Animacy

Animacy(antonym:inanimacy) is agrammaticalandsemantic feature,existing in some languages, expressing howsentientoralivethe referent of anounis.Widely expressed, animacy is one of the most elementary principles in languages around the globe and is a distinction acquired as early as six months of age.

Concepts of animacy constantly vary beyond a simple animate and inanimate binary; many languages function off anhierarchicalgeneral animacy scale that ranks animacy as a "matter of gradience".Typically (with some variation of order and of where the cutoff for animacy occurs), the scale ranks humans above animals, then plants, natural forces, concrete objects, and abstract objects, in that order. In referring to humans, this scale contains a hierarchy of persons, ranking the first- and second-personpronounsabove the third person, partly a product of empathy, involving the speaker andinterlocutor.

Examples

The distinction betweenhe,she,andother personal pronouns,on one hand, andit,on the other hand is a distinction in animacy inEnglishand in manyIndo-European languages.The same can be said about distinction betweenwhoandwhat.Some languages, such asTurkish,Georgian,Spoken FinnishandItalian,do not distinguish betweens/heandit.InFinnish,there is a distinction in animacy betweenhän,"he/she", andse,"it", but inSpoken Finnishsecan mean "he/she". English shows a similar lack of distinction betweentheyanimate andtheyinanimate in the plural but, as shown above, it has traditionally had such a distinction in the singular, although this is being eroded by the growing use oftheyas an ungendered singular pronoun.

There is another example of how animacy plays some role in English. For example, the higher animacy a referent has, the less preferable it is to use the prepositionoffor possession (that can also be interpreted in terms of alienable orinalienable possession):

• My faceis correct whilethe face of minewould sound strange.
• The man's faceandthe face of the manare both correct, but the former is preferred.
• The clock's faceandthe face of the clockare both correct.

Examples of languages in which an animacy hierarchy is important include theTotonac languageinMexicoand theSouthern Athabaskan languages(such asWestern ApacheandNavajo) whose animacy hierarchy has been the subject of intense study. TheTamil languagehas anoun classificationbased on animacy.

Proto-Indo-European language

Because of the similarities in morphology of feminine and masculinegrammatical genderinflections inIndo-European languages,there is a theory that in an early stage, theProto-Indo-European languagehad only two grammatical genders: "animate"and"inanimate/neuter";the most obvious difference being that inanimate/neuter nouns used the same form for thenominative,vocative,andaccusativenoun cases.The distinction was preserved inAnatolian languageslikeHittite,all of which are now extinct.

The animate gender would then later, after the separation of the Anatolian languages, have developed into the feminine and masculine genders. The plural of neuter/inanimate nouns is believed to have had the same ending ascollective nounsin the singular, and some words with the collective noun ending in singular were later to become words with the feminine gender. Traces can be found inAncient Greekin which the singular form of verbs was used when they referred to neuter words in plural. In many Indo-European languages, such asLatinand theSlavic languages,the plural ending of many neuter words in the merged nominative–accusative–vocative corresponds to the feminine singular nominative form.

Navajo (Diné)

Like most otherAthabaskan languages,Southern Athabaskan languagesshow 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(Diné) nouns can be ranked by animacy on a continuum from most animate (a human) to least animate (an abstraction) (Young & Morgan 1987: 65–66):

Adult human/lightning > 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, either noun can occur in the first position. Both sentences (1) and (2) are correct. Theyi-prefix on the verb indicates that the first noun is the subject andbi-indicates that the second noun is the subject.

(1)

Ashkii

boy

at’ééd

girl

yiníł’į́

yi-look

Ashkiiat’éédyiníł’į́

boy girlyi-look

'The boy is looking at the girl.'

(2)

At’ééd

girl

ashkii

boy

biníł’į́

bi-look

At’éédashkiibiníł’į́

girl boybi-look

'The girl is being looked at by the boy.'

