Home perennial flowers What is the attribution of the properties of animate objects to inanimate objects called? personification

perennial flowers

What is the attribution of the properties of animate objects to inanimate objects called? personification

It is known that the assignment of nouns to animate or inanimate is associated with the division of the surrounding world by a person into living and inanimate. However, V.V. Vinogradov noted the "mythology" of the terms "animate / inanimate", since textbook examples ( plant, deceased, doll, people and etc . ) demonstrate the discrepancy between the objective status of the subject and its comprehension in the language. There is an opinion that animate in grammar means “active” objects identified with a person, which are opposed to “inactive” and, therefore, inanimate objects 1 . At the same time, the attribute "activity/inactivity" does not fully explain why the words dead man, deceased belong to the animate, and people, crowd, flock - to inanimate nouns. Apparently, the category of animateness/inanimateness reflects everyday ideas about the living and the inanimate, i.e. a subjective assessment by a person of 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 a person himself. Any language keeps "petrified" metaphors showing that people from ancient times saw the world as anthropomorphic, described it in their own image and likeness: the sun came out, the river runs, the leg of the chair, the spout of the kettle and so on . Let us recall at least anthropomorphic gods or characters of lower mythology. At the same time, life forms different from humans: some invertebrates, microorganisms, etc. - are often ambiguously evaluated by ordinary native speakers. For example, as the survey of informants showed, to nouns sea anemone, amoeba, ciliate, polyp, microbe, virus question asked regularly what? Obviously, in addition to signs of visible activity (movement, development, reproduction, etc.), the ordinary concept of a living being (“animate” object) also includes a sign of similarity to a person.

How is the animateness/inanimateness of a noun determined?

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

It should be noted that the grammatical opposition of nouns by animateness/inanimateness 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. For masculine nouns, on the basis of animateness/inanimateness, singular and plural paradigms are distinguished, and for feminine and neuter nouns, 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 animateness / inanimateness of a noun is the form of the accusative case of the agreed definition: “It is by the form of the agreed definition in the accusative case that the animateness or inanimateness of the noun in the linguistic sense of the word is determined” 2 . Obviously, this provision requires clarification: the form of the adjectival word should be considered as the main means of expressing animateness/inanimateness only in relation to the use of invariable words: see beautiful cockatoo(V. = R.); see beautiful coat(V. = I.). In other cases, the form of the adjectival word duplicates the meanings of case, number, gender, and animateness/inanimateness 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 a subordinate clause) can also serve as an indicator of animation / inanimateness: These werebooks , which I knew(V. = I.); These were writers , which I knew(B. = R.).

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

Andrei NARUSHEVICH,
Taganrog

A few questions about the animate/inanimate category

The category of animate/inanimate nouns is little mentioned in school textbooks of the Russian language, but meanwhile it is one of the most interesting linguistic phenomena. Let's try to answer some questions that arise when considering this category.

What is "animate" and "inanimate" object?

It is known that the assignment of nouns to animate or inanimate is associated with the division of the surrounding world by a person into living and inanimate. However, V.V. Vinogradov noted the "mythology" of the terms "animate / inanimate", since textbook examples ( plant, deceased, doll, people and etc . ) demonstrate the discrepancy between the objective status of the subject and its comprehension in the language. There is an opinion that animate in grammar means “active” objects identified with a person, which are opposed to “inactive” and, therefore, inanimate objects 1 . At the same time, the attribute "activity/inactivity" does not fully explain why the words dead man, deceased belong to the animate, and people, crowd, flock- to inanimate nouns. Apparently, the category of animateness/inanimateness reflects everyday ideas about the living and the inanimate, i.e. a subjective assessment by a person of objects of reality, which does not always coincide with the scientific picture of the world.

How is the animateness/inanimateness of a noun determined?

