It seems that distinguishing between animate and inanimate objects is indecently simple: it’s like a game of animate and inanimate. But those who are guided by this principle are very mistaken. Animation, like, accordingly, inanimateness, is a separate category in the characteristic that has nothing to do with the external signs of a certain object. How can we explain the fact that, according to the rules, the word “corpse” is considered inanimate, and “dead” is considered animate? Acting at random? In no case! We'll figure out.

For the little ones

Let's start with the very basics. Animate and inanimate objects answer different questions - "who" and "what" respectively. We can say that asking a question is the most primitive, albeit very unreliable, way of defining this category. Usually children are introduced to it in the first or second grade. To practice this method, you can fill in the gaps in the following text with your students:

« The great (what?) flows in sleepy oblivion. Around (what?) and (what?). (Who?) slowly moved his skis, shook (what?) his hats from his ears. (Who?) quickly made a hole, and (what?) began. Soon he pulled out a huge one (who?). His mirror (what?) glittered brightly in the sun" Words to be inserted: ice, scales, fisherman, frost, river, carp, snow, fishing. One word is repeated twice.

Grammar explanation

But it's worth moving on, right? How to determine whether animate or inanimate object, relying on rules rather than intuition? The difference between these two categories lies in the different case forms of the nouns. Inanimate nouns have the same nominative and plural form, while animate nouns have the same genitive and accusative form in the same number. Of course, figure it out specific examples it will be much easier.

Let's take the noun " cat" We put it in the plural “cats” and begin to decline: nominative - “ cats", genitive - " cats", accusative - " cats" - as you can see, the forms of the genitive and accusative cases coincide. Whereas for the noun " table", which to define this category turns into " tables" when declension " tables-tables-tables» the accusative and the accusative are the same

Thus, the rule allows dividing an animate and an inanimate object only by placing them in the plural and subsequent declension. And then, based on the coincidence of case forms, this category is determined.

Exceptions

But, as you know, there are very few rules in the Russian language that do not have any exceptions. Thus, it is sometimes possible to separate animate and inanimate objects logically. Yes, all living beings will be animate, but at the same time mythical creatures belong to the same category ( goblin-goblin-goblin-goblin) and names of toys ( matryoshka-matryoshka-matryoshka) - here you can still find a logical explanation. As well as card and chess suits ( pike-pike-pike, pawns-pawns-pawns), which even in their shapes do not fit this category.

Go ahead. Inanimate nouns, in turn, include large groups of people ( crowd-crowd-crowd) and some living organisms ( germs-germs-germs; microbes-germs-germs) - it is impossible to explain this phenomenon, you just have to accept and remember.

More difficulties

I would also like to add that animate and inanimate objects in the grammatical sense have their own characteristics. So, for example, for animate masculine nouns the forms of the genitive and accusative cases coincide in the singular: Anton-Anton-Anton, accountant-accountant-accountant However, this phenomenon is observed only in second declension nouns (compare: Dima-Dima-Dima, although this is also an animate masculine noun). So, in principle, this pattern can be used as another simple, albeit not very well-known, way of determining the category of animation in nouns.

I want to confuse

It is worth noting that in the Russian language there is an image of an inanimate object as an animate one. This is usually associated with the use of the word as an analogy to a living being: There is a mattress in the barn - Yes, it is a weak-willed mattress! or The Russian language is great and powerful! - This tongue (=captive) will tell us everything.

Exactly the same phenomenon occurs with the use of animate nouns as inanimate ones: Soaring in the blue sky kite; The fighter began to descend. Here the category of animate and inanimate is determined based on the semantic content of the noun.

It is worth noting that, despite all the teachers’ demands to use the rules, most students continue to rely on intuition. As the above examples show, gut instinct is not always reliable assistant in matters of philology. We can definitely say that names of professions, names of people by family affiliation, nationality and other groups will always be animate, and this also includes the names of animals. By the way, among the animate nouns, as some researchers believe, there are only masculine and female, while the neuter gender is already inanimate, like all names of natural objects and other objects.