Sentence (3), however, sounds wrong to most Navajo speakers because the less animate noun occurs before the more animate noun:

(3)

*Tsídii

bird

at’ééd

girl

yishtąsh

yi-pecked

*Tsídiiat’éédyishtąsh

bird girlyi-pecked

*'The bird pecked the girl.'

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

(4)

At’ééd

girl

tsídii

bird

bishtąsh

bi-pecked

At’éédtsídiibishtąsh

girl birdbi-pecked

'The girl was pecked by the bird.'

There is evidence suggesting that the word order itself is not the important factor. Instead, the verb construction usually interpreted as the passive voice (e.g. "the girl was pecked by the bird" ) instead indicates that the more animate noun allowed the less animate noun to perform the action (e.g. "the girl let herself be pecked by the bird" ). The idea is that things ranked higher in animacy are presumed to be in control of the situation, and that the less-animate thing can only act if the more-animate thing permits it.

Japanese

Although nouns inJapaneseare not marked for animacy, it has twoexistential/possessiveverbs; one for implicitly animate nouns (usually humans and animals) and one for implicitly inanimate nouns (often non-living objects and plants). The verbiru(いる,also writtenCư る) is used to show the existence or possession of an animate noun. The verbaru(ある,sometimes writtenTại るwhen existential orHữu るwhen possessive) is used to show the existence or possession of an inanimate noun.

An animate noun, here 'cat', is marked as the subject of the verb with the subject particlega(が), but notopicor location is marked. That implies the noun is indefinite and merely exists.

(1)

Miêu

Neko

cat

が

ga

SBJ

いる

iru.

to exist

Miêu が いる

Neko ga iru.

cat SBJ {to exist}

'There is a cat.'

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

(2)

Tư

Watashi

I

に

ni

LOC

は

wa

TOP

Miêu

neko

cat

が

ga

SBJ

いる

iru.

to exist

Tư に は miêu が いる

Watashi ni wa neko ga iru.

I LOC TOP cat SBJ {to exist}

'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, here the top of a chair, is marked with the location particleni(に). That implies that the noun is a definite noun and is at the specified location.

(3)

Miêu

Neko

cat

は

wa

TOP

Y tử の thượng

isu no ue

chair-GEN-above/on

に

ni

LOC

いる

iru.

to exist

Miêu は { y tử の thượng } に いる

Neko wa {isu no ue} ni iru.

cat TOP chair-GEN-above/on LOC {to exist}

'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 verbirumust be replaced with the verbaru(あるorHữu る[possessive] /Tại る[existential, locative]).

(1)

Thạch

Ishi

stone

が

ga

SBJ

ある

aru.

to exist

Thạch が ある

Ishi ga aru.

stone SBJ {to exist}

'There is a stone.'

(2)

Tư

Watashi

I

に

ni

LOC

は

wa

TOP

Thạch

ishi

stone

が

ga

SBJ

ある

aru.

to exist

Tư に は thạch が ある

Watashi ni wa ishi ga aru.

I LOC TOP stone SBJ {to exist}

'I have a stone.'

(3)

Thạch

Ishi

stone

は

wa

TOP

Y tử の thượng

isu no ue

chair-GEN-above/on

に

ni

LOC

ある

aru.

to exist

Thạch は y tử の thượng に ある

Ishi wa {isu no ue} ni aru.

stone TOP chair-GEN-above/on LOC {to exist}

'The stone is on the chair.'

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

(1)

ロボット

Robotto

robot

が

ga

SBJ

いる

iru.

to exist

ロボット が いる

Robotto ga iru.

robot SBJ {to exist}

'There is a robot' (emphasis on its human-like behavior).

(2)

ロボット

Robotto

robot

が

ga

SBJ

ある

aru.

to exist

ロボット が ある

Robotto ga aru.

robot SBJ {to exist}

'There is a robot' (emphasis on its status as a nonliving thing).

Ryukyuan languages

TheRyukyuan languages,spoken in theRyukyu Islandsagree in animacy in their case systems.

