[Lingtyp] query: "animal"

MM Jocelyne Fernandez mmjocelynefern at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 02:57:19 UTC 2018


No method alone is sufficient for cross-linguistic research. 40 years 
ago questionnaires were unavoidable in field linguistics, but the 
conception of language has evolved. One could believe that a simple 
lexeme like "animal" corresponds in each language a more objective and 
fixed usage than for instance discourse particles, but modern discourse 
analyses have shown that the lexicon is also dependent upon its context 
and co-text. Co-lexification studies that would nowadays disregard for 
"animal" essential defining criteria like connotation and textual genre 
would paint a somewhat fusty picture of the typological field.

M.M.Jocelyne FERNANDEZ-VEST
CNRS & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle


Le 15/10/2018 à 22:21, Östen Dahl a écrit :
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Since Hedvig did not really specify what the questionnaires should 
> look like, could you make more precise what you mean by 
> “questionnaires of the sort proposed by Hedvig”? Also, are you saying 
> that one cannot carry out cross-linguistic research by corpus work or 
> psycholinguistic experiments or by reading grammars?
>
> I think that some caution is necessary when constructing a 
> questionnaire to compare how words like “animal” are used. There may 
> well be a conflict between perceived norms and actual usage. Direct 
> questions such as “What does X mean?” or “Is X a Y?” may yield answers 
> which are biased towards the former.
>
> Östen
>
> *Från:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *För 
> *Martin Haspelmath
> *Skickat:* den 15 oktober 2018 15:40
> *Till:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Ämne:* Re: [Lingtyp] query: "animal"
>
> In fact, questionnaires of the sort proposed by Hedvig and endorsed by 
> David are the ONLY way in which cross-linguistic research can be 
> carried out.
>
> There is no contradiction at all between lists of comparison meanings 
> (like David's original list of 8 organism types) and the recognition 
> that languages "function" differently.
>
> In order to express how a language "functions" (= in order to describe 
> a language), one needs descriptive categories, and these may well 
> involve prototypes.
>
> In order to find out what languages have in common, one needs 
> comparative concepts (for lexical concepts: comparison meanings, e.g. 
> the concept-sets in the Concepticon 
> https://concepticon.clld.org/parameters).
>
> One should avoid the mistake of thinking that a mapping from language 
> facts to comparative concepts is a description, or the opposite 
> mistake of thinking that descriptive categories would necessarily be 
> useful for comparison.
>
> (Sorry for belabouring this methodological point, but it seems to come 
> up again and again...)
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On 15.10.18 15:03, David Gil wrote:
>
>     In response to the latest posting by Johanna, I think there is
>     widespread agreement that the meanings of words exhibit the kind
>     of internal structuring that is usefully represented in terms of
>     prototypes.  But this does not preclude the need for adequate
>     descriptions of what is included — protypically, less
>     prototypically, marginally, or not at all — in the extension of
>     words such as "animal" and its putative counterparts across
>     languages.  And questionnaires have proven to be a useful tool for
>     gathering this kind of data — it's quite easy to formulate a
>     questionnaire in such a way that it will elicit judgements of
>     prototypicality (as opposed to categorical "black-and-white"
>     judgements).
>
>     On 15/10/2018 14:49, Johanna Laakso wrote:
>
>         Dear All,
>
>         to be honest, I don't believe that languages function with
>         clear categories for concepts like "animal". More probably,
>         there is something like a prototypical "core" for "animalness"
>         (or many of them, if there are many categories corresponding
>         to "animal"), surrounded by grey zones and depending on
>         contexts, styles, subcultures, etc.
>
>         My own anecdotal experience (which first caught my attention
>         years ago, when working on a translation job): in Estonian,
>         "loomad ja linnud" (‘animals and birds’, implying that ‘birds’
>         are a category distinct from ‘animals’) seems to be a pretty
>         frequent expression (more than 60,000 Google hits). As a
>         native speaker of Finnish, I find the Finnish equivalent
>         expression, "eläimet ja linnut", less natural or not as
>         idiomatic and acceptable as the Estonian one; it does occur
>         but clearly less frequently than in Estonian (13,700 Google
>         hits), and according to my intuition, the Finnish ‘bird’ is a
>         borderline case – birds might be "animals" or "not-animals",
>         depending on context and use. I'm also pretty sure that many
>         other Finnish speakers might see this differently.
>
>         Therefore, I have great doubts concerning the use of
>         questionnaires for gathering data. Or, at least, the
>         questionnaire should be very carefully planned, to accommodate
>         vagueness and fuzzy or overlapping categories.
>
>         Best
>
>         Johanna
>
>         PS. Note also that terms for animals in many languages are
>         greatly affected by taboos. And that the term ‘animal’ in
>         itself is often a derivative (Finnish eläin = "living thing",
>         Estonian loom = "creature", Hungarian állat = "standing
>         thing") or a result of semantic extension or specification
>         (cf. German "Tier" and its Scandinavian cognates with English
>         "deer", or the fact that Hungarian "állat" a few centuries ago
>         had a more general meaning, something like "entity" or
>         "being") and that these developments might be connected to
>         cultural changes.