There is an opinion that the main means of expressing the animateness / inanimateness of a noun is the form of the accusative case of the agreed definition: “It is by the form of the agreed definition in the accusative case that the animateness or inanimateness of the noun in the linguistic sense of the word is determined” 2 . Obviously, this provision requires clarification: the form of the adjectival word should be considered as the main means of expressing animateness/inanimateness only in relation to the use of invariable words: see beautiful cockatoo(V. = R.); see beautiful coat(V. = I.). In other cases, the form of the adjectival word duplicates the meanings of case, number, gender, and animateness/inanimateness 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 a subordinate clause) can also serve as an indicator of animation / inanimateness: These were books, which I knew(V. = I.); These were writers, which I knew(B. = R.).

What is the fluctuating grammatical indicator of animateness/inanimateness?

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

Variative forms of the accusative case of nouns germ, embryo, microbe, bacterium etc. are explained by the ambiguity of the assessment of the corresponding objects by the speakers. Usually these forms of life are inaccessible to observation, which causes the fluctuation of native speakers in attributing these objects to living or non-living.

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

Some animals have long been considered by people mainly as food (cf. the modern word seafood). For example, lobsters, oysters, lobsters, as V.A. Itskovich, “do not occur in Central Russia in a living form and became known first as exotic dishes and only later as living beings” 2 . Apparently, nouns oyster, squid, lobster and others were originally inclined only according to the inanimate type, the appearance of the accusative form, coinciding with the genitive form, is associated with the development of the meaning of ‘living being’, which is later in relation to the meaning of ‘food’: Boil squids, cut into noodles(N. Golosova) - Squids are boiled in salt water(N. Akimova); Local fishermen brought fish in the city: in spring - small anchovy, in summer - ugly flounder, in autumn - mackerel, fat mullet and oysters (A. Kuprin) - And are you eat oysters? (A. Chekhov) Interestingly, in the meaning of ‘food’, not only the names of exotic animals acquire grammatical inanimateness: fatty herring Okay soak, cut into fillets(M. Peterson); Processed pike perch cut into pieces(V.Turygin).

Thus, the fluctuation of the grammatical indicator of animateness/inanimateness is caused by the peculiarities of semantics, as well as the ambiguity of assessing an object as living or inanimate.

Why nouns dead man And dead person animated?

Human understanding of living nature is inextricably linked with the concept of death. ‘Dead’ is always ‘being alive’, having previously possessed life. In addition, it is no coincidence that folklore is replete with stories about the living dead. Until now, one can find echoes of the ideas of our distant ancestors that a certain special form of life is inherent in the dead, that a dead person is able to hear, think, and remember.

Nouns dead person, deceased, departed and others denote dead people, i.e. possess the attribute ‘human’ – the most important for the meaning of animation. And here is the word corpse means ‘the body of a dead organism’, i.e. only the 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 the stones all in their callings, - When the dead covered watch over (K.Sluchevsky); BUT convene I am the ones I work for the dead Orthodox... - Cross yourself! call 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 sled with a wooden clatter(A. Solzhenitsyn).

Why words people, crowd, flock inanimate?

The listed words denote a certain set of living objects - people or animals. This set is understood as a single whole - a set of living beings, and this set is not equal to the simple sum of its components. For example, the attribute "multiple", expressing the idea of quantity in the concept of "people", in the concept of "people" is combined with the idea of quality - "the totality of people in their specific interactions". Thus, the common feature of the words of this group - 'collection' - turns out to be the leading one and forms the meaning of inanimateness. V.G. Gak connects the nouns under consideration with the category of a 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, nations, flocks, herds etc.

Why are nouns denoting plants inanimate?