Slavic languages

Overview

Slavic languagesthat have case (all of them exceptBulgarianandMacedonian) have a somewhat complex hierarchy of animacy in which syntactically animate nouns may include both animate and inanimate objects (like mushrooms and dances).Overall, the border between animate and inanimate places humans and animals in the former and plants, etc., in the latter, thus basing itself more so on sentience than life.

Animacy functions as a subgender through which noun cases intersect in a phenomenon calledsyncretism,which here can be eithernominative-accusative or genitive-accusative.Inanimate nouns have accusative forms that take on the same forms as their nominative, with animate nouns marked by having their accusative forms resemble the genitive.

For example, syncretism inPolishconditioned by referential animacy results in forms like the following:

• NOMstół'table' -> ACC stół, like nom -> GEN stołu (exhibiting nom-acc syncretism);
• NOMkot'cat' -> ACC kota, like gen -> GEN kota (exhibiting gen-acc syncretism).

That syncretism also occurs when restricted by declension class, resulting in syncretism in multiplepronominal forms,such as theRussianreflexive pronounсебя(sebja), personal pronouns, and the indefinite interrogative and relative pronounkto.

In their plural forms, nouns of all genders may distinguish the categories of animate vs. inanimate by that syncretism, but only masculine nouns of the first declension (and their modifiers) show it in the singular (Frarie 1992:12), and other declensions and genders of nouns "restrict (morphological) expression of animacy to the plural" (Frarie 1992:47).

• Masc nouns that showacc-gen(sg & plural) syncretism:муж[muʂ] husband,сын[sɨn] son,лев[lʲef] lion,конь[konʲ] horse.
• Fem animate nouns that showacc-gen(plural) syncretism:женщина[ˈʐɛnʲɕːɪnə] woman,лошадь[ˈɫoʂətʲ] horse.
• Neut animate nouns that showacc-nom(sg) andacc-gen(plural) syncretism:животное'animal',насекомое'insect'.

Elsewhere, animacy is displayed syntactically, such as in endings of modifiers for masc nouns of the second declension.

Animacy as a "subgender"

While animacy is viewed as primarily semantic when approached diachronically, a synchronic view suggests animacy as a sublevel of gender.Syntactic gender is defined through patterns in agreement, not necessarily semantic value.For example, Russian has "common gender" nouns that refer to traditionally masculine roles but act as syntactically feminine.

Animacy occurs as a subgender of nouns and modifiers (and pronouns only when adjectival) and is primarily reflected in modifier-head agreement (as opposed to subject-predicate agreement).

Controversy

Some consider the system to be based on marking inanimacy in which case the gen-acc distinguishes a "non-inanimate" subgender of nouns and modifiers,and others claim that ultimately it is indeed animacy that is marked.

Sinhala

In spokenSinhala,there are twoexistential/possessive verbs:හිටිනවාhiţinawā/ඉන්නවාinnawāare used only for animate nouns (humans and animals), and තියෙනවාtiyenawāfor inanimate nouns (like non-living objects, plants, things):

(1)

මිනිහා

minihā

man

ඉන්නවා

innawā

there is/exists

(animate)

මිනිහා ඉන්නවා

minihā innawā

man {there is/exists}

'There is the man'

(2)

වතුර

watura

water

තියෙනවා

tiyenawā

there is/exists

(inanimate)

වතුර තියෙනවා

watura tiyenawā

water {there is/exists}

'There is water'

Spanish

Nouns

InSpanish,the prepositiona(meaning "to" or "at" ) has gained a second role as a marker of concrete animate direct objects:

Veo esa catedral.	"I can see that cathedral."	(inanimate direct object)
Veo a esa persona.	"I can see that person."	(animate direct object)
Vengo a España.	"I come to Spain."	(aused in its literal sense)

The usage is standard and is found around the Spanish-speaking world.

Pronouns

Spanish personal pronouns are generally omitted if the subject of the sentence is obvious, but when they are explicitly stated, they are used only with people orhumanized animalsor things. The inanimate subject pronoun in Spanish isello,likeitin English (except "ello" can only be used to refer to verbs and clauses, not objects, as all nouns are either masculine or feminine and are referred to with the appropriate pronouns).

