). A note on subject-object inversion in Navajo. In B. B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli, & S. Saporta (Eds.), ''Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane'', (p. 300-309). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

★ Thomas E. Payne, 1997. ''Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists.'' Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58224-5

★ Young, Robert W., & Morgan, William, Sr. (1987). The Navajo language: A grammar and colloquial dictionary (rev. ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-1014-1

See also

★ Grammatical gender

★ Noun class

★ Classifier (linguistics)