>
>         --
>
>         Univ.Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso
>
>         Universität Wien, Institut für Europäische und Vergleichende
>         Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL)
>
>         Abteilung Finno-Ugristik
>
>         Campus AAKH Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7
>
>         A-1090 Wien
>
>         johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at
>         <mailto:johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at> •
>         http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/
>
>         Project ELDIA: http://www.eldia-project.org/
>
>             Hedvig Skirgård <hedvig.skirgard at gmail.com
>             <mailto:hedvig.skirgard at gmail.com>> kirjoitti 15.10.2018
>             kello 13.55:
>
>             Dear everyone,
>
>             Queries like one David posed are often improved via more
>             systematic data collection using a form. I suggested
>             Google Forms because it's one of the most user friendly
>             and familiar interfaces out there where David could set up
>             a questionnaire and collect data on people's usage of
>             words in their respective language, and also get
>             systematic data on exactly what language they speaks.
>
>             I'm not going to set this up for anyone else or compile
>             the information in this thread, I'm merely suggesting that
>             it a Google Form may be a productive way of going about this.
>
>             *Med vänliga hälsningar,*
>
>             *Hedvig Skirgård*
>
>             PhD Candidate
>
>             The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity
>
>             ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
>
>             School of Culture, History and Language
>             College of Asia and the Pacific
>
>             The Australian National University
>
>             Website <https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/>
>
>             P.S. If you have multiple email addresses, I kindly ask
>             you to just use one with corresponding with me. Email
>             threads and invites to get confusing otherwise. I will
>             only email you from my gmail, even if other email
>             addresses re-direct emails to them to my gmail (ANU etc).
>
>             Den mån 15 okt. 2018 kl 22:50 skrev Assibi Apatewon Amidu
>             <assibi.amidu at ntnu.no <mailto:assibi.amidu at ntnu.no>>:
>
>                 Dear Hedvig,
>
>                 I am not myself into google, twitter, facebook, etc.
>                 beyond pressing 'like' buttons. If you wish to put the
>                 information on these platforms, too, please, do so, as
>                 long it does not distract from David's exploration.
>
>                 Best regards,
>
>                 Assibi
>
>                 On 15. okt. 2018, at 13:21, Hedvig Skirgård
>                 <hedvig.skirgard at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:hedvig.skirgard at gmail.com>>
>
>                  wrote:
>
>
>
>                     May I suggest a google form to be spread around
>                     facebook and twitter etc?
>
>                     *Med vänliga hälsningar,*
>
>                     *Hedvig Skirgård*
>
>                     PhD Candidate
>
>                     The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity
>
>                     ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
>
>                     School of Culture, History and Language
>                     College of Asia and the Pacific
>
>                     The Australian National University
>
>                     Website
>                     <https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/>
>
>                     P.S. If you have multiple email addresses, I
>                     kindly ask you to just use one with corresponding
>                     with me. Email threads and invites to get
>                     confusing otherwise. I will only email you from my
>                     gmail, even if other email addresses re-direct
>                     emails to them to my gmail (ANU etc).
>
>                     Den mån 15 okt. 2018 kl 21:31 skrev Assibi
>                     Apatewon Amidu <assibi.amidu at ntnu.no
>                     <mailto:assibi.amidu at ntnu.no>>:
>
>                         Dear David and all,
>
>                         Your exploration is very educative. I cannot
>                         claim to be able to answer your questions, but
>                         here is a take from Kiswahili. In Kiswahili,
>                         the categorization is as follows:
>
>                         1. /Mtu/Watu/ 'being/s' (Classes 1/2 M/WA)
>                         includes human and other animates. They are
>                         superordniate terms which subsume (2-3).
>
>                         2. /Mnyama/Wanyama/ 'animal/s, ±live' (Classes
>                         1/2 M/WA) , (historically undifferentiated
>                         as/nyama/nyama/ of classes 9/10, N/N up to
>                         ends of the 19th century) which subsume (3),
>                         hence hypernym to (3).
>
>                         3. /Mdudu/Wadudu/ 'insect/s, crawler/s,
>                         parasite/s, and others, ±live' (Classes 1/2 M/WA).
>
>                         This gives us three generic terms for
>                         referring to humans, animal, insects and other
>                         species all the way to microbes. (2-3) are
>                         co-hyponyms of (1). These are not sharp
>                         mutually exclusive categories.
>                         Thus, centipede, scorpion, etc. are also types
>                         of  (3), and human, and other animals, e.g.