Spanish direct-object pronouns (me, te, lo, la, se, nos, os, los, las) do not differentiate between animate and inanimate entities, and only the third persons have a gender distinction. Thus, for example, the third-person singular feminine pronoun,la,could refer to a woman, an animal (likemariposa,butterfly), or an object (likecasa,house), if their genders are feminine.

In certain dialects, there is a tendency to usele(which is usually an indirect object pronoun, meaning "to him/her" ) as a direct-object pronoun, at the expense of the direct-object pronounslo/la,if the referent is animate. That tendency is especially strong if (a) the pronoun is being used as a special second-person pronoun of respect, (b) the referent is male, (c) certain verbs are used, (d) the subject of the verb happens to be inanimate.

Arabic

InClassicalandModern Standard Arabicand some othervarieties of Arabic,animacy has a limited application in theagreementof plural anddualnouns with verbs and adjectives. Verbs follow nouns in plural agreement only when the verb comes after the subject. When a verb comes before an explicit subject, the verb is always singular. Also, only animate plural and dual nouns take plural agreement; inanimate plural nouns are always analyzed as singular feminine or plural feminine for the purpose of agreement. Thus, Arabicالمهندسون يطيرون إلى ألمانيا(Al-muhandisūn yaṭīrūn ’ilā ’Almāniyā,"The engineers fly toGermany") is masculine plural agreement, butالطائرات تطير إلى ألمانيا(Al-ṭā’irāt taṭīr ’ilā ’Almāniyā,"The planes fly to Germany" ) is feminine singular. Compare them toتطير المهندسات إلى ألمانيا(Taṭīr al-muhandisāt ’ilā ’Almāniyā) andالمهندسات يطرن إلى ألمانيا(Al-muhandisāt yaṭirna ’ilā ’Almāniyā) for "The [female] engineers fly to Germany."

In general, Arabic divides animacy betweenعاقل(thinking, or rational) andغير عاقل(unthinking, or irrational). Animals fall in the latter category, but their status may change depending on the usage, especially with personification. Different writers might useالغربان يطيرون إلى ألمانيا(Al-ġurbān yaṭīrūn ’ilā ’Almāniyā) orالغربان تطير إلى ألمانيا(Al-ġurbān taṭīr ’ilā ’Almāniyā) for "The ravens fly to Germany."

Animacy hierarchy and morphosyntactic alignment

Split ergativity

Animacy can also condition the nature of the morphologies ofsplit-ergativelanguages. In such languages, participants more animate are more likely to be theagentof 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:

1st person

>

2nd person

>

3rd person

>

proper names

>

humans

>

non-humans animates

>

inanimates

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 overlap, with a class of nouns near the middle of the hierarchy being marked for both the agent and patient roles.

Hierarchical alignment

In adirect–inverse language,clauses withtransitive verbscan be expressed with either a direct or an inverse construction. The direct construction is used when the subject of the transitive clause outranks the object in salience or animacy. The inverse construction is used when the "notional object" outranks the "notional subject".

Thematic roles

A noun essentially requires the traits of animacy in order to receive the role of Actor and Experiencer. Additionally, the Agent role is generally assigned to the NP with highest ranking in the animacy hierarchy – ultimately, only animate beings can function as true agents.Similarly, languages universally tend to place animate nouns earlier in the sentence than inanimate nouns. Animacy is a key component of agency – combined with other factors like "awareness of action".Agency and animacy are intrinsically linked – with each as a "conceptual property" of the other.

See also

• Grammatical gender
• Noun class
• Classifier (linguistics)

References

LOCAT:location

Sources

• Crespo Cantalapiedra, I. (2024).La diversidad en las lenguas: la animacidad.Online book (in Spanish).
• 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.ISBN0-521-58224-5.
• Young, Robert W., & Morgan, William, Sr. (1987). The Navajo language: A grammar and colloquial dictionary (rev. ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.ISBN0-8263-1014-1.