In the linguistic picture of the world, plants, 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 of the living. As Aristotle pointed out, “the beginning of movement arises in us from ourselves, even if nothing has set us in motion from outside. 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 lack of visible motor activity and a number of other signs lead to the fact that in the mind of a person, plants, together with objects of inorganic nature, constitute an immovable, static part of the world. This is indicated by V.A. Itskovich: "... a living object is understood as an object capable of independent movement, so that plants are inanimate objects" 6 . Thus, the predominance of signs of the inanimate in everyday concepts of plants, as well as the nature of the labor activity of a person who has long widely used plants for various purposes, led to the fact that plants in most cases are perceived as inanimate objects.

How does the meaning of animate/inanimate manifest itself?

The attribute ‘living’ (‘non-living’) can be manifested not only in the meanings of nouns, but also in the meanings of indicative words. Indeed, the analysis showed that not only nouns, but also verbs and adjectives have the meaning of animateness/inanimateness in the language. This is manifested in the fact that verbs and adjectives can denote signs of objects that characterize these objects as living or inanimate. For example, the meaning of the verb to read indicates that the action is performed by a person (person) and is directed to an inanimate object: read a book, newspaper, ad etc.

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

1) animated-marked - denote actions performed by living beings: breathe, dream, sleep and etc;
2) inanimate-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) animate-marked adjectives denote signs of living beings: external signs, temperament, volitional qualities, emotional, intellectual and physical properties, etc.: lean, long-legged, lop-eared, phlegmatic, quick-tempered, kind, evil, intelligent, persistent, blind, talented etc.;
2) inanimate-marked adjectives denote signs of inanimate objects (phenomena) - spatial and temporal qualities and relationships, the properties and qualities of things perceived by the senses, signs in relation to the material of manufacture, etc.: liquid, rare, deep, spicy, sour, bitter, strong, thick, iron, glassy, woody, marshy etc.;
3) neutral adjectives denote features that can be attributed to both living beings and inanimate objects - the most common spatial characteristics, color characteristics, evaluative characteristics, belonging, etc.: left, right, tall, small, heavy, white, red, good, mother's.

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

So, for animate nouns in combination with inanimate-marked verbs, the metonymic transfer ‘work - author’ is most typical: Then the worker started read Brockhaus (M. Bulgakov); But anyway Doderlein necessary view... Here it is - Doderlein. "Operational Obstetrics"(M. Bulgakov).

For inanimate nouns, names can be transferred from inanimate objects to living ones: hungry bursa prowled through the streets of Kiev and forced everyone to be careful(N. Gogol); Me saw off all warm and loving camera in full force, without party distinctions(E. Ginzburg); Prison doesn't like brave men(V.Shalamov). There are also many cases of occasional metonymic transfer affecting the semantics of the animate/inanimate substantive: - Fast! To the phone! A tube vibrated, fluttered, choked with anxiety, did not dare to speak fatal question. Only repeated with an interrogative intonation: “Is that you? It's you?"(E. Ginzburg); Once in the hospital I heard: “From the seventh ward nasal furuncle discharged» (V. Levy).

The semantic discrepancy in the aspect of animateness/inanimateness can be overcome due to the metaphorical transfer of the meaning of the noun. An example is the combination of inanimate nouns with animate-marked words, creating an artistic device of personification (personification): sitting on the forehead of a short man, Pimple with envy glanced on the foreheads of tall people and thought: “I wish I were in such a position!”(F.Krivin).

So, let's sum up. Animate and inanimate nouns designate not so much living and inanimate objects as objects, understood as both living and non-living. In addition, between the members of the opposition ‘thinkable as living / thinkable as inanimate’, there are a number of intermediate formations that combine the signs of the living and the inanimate, the presence of which is due to the associative mechanisms of thinking and other features of human mental activity, for example:

1) conceivable as having been alive ( dead person, deceased, departed and etc.);
2) mentally represented alive ( mermaid, goblin, cyborg and etc.);
3) conceivable as a semblance of a living ( doll, baby doll, jack, queen and etc.);
4) conceivable as a set of living things ( people, crowd, flock, herd and etc.).