>                         hippo, can be described as /wadudu/, or better
>                         still with the augmentative /dudu/madudu/,
>                         depending on the communication intention of
>                         the speaker, e,g, how monstrous they perceive
>                         the entity. Returning to your list of words,
>                         they would fall under (1-2), but specifically
>                         under (2) in everyday usage. For a quick, not
>                         too detailed, discussion, kindly look at
>                         chapter 2 of
>
>                         Amidu, A. A. (2007). /Semantic Assignement
>                         Rules in Kiswahili Bantu
>                         Classes/. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
>
>                         Best wishes,
>
>                         Assibi
>
>                         On 14. okt. 2018, at 08:11, David Gil
>                         <gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>
>
>                          wrote:
>
>
>
>                             Randy,
>
>                             So which of the items in (1-8) are covered
>                             by Chinese /dòngwù/ (動物), ‘moving thing’?
>
>                             David
>
>                             On 14/10/2018 03:59, Randy LaPolla wrote:
>
>                                 Hi David,
>
>                                 The categories as you have them (1-8)
>                                 reflect certain cultural conceptions,
>                                 and so won’t be the same for other
>                                 cultures. For example, in Chinese bats
>                                 were traditionally seen as flying
>                                 mice, and lizards were seen as
>                                 four-legged snakes.
>
>                                 The word in Chinese that we translate
>                                 as ‘animal’ is /dòngwù/ (動物), ‘moving
>                                 thing’.
>
>                                 Randy
>
>                                 Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>                                 On 14 Oct 2018, at 12:33 AM, David Gil
>                                 <gil at shh.mpg.de
>                                 <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
>
>                                     Dear all,
>
>                                     I am interested in exploring,
>                                     cross-linguistically, the semantic
>                                     range of words that correspond
>                                     more or less to the English word
>                                     "animal".
>
>                                     Here are examples of the things
>                                     that English "animal" refers to:
>
>                                     1. dog, kangaroo, lizard, frog ...
>
>                                     2. eagle, sparrow, chicken, bat ...
>
>                                     3. bee, scorpion, spider,
>                                     centipede ...
>
>                                     4. crab, shrimp ...
>
>                                     5. worm, leech ...
>
>                                     6. starfish, jellyfish, squid,
>                                     octopus ...
>
>                                     7. oyster, clam ...
>
>                                     8. sponge (?) ...
>
>                                     I am looking for examples of
>                                     languages in which the basic word
>                                     closest to English "animal" is
>                                     nevertheless different in its
>                                     coverage. In particular, I would
>                                     like to find instances — if such
>                                     exist — of languages in which
>                                     there is a basic word that covers
>                                     the examples in 1-4 (or maybe 1-5)
>                                     to the exclusion of those in 5-8
>                                     (or maybe 6-8).   (Note that the
>                                     question concerns every-day words
>                                     that reflect our naive folk
>                                     biological knowledge, not with
>                                     scientific terms in those few
>                                     languages that have such terminology.)
>
>                                     Some words of background:  A
>                                     colleague and I working in
>                                     experimental cognitive science
>                                     have found (non-linguistic)
>                                     empirical evidence for the
>                                     psychological reality of an
>                                     ontological category that consists
>                                     roughly of animals of the kind
>                                     exemplified in 1-4 (and possibly
>                                     also 5).  We are calling this
>                                     category "higher animals".  The
>                                     characteristic prototypical
>                                     features of higher animals include
>                                     a single axis of symmetry, the
>                                     existence of head, torso and
>                                     limbs, a face in the front of the
>                                     head that includes sensory organs
>                                     such as eyes, and a mouth for
>                                     eating, and the ability to move
>                                     forward in the direction that the
>                                     head is facing.  A challenge that
>                                     we face is that, in the (few)
>                                     languages that we are familiar
>                                     with, there is no simple word for
>                                     higher animals.  But we are hoping
>                                     that other languages might have
>                                     such a word. in addition, we would
>                                     also welcome grammatical evidence
>                                     for the category of higher
>                                     animals, for example in the form
>                                     of grammatical rules that are
>                                     sensitive to the animacy hierarchy
>                                     by making reference to a cut-off
>                                     point between higher and other
>                                     animals.
>
>                                     I look forward to your responses.
>                                     Thanks,
>
>                                     David
>
>                                     -- 
>
>                                     David Gil
>
>                                     Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>
>                                     Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>
>                                     Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>
>                                     Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>
>                                     Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
>
>                                     Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
>
>                                     _______________________________________________
>                                     Lingtyp mailing list
>                                     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                                     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>                                     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
>                             -- 
>
>                             David Gil
>
>                             Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>
>                             Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>
>                             Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>
>                             Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>
>                             Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
>
>                             Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
>
>                             _______________________________________________
>                             Lingtyp mailing list
>                             Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                             <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>                             http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         Lingtyp mailing list
>                         Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                         <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>                         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Lingtyp mailing list
>             Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>             <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>             http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Lingtyp mailing list
>
>         Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>         <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
>         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     David Gil
>
>     Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>
>     Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>
>     Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>
>     Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>
>     Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
>
>     Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Lingtyp mailing list
>
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> -- 
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de <mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10
> D-07745 Jena
> &
> Leipzig University
> Institut fuer Anglistik
> IPF 141199
> D-04081 Leipzig
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181016/f88e8223/attachment.htm>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list