Practice for the little ones

Now that we have figured out how to distinguish one category of nouns from another, it is worth summarizing all of the above. Animate and inanimate objects for preschoolers, who still have no idea what cases are, differ in the questions of “who” and “what,” respectively. For practice, you can play “living-non-living” with your kids, where a word is called, and the child must determine what this object is.

Or another interesting task for junior schoolchildren- offer a number of animate nouns that can be turned into inanimate by replacing one letter: fox (linden), goat (braid), heron (drop).

I would like to finish the article on how to distinguish between animate and inanimate objects by saying that, no matter how simple this topic may seem, it is better not to tempt fate and not act at random, trusting your intuition. Taking a minute to check the category of a noun can sometimes change the way you think about it. So spare no effort and practice the great and mighty Russian language.

Andrey NARUSHEVICH,
Taganrog

A few questions about the animate/inanimate category

Little is said about the category of animate/inanimate nouns in school textbooks of the Russian language, and yet it represents one of the most interesting linguistic phenomena. Let's try to answer some questions that arise when considering this category.

What is an “animate” and an “inanimate” object?

It is known that the classification of nouns as animate or inanimate is associated with the division by man of the surrounding world into living and inanimate. However, even V.V. Vinogradov noted the “mythological nature” of the terms “animate/inanimate”, since textbook well-known examples ( plant, dead person, doll, people and etc . ) demonstrate the discrepancy between the objective status of an object and its comprehension in language. There is an opinion that by animate in grammar we mean “active” objects identified with a person, to which are contrasted “inactive” and, therefore, inanimate objects 1. At the same time, the “activity/inactivity” sign does not fully explain why the words dead man, deceased are considered animate, and people, crowd, flock– to inanimate nouns. Apparently, the category of animate/inanimate reflects everyday ideas about living and inanimate things, i.e. a person’s subjective assessment of the objects of reality, which does not always coincide with the scientific picture of the world.

Of course, the “standard” of a living being for a person has always been the person himself. Any language stores “petrified” metaphors, showing that people since ancient times saw the world as anthropomorphic, described it in their own image and likeness: the sun is out, the river is running, the leg of a chair, the spout of a teapot and so on . Let us recall at least the anthropomorphic gods or characters of lower mythology. At the same time, life forms other than humans: some invertebrates, microorganisms, etc. are often ambiguously assessed by ordinary native speakers. For example, as a survey of informants showed, to nouns sea ​​anemone, amoeba, ciliate, polyp, microbe, virus the question is regularly asked What? Obviously, in addition to signs of visible activity (movement, development, reproduction, etc.), the everyday concept of a living being (an “animate” object) also includes a sign of similarity to a person.

How is the animate/inanimate nature of a noun determined?

Traditionally, the coincidence of the forms of the accusative and genitive cases in the singular and plural of masculine nouns is considered as a grammatical indicator of animacy. (I see a man, a deer, friends, bears) and only in the plural for feminine and neuter nouns (I see women, animals). Accordingly, grammatical inanimateness is manifested in the coincidence of accusative and nominative cases (I see a house, tables, streets, fields).

It should be noted that the grammatical opposition of nouns by animate/inanimate is expressed not only in the form of a specific case: the difference in the forms of nouns in the accusative case leads to a difference and opposition of paradigms in general. Masculine nouns have different singular and inanimate paradigms based on their animate/inanimate nature. plural, and for feminine and neuter nouns there are only plural paradigms, that is, each of the animate/inanimate categories has its own declension paradigm.

There is an opinion that the main means of expressing the animate/inanimate nature of a noun is the accusative case form of the agreed definition: “It is by the form of the agreed definition in the accusative case that the animate or inanimate nature of the noun in the linguistic sense of the word is determined” 2 . Obviously, this position requires clarification: the form of an adjective word should be considered as the main means of expressing animateness/inanimateness only in relation to the use of unchangeable words: I see beautiful cockatoo(V. = R.); I see beautiful coat(V. = I.). In other cases, the form of the adjectival word duplicates the meanings of case, number, gender and animate/inanimate nature of the main word - the noun.

