Animacy
Animacy is a grammatical category of nouns based on how sentient or alive the referent of the noun is. Animacy can have various effects on the grammar of a language, such as word order, case endings, or the form a verb takes when it is associated with that noun.
In languages which demonstrate animacy, some have simple systems where nouns are either animate (e.g. people, animals) or inanimate (e.g. buildings, trees, abstract ideas), whereas others have complex hierarchical systems. In such a system, personal pronouns generally have the highest animacy (with the first person being highest among them), followed by other humans, animals, plants, natural forces such as wind, concrete objects, and abstractions, in that order. However, it is impossible to generalise completely, and different languages with animacy hierarchies could rank nouns in very different ways. For example, deities, spirits, or certain types of plant or animal could be ranked very highly because of spiritual beliefs.[citation needed]
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 | wa | 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 | wa | 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 | wa | ishi | ga | aru. |
| 私 | は | 石 | が | ある | |
| I | TOPIC | stone | SUBJECT | to exist/to have | |
| 'I have a stone.' | |||||
| (3) | Ishi | wa | 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 | брата |
| Kran | podnimayet | brata | |
| 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: Template:Animacy hierarchy 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