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.
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: (this can also be interpreted in terms of alienable vs. inalienable possession)
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.
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.' | |||
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). | |||
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 | |
| (2) | Кран | поднимает | брата |
| Kran | podnimayet | brata | |
| A crane | lifts | a brother | |
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 | ||