The coincidence of case forms (V. = I. or V. = R.) in the declension of allied words of the adjectival structure (in subordinate clause): These were books, which I knew(V. = I.); These were writers, which I knew(V. = R.).

Feminine and neuter nouns that appear only in the form do not have a grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate singular(singularia tantum), since these words have independent form accusative case, which does not coincide with either the nominative or the genitive: catch swordfish, study cybernetics etc. Thus, the animate/inanimate nature of these nouns is not determined grammatically.

What is the fluctuating grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate?

Let's look at a few examples: And from now on the embryo is called fruit(I. Akimushkin) – I saw in a flask embryo Swirled like a horn(Yu. Arabov); Science microbiology studies various bacteria and viruses(N. Goldin) – Bacteria can be identified by morphological properties(A. Bykov); Getting married, woman carries away with myself your dolls (I. Solomonik) – Before going to bed, you played in my office again. Feeding the dolls (L. Panteleev). As we see, the same words behave either as animate or as inanimate.

Variable forms of the accusative case of nouns germ, embryo, microbe, bacterium and so on. are explained by the ambiguity in the assessment of the corresponding objects by speakers. Typically, these forms of life are inaccessible to observation, which causes hesitation among native speakers in classifying these objects as living or nonliving.

Dolls are involved in playful (as well as magical) human activities. In children's games, dolls function as living beings. The dolls are bathed, combed, put to bed, that is, actions are performed on them that in other conditions are aimed only at living beings. Play activity creates conditions for understanding dolls as objects that are functionally similar to living things (functionally animate). At the same time, dolls remain inanimate objects. The combination of signs of living and inanimate causes fluctuations in the grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate. Some names of game pieces exhibit similar features: queen, ace, pawn and etc.: I took from the table, as I remember now, ace of hearts and threw it up(M. Lermontov) – Having placed the cards, take all the aces, lying on top of the packs(Z. Ivanova).

Some animals have long been considered by people primarily as food (cf. modern word seafood). For example, lobsters, oysters, lobsters, as noted by V.A. Itskovich, “are not found alive in Central Russia and became known first as exotic dishes and only later as living creatures” 2. Apparently, nouns oyster, squid, lobster and others initially declined only according to the inanimate type, the appearance of the accusative case form, coinciding with the genitive form, is associated with the development of the meaning ‘living being’, later in relation to the meaning of ‘food’: Boil squid, cut into noodles(N. Golosova) – Squid is boiled in salt water(N. Akimova); Nearby fishermen brought to the city fish: in the spring - small anchovy, in the summer - ugly flounder, in the fall - mackerel, fatty mullet and oysters (A. Kuprin) – Are you really eat oysters? (A. Chekhov) It is interesting that in the meaning of ‘food’, not only the names of exotic animals acquire grammatical inanimateness: Fat herring Fine soak, cut into fillets(M. Peterson); Processed pike perch being cut into pieces(V. Turygin).

Thus, fluctuations in the grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate are caused by the peculiarities of semantics, as well as the ambiguity in assessing an object as living or inanimate.

Why nouns dead man And Deceased animated?

Man's understanding of living nature is inextricably linked with the concept of death. ‘Deceased’ is always ‘one who was alive’, who previously had life. In addition, it is no coincidence that folklore is replete with stories about the living dead. You can still find echoes of the ideas of our distant ancestors that the dead have a certain special shape life, as if dead man able to hear, think, remember.

Nouns dead, deceased, departed and others denote deceased people, i.e. possess the attribute 'man' - the most important for the meaning of animation. Here's the word dead body means ‘the body of a deceased organism’, i.e. only a material shell (cf. expressions corpses of the dead, corpses of the dead). Apparently, this semantic difference explains the grammatical animation of the names of the dead and the inanimateness of the word corpse: How strong are all the stones in their callings, - When dead having covered guard (K. Sluchevsky); A convene I am those for whom I work, dead people Orthodox... - Cross yourself! Summon the dead for housewarming(A. Pushkin); Nastya only once, long before the war, had to see a drowned man (V. Rasputin); Teamsters throwing corpses on a sleigh with a wooden knock(A. Solzhenitsyn).

