This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(April 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Animacy (antonym:inanimacy) is agrammatical andsemantic feature, existing in some languages, expressing howsentient oralive thereferent of anoun is.^[1] 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.^[2]

Concepts of animacy constantly vary beyond a simple animate and inanimate binary; many languages function off anhierarchical general animacy scale that ranks animacy as a "matter of gradience".^[3] 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-personpronouns above the third person, partly a product of empathy, involving the speaker andinterlocutor.^[3]

It is obvious that the ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate is very important from anevolutionary point of view. In order to survive, an animal must be able to quickly and accurately distinguish between its sexual partners, rivals, predators, animals that it eats, etc., and inanimate objects. As for people, the ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate arises in infancy, even before children have mastered speech.^[4] Apparently, there is a brain mechanism responsible for this process. Thus, neurophysiological studies have experimentally shown^[5] that this process includes two stages - categorization of objects by shape, followed by the second stage - activation of attention specifically to animate objects (the temporoparietal areas of the cortex are responsible for the first stage, and the frontal areas are responsible for the second).

This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Animacy" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(July 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

De Swart and de Hoop (2018)^[6] emphasize the importance of distinguishing between three types of animacy: biological, conceptual, and grammatical. Each of these types plays a unique role in understanding how humans perceive and express the distinction between animate and inanimate entities.

Biological animacy refers to entities that are biologically alive and is defined by physical properties like the capacity to die. Living entities, such as humans and animals, are considered biologically "animate," whereas non-living entities, like rocks or water, are classified as "inanimate." Plants, though living, are often considered "inanimate." This type of animacy forms the foundation of how humans instinctively categorize the world around them.

Conceptual animacy is based on the speaker's perception and cultural background. It concerns what is perceived as alive, influenced by the "ego's" perspective and societal beliefs. This type often diverges from biological animacy. For example, in some cultures or languages, inanimate objects like the sun or mountains are considered "animate" due to mythology or cultural beliefs. Another example is the termbot, which is animate in many languages due to human-like behavior of a bot. Conceptual animacy reflects how humans personify or attribute agency to non-living entities.

Grammatical animacy demonstrates how biological and conceptual animacy are represented in the grammar of languages. It operates as a semantic feature or condition influencing linguistic structures, such as verb agreement or case marking. For instance, in Russian, animacy distinctions affect object marking in sentences; animate nouns, such as humans and animals, are treated differently than inanimate nouns. This type of animacy illustrates the interaction between cognitive perceptions and linguistic systems.

The animacy hierarchy (e.g., human > animal > inanimate) is widely applied in linguistic analysis to explain various phenomena. Animate entities are more likely to act as agents or subjects in sentences (agentivity), receive distinct grammatical treatment in case marking or agreement, and be referenced explicitly in discourse. Additionally, animacy hierarchies are not static; cultural factors or temporary discourse contexts can shift these classifications.

Although animacy distinctions appear universally across languages, their specific implementation varies. For example, Navajo uses animacy to govern verb marking, while Slavic languages reflect animacy distinctions in noun declensions. However, the universality of animacy as a linguistic feature is debated due to its variability across languages. Cultural and functional factors can lead to unique animacy hierarchies, showing that animacy is both a universal and context-dependent concept.

The distinction betweenhe,she, andother personal pronouns, on one hand, andit, on the other hand is a distinction in animacy inEnglish and in manyIndo-European languages. The same can be said about distinction betweenwho andwhat. Some languages, such asTurkish,Georgian,spoken Finnish andItalian, do not distinguish betweens/he andit. InFinnish, there is a distinction in animacy betweenhän, "he/she", andse, "it", but inspoken Finnishse can mean "he/she". English shows a similar lack of distinction betweenthey animate andthey inanimate in the plural.

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 prepositionof for possession (that can also be interpreted in terms of alienable orinalienable possession):

• My face is correct whilethe face of mine would sound strange.
• The man's face andthe face of the man are both correct, but the former is preferred.
• The clock's face andthe face of the clock are both correct.