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

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

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

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

4 Gak V.G. Verbal compatibility and its reflection in the dictionaries of verb control // Lexicology and lexicography / Pod. ed. V.V. Morkovkin. M.: Russk. yaz., 1972. S. 68.

5 Aristotle. Physics // Works in 4 vols. M., 1981. T. 3. S. 226.

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

7 Chesnokova L.D.. Pronouns who, what and the semantics of animation - inanimateness in the modern Russian language // Russian Linguistics. Kiev: Higher. school, 1987. Issue. 14. P. 69–75.

animated and nouns serve as the names of people, animals and answer the question who?(student, mentor, entertainer, peer).

Inanimate nouns serve as the names of inanimate objects, as well as objects of the plant world and answer the question what?(presidium, conference, landscape, mountain ash). This also includes nouns like group, people, crowd, flock, peasantry, youth, kids etc.

The division of nouns into animate and inanimate mainly depends on what object this noun denotes - living beings or objects of inanimate nature, but it is impossible to completely identify the concept of animation-inanimateness with the concept of living-inanimate. So, from a grammatical point of view birch, aspen, elm- nouns are inanimate, but from a scientific point of view, these are living organisms. In grammar, the names of dead people - dead man, deceased- are considered animate, and only a noun corpse- inanimate. Thus, the meaning of animateness-inanimateness is a purely grammatical category.

animate For nouns, the accusative plural form is the same as the genitive plural form:

(v.p. pl. = r.p. pl.)
r.p. (no) people, birds, animals
c.p. (to love) people, birds, animals

inanimate For nouns, the plural accusative form is the same as the plural nominative form:

(w.p. pl. = im.p. pl.)
i.p. (there are) forests, mountains, rivers
c.p. (see) forests, mountains, rivers

In addition, for animate masculine nouns of the II declension, the accusative case coincides with the genitive also in the singular, for inanimate nouns - with the nominative: I see a student, an elk, a crane, but a detachment, a forest, a regiment.

Most often, animate nouns are masculine and feminine. There are few animate nouns among neuter nouns. This - child, person (in the meaning of "man"), animal, insect, mammal, creature ("living organism"), monster, monster, monster and some others.

Animated nouns, used in a figurative sense, decline: admire "Sleeping Beauty".

Inanimate nouns, used in a figurative sense, get the meaning of a person and become animated: the tournament brought together all the table tennis stars.

The names of toys, mechanisms, images of a person refer to animated nouns: she was very fond of her dolls, nesting dolls, robots.

The names of pieces in games (chess, cards) are declined like animated nouns: sacrifice a knight, take an ace.

The name of the gods, mythical creatures ( goblin, mermaid, devil, water) refer to animate nouns, and the names of the planets by the name of the gods - to inanimate: looking at Jupiter, they begged Jupiter for help.

For a number of nouns, there are fluctuations in the expression of the category of animation-inanimateness (in the names of microorganisms, in nouns, the image, type, character, etc.): to consider ciliates And ciliates, kill bacteria And bacteria; create vivid images, special characters.

Animate and inanimate nouns
animated	Inanimate
names of living things	names of inanimate objects
	plant names
names of gods	names of the planets by the names of the gods
names of mythical creatures
names of figures in games
names of toys, mechanisms, human images
dead man, deceased	corpse
names of microorganisms
image, character

Animated objects

ANIMATED OBJECTS . Objects that have the ability to voluntarily move, i.e. people and animals, in contrast to inanimate objects and abstract or abstract concepts, i.e. signs of objects considered in abstraction from the objects themselves. In Russian. category O.P. on the one hand and inanimate. objects and abstract concepts, on the other hand, differ grammatically in that masculine nouns and adjectives in the singular that agree with them, and nouns and adjectives in the plural, which are the names of O.P., have one common form for the accusative and genitive cases, different from forms of the nominative case, and masculine nouns and adjectives in the singular and nouns and adjectives in the plural, which are the names of inanimate objects and abstract concepts, have a common form for the nominative and accusative cases, different from the genitive case. The grammatical distinction between nouns denoting animate objects and nouns denoting inanimate objects and abstract concepts exists in other Slavic languages, and is also known in some non-Slavic languages, for example, Scandinavian.