Why words people, crowd, flock inanimate?

The listed words denote a certain set of living objects - people or animals. This set is conceptualized as a single whole - a collection of living beings, and this collection is not equal to the simple sum of its components. For example, the attribute “multitude,” which expresses the idea of ​​quantity in the concept of “people,” is combined in the concept of “people” with the idea of ​​quality – “the totality of people in their specific interactions.” Thus, common feature words of this group – ‘totality’ – turns out to be leading and forms the meaning of inanimateness. V.G. Gak connects the nouns in question with the category of collective (quasi-animate) object: “Between animate and inanimate objects there is an intermediate group of collective objects consisting of animate units. Words denoting such objects... can be conditionally called quasi-animate” 4. The grammatical generalization of semantics is expressed in the morphological indicator of inanimateness (V. = I.): I see crowds, peoples, flocks, herds and so on.

Why are plant nouns inanimate?

In the language picture plant world, which are a qualitatively different form of life than animals and humans, are not perceived as living organisms. The ability to move independently has long been recognized as one of the characteristic features alive. As Aristotle pointed out, “the beginning of movement arises within us from ourselves, even if nothing from outside has set us in motion. We do not see anything like this in inanimate [bodies], but they are always set in motion by something external, and a living being, as we say, moves itself” 5 . The inability of plant organisms to move independently, the absence of visible motor activity and a number of other signs lead to the fact that in the human mind plants, together with objects of inorganic nature, constitute a motionless, static part of the surrounding world. This is indicated by V.A. Itskovich: “...by living we mean an object capable of independent movement, so plants are classified as inanimate objects” 6. Thus, the predominance of inanimate signs in everyday concepts of plants, as well as the nature labor activity people, who have long been widely using plants for a variety of purposes, have determined that plants in most cases are perceived as inanimate objects.

How does the meaning of animate/inanimate manifest itself?

The sign 'living' ('non-living') can appear not only in the meanings of nouns, but also in the meanings of characteristic words. Indeed, the analysis showed that in language not only nouns, but also verbs and adjectives have the meaning of animate/inanimate. This is manifested in the fact that verbs and adjectives can denote attributes of objects that characterize these objects as living or nonliving. For example, the meaning of the verb read indicates that the action is performed by a person (person) and is directed at an inanimate object: read a book, newspaper, advertisement and so on.

The existence of such semantic connections made it possible to construct a classification of verbs in the Russian language according to the presence in their meanings of an indication of the animate/inanimate nature of the subject and object of the action. This classification was developed by prof. L.D. Chesnokova 7. Thus, all verbs of the Russian language can be divided into the following groups:

1) animately marked – denote actions performed by living beings: breathe, dream, sleep and etc;
2) inanimately marked – denote actions performed by inanimate objects: burn, crumble, evaporate and etc . ;
3) neutral – denote actions common to living and inanimate objects: stand, lie, fall and etc .

A similar division is observed among adjectives:

1) animately marked adjectives denote characteristics of living beings: external signs, characteristics of temperament, strong-willed qualities, emotional, intellectual and physical properties and etc.: lean, long-legged, lop-eared, phlegmatic, hot-tempered, kind, evil, smart, persistent, blind, talented etc.;
2) inanimately marked adjectives denote signs of inanimate objects (phenomena) - spatial and temporal qualities and relationships, perceptible properties and qualities of things, signs in relation to the material of manufacture, etc.: liquid, rare, deep, spicy, sour, bitter, strong, thick, iron, glass, wood, swampy etc.;
3) neutral adjectives denote characteristics that can be attributed to both living beings and inanimate objects - the most common spatial characteristics, color characteristic, evaluation characteristic, affiliation, etc.: left, right, high, small, heavy, white, red, good, mother's.