Examples of languages in which an animacy hierarchy is important include theTotonac language inMexico and theSouthern Athabaskan languages (such asWestern Apache andNavajo) whose animacy hierarchy has been the subject of intense study. TheTamil language has anoun classification based on animacy.

Because of the similarities in morphology of feminine and masculinegrammatical gender inflections inIndo-European languages, there is a theory that in an early stage, theProto-Indo-European language had 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 languages likeHittite, 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 nouns in 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 Greek in which the singular form of verbs was used when they referred to neuter words in plural. In many Indo-European languages, such asLatin and theSlavic languages, the plural ending of many neuter words in the merged nominative–accusative–vocative corresponds to the feminine singular nominative form.

Like most otherAthabaskan 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 (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.

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

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

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.

Although nouns inJapanese are not marked for animacy, it has twoexistential/possessive verbs; 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 written居る) is used to show the existence or possession of an animate noun. The verbaru (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, here 'cat', is marked as the subject of the verb with the subject particlega (が), but notopic or location is marked. That implies the noun is indefinite and merely exists.

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.

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.

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

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 signifysentience oranthropomorphism) or with the inanimate verb (to emphasise that is a non-living thing).

TheRyukyuan languages, spoken in theRyukyu Islands, agree in animacy in their case systems.^[7]

Middle Korean has genitive particles that were used differently depends on a noun's animacy. For an inanimate noun, the particle "-ㅅ" (-s) was used as the inanimate noun's genitive.

Slavic languages that have case (all of them exceptBulgarian andMacedonian) have a somewhat complex hierarchy of animacy in which syntactically animate nouns may include both animate and inanimate objects (like mushrooms and dances).^[8] 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.^[8]

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.^[9]

For example, syncretism inPolish conditioned 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).^[9]

That syncretism also occurs when restricted by declension class, resulting in syncretism in multiplepronominal forms, such as theRussian reflexive pronounсебя (sebja), personal pronouns, and the indefinite interrogative and relative pronounkto.^[9]

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.^[8]
• Fem animate nouns that showacc-gen (plural) syncretism:женщина [ˈʐɛnʲɕːɪnə] woman,лошадь [ˈɫoʂətʲ] horse.^[8]
• 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.^[8]

While animacy is viewed as primarily semantic when approached diachronically, a synchronic view suggests animacy as a sublevel of gender.^[9] Syntactic gender is defined through patterns in agreement, not necessarily semantic value.^[9] For example, Russian has "common gender" nouns that refer to traditionally masculine roles but act as syntactically feminine.^[9]

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).

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,^[9] and others claim that ultimately it is indeed animacy that is marked.^[8]

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

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."	(a used in its literal sense)

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

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 animals or things. The inanimate subject pronoun in Spanish isello, likeit in 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.^[10]

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.

InClassical andModern Standard Arabic and some othervarieties of Arabic, animacy has a limited application in theagreement of plural anddual nouns 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 can also condition the nature of the morphologies ofsplit-ergative languages. In such languages, participants more animate are more likely to be theagent 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:

1st person

>

2nd person

>

3rd person

>

proper nouns

>

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.^[11]

In adirect–inverse language, clauses withtransitive verbs can 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".

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.^[2] Similarly, languages universally tend to place animate nouns earlier in the sentence than inanimate nouns.^[2]Animacy is a key component of agency – combined with other factors like "awareness of action".^[3] Agency and animacy are intrinsically linked – with each as a "conceptual property" of the other.^[3]

• Grammatical gender
• Noun class
• Classifier (linguistics)

• 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.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.

• Nouns by type
• Grammatical gender
• Linguistic morphology
• Syntax–semantics interface

• CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles lacking in-text citations from April 2009
• All articles lacking in-text citations
• Articles needing additional references from July 2025
• All articles needing additional references
• Articles containing Finnish-language text
• Articles containing Navajo-language text
• Articles containing Japanese-language text
• Articles containing Russian-language text
• Articles containing Sinhala-language text
• Articles containing Spanish-language text
• Articles containing Arabic-language text