N.D. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: In 2 volumes / Edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunin, V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, M. Rozanov, V. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. - M.; L.: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925

See what "Animated objects" are in other dictionaries:

Animated objects- ANIMATED OBJECTS. Objects that have the ability to voluntarily move, that is, people and animals, in contrast to inanimate and abstract or abstract concepts, that is, signs of objects considered in abstraction from ... ...

animate objects- Objects that have the ability to voluntarily move, that is, people and animals, in contrast to inanimate objects and abstract or abstract concepts, that is, signs of objects considered in abstraction from the objects themselves. In Russian …

INANIOUS OBJECTS. Things or objects that do not have the ability to voluntarily move, that is, all objects except people and animals. See Animate Objects. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: In 2 x vol. / Under ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

inanimate objects- INANIMATE OBJECTS. Things or objects that do not have the ability to voluntarily move, that is, all objects except people and animals. See Animate Objects... Dictionary of literary terms

inanimate objects- Things or objects that do not have the ability to voluntarily move, that is, all objects except people and animals. See Animate Objects... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms

Noun endings- 1. In nouns that have a vowel and before case endings, the letter and is written in the prepositional singular (for feminine words also in the dative case), for example: about a genius, in Gogol's "Viya", on a billiard cue, sisters ... ... A guide to spelling and style

A guide to spelling and style

Gender of indeclinable nouns- 1. Words denoting inanimate objects. Indeclinable nouns of foreign origin, denoting inanimate objects, for the most part belong to the middle gender, for example: healing aloe, Scotch whiskey, ... ... A guide to spelling and style

1) The lexical and grammatical category of a noun, inherent in all nouns (with the exception of words used only in the plural), syntactically independent, manifested in their ability to combine with those defined for ... Dictionary of linguistic terms

Books

, Vadbolskaya Anna. Some items that we enjoy using do not need complicated instructions for use. A pencil, for example, or a ball. Or our game is a real treasure for those who…
Naughty child of the biosphere (part 1), V. R. Dolnik. What did the fore-humans who lived more than a million years ago think and feel? How to understand your own instincts and the instincts of other animals? This and much more is covered in this…

2 comments

Personification is a technique when the author endows inanimate objects with human properties.
To create figurativeness, to give expressiveness to speech, the authors resort to literary techniques, and personification in literature is no exception.

The main goal of the reception is to transfer human qualities and properties to an inanimate object or phenomenon of the surrounding reality.

In their works, writers use these. Personification is one of the varieties of metaphor, for example:

D The trees woke up, the grass whispers, fear crept up.

Personification: the trees woke up, as if alive

Thanks to the use of personifications in the presentations, the authors create an artistic image that is distinguished by brightness and originality.
This technique allows you to expand the possibility of words in describing feelings and sensations. You can convey a picture of the world, express your attitude to the depicted object.

The history of the emergence of personification

Where did personification come from in Russian? This was facilitated by animism (belief in the existence of spirits and souls).
Ancient people endowed inanimate objects with a soul and living qualities. So they explained the world that surrounded them. Due to the fact that they believed in mystical creatures and gods, a pictorial device was formed, like personification.

All poets are interested in the question of how to correctly apply techniques in artistic presentation, including when writing poetry?

If you are a beginner poet, you need to learn how to use personification correctly. It should not just be in the text, but play a certain role.

A relevant example is present in Andrey Bitov's novel Pushkin's House. In the introductory part of the literary work, the author describes the wind that circles over St. Petersburg, the whole city is described from the point of view of the wind. In the prologue, the main character is the wind.