Thus, the animate/inanimate meaning of a noun is usually supported by animate- or inanimate-marked elements of the context. Otherwise, figurative meanings are updated, which ensures semantic agreement of words.

Thus, for animate nouns in combination with inanimate marked verbs, the most typical metonymic transfer is ‘work – author’: Then the worker began read Brockhaus (M. Bulgakov); But anyway Doderlein necessary view... Here he is – Doderlein. "Operative obstetrics"(M. Bulgakov).

For inanimate nouns, it is possible to transfer names from inanimate objects to living ones: Hungry Bursa was on the prowl through the streets of Kyiv and forced everyone to be careful(N. Gogol); Me saw off all warm and loving camera in full force, without party differences(E. Ginzburg); Prison doesn't like brave men(V. Shalamov). There are also many cases of occasional metonymic transfer, affecting the semantics of animate/inanimate substantive: - Fast! To the phone!.. A tube vibrated, trembled, choked with anxiety, didn't dare speak out fatal question. Only kept repeating with a questioning intonation: “Is that you? It's you?"(E. Ginzburg); Once in the hospital I heard: “From the seventh ward nasal boil is prescribed» (V. Levi).

Semantic mismatch in the aspect of animate/inanimate can be overcome through metaphorical transfer of the meaning of the noun. An example would be combinations of inanimate nouns with animate marked words, creating artistic technique personifications: Sitting on the forehead of a short man, Pimple with envy looked on the foreheads tall people And thought: “I wish I was in such a position!”(F. Krivin).

So, let's summarize. Animate and inanimate nouns denote not so much living and inanimate objects as objects conceptualized as living and nonliving. In addition, between the members of the opposition “thought of as living / thought of as inanimate” there are a number of intermediate formations that combine the signs of living and inanimate, the presence of which is due to associative mechanisms of thinking and other features of human mental activity, for example:

1) conceivable as being alive ( dead, deceased, departed and etc.);
2) mentally imagined alive ( mermaid, goblin, cyborg and etc.);
3) conceived as a semblance of a living thing ( doll, baby doll, jack, queen and etc.);
4) conceived as a totality of living things ( people, crowd, flock, herd and etc.).

Thus, the category of animate/inanimate nouns, like some other linguistic phenomena, reflects the anthropocentric attitude of human thinking, and the inconsistency language picture world scientific understanding is another manifestation of the subjective factor in language.

1 Stepanov Yu.S.. Fundamentals of general linguistics. M., 1975. P. 130.

2 Miloslavsky I.G.. Morphological categories of modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1981. P. 54.

3 Itskovich V.A.. Animated and inanimate nouns in the modern Russian language (norm and tendency) // Questions of linguistics. 1980, No. 4. P. 85.

4 Gak V.G. Verbal combinability and its reflection in dictionaries of verb control // Lexicology and lexicography / Under. ed. V.V. Morkovkina. M.: Russian. lang., 1972. P. 68.

5 Aristotle. Physics // Works in 4 volumes. M., 1981. T. 3. P. 226.

6 Itskovich V.A.. Animated and inanimate nouns in the modern Russian language (norm and tendency) // Questions of linguistics. 1980, No. 4. P. 96.

7 Chesnokova L.D.. Pronouns Who, What and the semantics of animation - inanimateness in the modern Russian language // Russian linguistics. Kyiv: Higher. school, 1987. Issue. 14. pp. 69–75.

Nouns are divided into two large groups: animate and inanimate. The main difference between the words included in them lies in the names of these communities of nouns. Let's get to know highlights related to this topic (categories, rules, examples).

In contact with

Animate and inanimate objects

Animate objects are part of living nature, something that lives, breathes, moves, grows, reproduces and develops, etc. And inanimate are objects of inanimate nature, that is, the antonym to the previous concept.

What are animate nouns and inanimate? In order to designate objects endowed with life, nouns of the first type are used.

They answer the question “who?” and designate those objects that possess its characteristics (breathe, feed, reproduce, move, etc.). For example: student, Petya, mother, kitten, etc.