Impersonation Example expressed in the story of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol "The Nose". What is most interesting is that the protagonist's nose is not only described by impersonation techniques, but by personification techniques (part of the body is endowed with human qualities). The protagonist's nose has become a symbol of doubles.

Sometimes authors make mistakes when using impersonation. They confuse it with allegories (expressions in a specific image) or anthropomorphisms(transferring the mental properties of a person to a natural phenomenon).

If in the work you give any animal human qualities, then such a technique will not act as an impersonation.
It is impossible to use allegory without the help of personification, but this is another pictorial device.

What part of speech is personification?

The personification must put the noun into action, animate and create an impression for it, so that an inanimate object can exist like a person.

But in this case, the personification cannot be called a simple verb - this is a part of speech. It has more functions than a verb. It gives speech brightness and expressiveness.
The use of techniques in artistic presentation allows the authors to say more.

Personification - a literary trope

In literature, you can find colorful and expressive phrases that are used to animate objects and phenomena. In other sources, another name for this literary technique is personalization, that is, when an object and a phenomenon are embodied by anthropomorphisms, metaphors, or humanization.

Examples of personification in Russian

Both personalization and epithets with allegories contribute to the embellishment of phenomena. This creates a more impressive reality.

Poetry is rich in harmony, flight of thoughts, dreaminess and.
If you add such a technique as personalization to the proposal, then it will sound completely different.
Personalization as a technique in a literary work appeared due to the fact that the authors sought to endow folklore characters from ancient Greek myths with heroism and greatness.

How to distinguish personification from metaphor?

Before you start drawing a parallel between concepts, you need to remember what personification and metaphor are?

A metaphor is a word or phrase that is used in a figurative sense. It is based on comparing one thing with another.

For example:
A bee from a wax cell
Flying for field tribute

The metaphor here is the word "cell", that is, the author meant the beehive.
Personification is the animation of inanimate objects or phenomena, the author endows inanimate objects or phenomena with the properties of living ones.

For example:
The silent nature will be comforted
And frisky joy will think

Joy cannot think, but the author endowed it with human properties, that is, he used such a literary device as personification.
Here the first conclusion suggests itself: a metaphor - when the author compares a living object with an inanimate one, and personification - inanimate objects acquire the qualities of living ones.

What is the difference between metaphor and personification

Let's take an example: diamond fountains are flying. Why is this a metaphor? The answer is simple, the author hid the comparison in this phrase. In this combination of words, we ourselves can put a comparative union, we get the following - fountains are like diamonds.

Sometimes a metaphor is called a hidden comparison, since it is based on a comparison, but the author does not formalize it with the help of a union.

Using impersonation in a conversation

All people use personification during a conversation, but many do not know about it. It is used so often that people have stopped noticing it. A striking example of personification in colloquial speech is that finances sing romances (it is common for people to sing, and finances have been endowed with this property), so we got personification.

To use a similar technique in colloquial speech - to give it visual expressiveness, brightness and interest. Who wants to impress the interlocutor - uses this.

Despite such popularity, personification is more often found in artistic presentations. Authors from all over the world cannot ignore such an artistic device.

Personification and fiction

If we take a poem by any writer (no matter Russian or foreign), then on any page, in any work, we will find a lot of literary devices, including personifications.

If in an artistic presentation there is a story about nature, then the author will describe natural phenomena using personification, an example: the frost painted all the panes with patterns; walking through the forest you can see how the leaves whisper.

If the work is from love lyrics, then the authors use personification as an abstract concept, for example: love could be heard singing; their joy rang, longing ate him from the inside.
Political or social lyrics also include personifications: and the homeland is our mother; With the end of the war, the world breathed a sigh of relief.

Personification and anthropomorphisms

Personification is a simple pictorial technique. And it's not hard to define it. The main thing is to be able to distinguish it from other techniques, namely from anthropomorphism, because they are similar.

What is the attribution of the properties of animate objects to inanimate objects called? personification