To designate objects that belong to the second category, that is, those that do not have signs of life, they are used inanimate names nouns For example: table, sofa, road, stone, jacket, etc.

Note! Animate nouns answer the question “who?”, and those belonging to the category of inanimate nouns answer the question “what?”.

Category of animate and inanimate nouns

But, for example, during the game the doll is assigned the properties and qualities of a child or an adult. In this case, we can consider the doll as animate creature(The Nutcracker, The Steadfast Tin Soldier, etc.). Therefore, in order to determine the category of animation, should be based on context.

What about “tree”? From a biological point of view, a tree is part of living nature. But wood can also mean a material for construction (wood), and this is inanimate nature. Sometimes in fairy tales a tree is a character; it can think, speak, even move, that is, it becomes animated. To correctly determine the category, you need to carefully read the text.

What category does the word “herd” belong to? Based on the data indicated above, we will analyze this problem.

A herd is a community, a collection of living organisms, is part of living nature. Therefore, this word belongs to the animate. noun names

Another word that causes difficulty in defining the category is youth. Based on the previous paragraph, we can conclude that this word also refers to animate.

After all, the word “youth” means a group of young people, the younger generation, etc.

Let's summarize. Animating nouns - part of living nature, and inanimate. - vice versa. Words belonging to the first group answer the question “who?”, and those belonging to the second answer the auxiliary question “what?”.

• animate (groups of living and inanimate beings that attributed to the qualities of living organisms);
• inanimate.

In order to correctly identify a group, it is necessary to rely on context. It is worth remembering a rule that will help you avoid mistakes in declension of words by case.

Types of nouns, learning Russian

Animate and inanimate nouns in Russian

Animation is characteristic only for.

Animate nouns serve as names of living beings; if they call people - personal, if they designate animals - non-personal. Answer the question: Who?

A grammatical indicator of animacy is the coincidence of the accusative plural form with the plural genitive form. You can use the singular form for.

V. p. pl. numbers (who?) = R. p. pl. numbers (who?)

• R. p.
• V. p.

• I see

• schoolchildren
• schoolchildren

• bullfinches
• bullfinches

Animate nouns also include:

1. Gods and mythical creatures represented as living: goblin, brownie, mermaid.
   The ancients revered Jupiter.
2. Names of chess and card pieces: ace, jack, lady, king , horse, queen , bishop , rook , pawn .
3. Nouns naming dolls: parsley, matryoshka, tumbler, snowman, robots.
4. Nouns denoting a deceased person: dead man, Deceased, drowned(noun dead body not included here).

Inanimate nouns

Inanimate nouns serve as names of objects and phenomena of reality that are not classified as living beings. Answer the question: What?

Grammatical features: coincidence of the accusative plural form with the plural form.

V. p. pl. numbers (what?) = I. p. pl. numbers (what?)

• I. p.
• V. p.

• There is
• I see

• songs
• songs

• magazines
• magazines

Inanimate nouns include:

1. Denoting objects of inanimate nature: stone, mountains, rainbow, snow, soil, sea, sky.
2. Names of trees and plants: poplar, pine, spruce, chamomile, dandelions (natural science classifies them as living organisms!).
3. Denoting a collection of living beings: people, flock, army, crowd, battalion, regiment.
4. Titles heavenly bodies: Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus.
5. Names of fish dishes: sprats, sprat.
6. : students, humanity, youth, professors (do not have a grammatical indicator of animation).

Some nouns exhibit fluctuations in classification as animate/inanimate; the names of microorganisms and invertebrates are included here: virus, bacterium, larva, microbes.

Babaitseva V.V. and Chesnokova L.D. in their textbook on the Russian language also consider grammatical indicators of animation and inanimateness.

Inanimate nouns are like animate nouns if they denote living beings.

• This stump (animate) you can't turn around.
• I remember this old cap (animate)

Animate nouns used to denote inanimate objects continue to be declined as animate.

• Read "Oblomov".
• Listen to "Eugene Onegin".

Nouns type, character And image as applied to actors literary works bow as if inanimate: V. n. pl. numbers = I. p. pl. numbers.