<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the very interesting discussion! I don't think it has been brought up, but the kind of approach used by the Moscow Lexical Typology Group might be of interest. There is a site that presents some of the major publications and includes a helpful methodological introduction.</div><div><br></div><div>Here's the link - <a href="http://lextyp.org/en/publications/">http://lextyp.org/en/publications/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Eitan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Eitan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-6446302488131504724gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Eitan Grossman<div>Senior Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences<br></div><div>Hebrew University of Jerusalem</div><div>Tel: +972 2 588 3809</div><div>Fax: +972 2 588 1224</div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:53 PM David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Mattis,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response.  I have just one question/comment (a bit of <br>
both, actually), and please excuse me if the answer is actually already <br>
clearly spelled out in your database and website.  (Of course I could <br>
just pop across the hallway and ask you this, but I think this <br>
discussion is of sufficient general interest to justify letting the <br>
entire list in on it.)<br>
<br>
Let me illustrate my question with reference to <br>
<a href="https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619</a>, which purports to show <br>
colexifications for ANIMAL.  My problem is that I do not know what <br>
exactly is meant by ANIMAL.  Since BIRD appears on the graph, my first <br>
assumption was that ANIMAL doesn't include things like eagles and <br>
sparrows, and that what the line connecting ANIMAL and BIRD shows, when <br>
I run my cursor over it, is that, whatever ANIMAL means, it is <br>
colexified with whatever BIRD means in the 9 languages that are then <br>
listed to the right.  Already that strikes me as odd, given that, from <br>
the discussion of the last few days, it appears that ANIMAL and BIRD are <br>
colexified in lots of other languages, including major ones such as <br>
German, Mandarin and Indonesian (if not, perhaps, everyday English).  <br>
But ignoring that, I then assumed that your ANIMAL probably has a more <br>
limited extension, perhaps restricted to such prototypical entities as <br>
dogs, cats, giraffes, and so forth.  But then I see OX, BULL and COW <br>
listed separately, with no lines at all connecting them to ANIMAL, even <br>
though, presumably and by definition, any word for ANIMAL in any <br>
language would include, in its extension, oxen, bulls and cows, amongst <br>
others.  So I am now bewildered ...<br>
<br>
What I guess I don't quite understand is how CLICS represents <br>
relationships of hyponymy, or strict inclusion — which is, in a sense, <br>
the subject of my original query.  If you were to create a graph <br>
referring exclusively to (disjoint) basic level concepts, e.g. CAT, DOG, <br>
EAGLE, WORM, EEL etc, then I suppose your method could be invoked to <br>
show how, say, in Language A, CAT, DOG, EAGLE, WORM, EEL were all <br>
colexified with a single superordinate term, call it "ANIMAL1", while in <br>
Language B the corresponding superordinate term colexified CAT, DOG, <br>
EAGLE, WORM to the exclusion of EEL, call it "ANIMAL2".  So my original <br>
query, "What does 'animal' mean?" would receive its answer from an <br>
analysis of such patterns of colexification.  But if, as in <br>
<a href="https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619</a>, ANIMAL is presupposed as one <br>
of the original concepts, then I don't see how CLICS, in its current <br>
form, can be used to answer my query.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong: I think CLICS is a great tool, and as you know, I <br>
have already used it in one of my own papers (on the colexification of <br>
DO and GIVE — though come to think of it, even there, the issue of <br>
hyponymy rears its head, seeing as how GIVE is a hyponym of DO).  It's <br>
just that I don't see how it can be used to answer the specific question <br>
that I posed.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
On 16/10/2018 14:03, Mattis List wrote:<br>
> Dear David,<br>
><br>
> The sources and the original meanings are all transparently tracked if<br>
> you go to the concepticon database (<a href="https://concepticon.clld.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://concepticon.clld.org</a>) and<br>
> search for the relevant concept list. If those concept lists then make<br>
> errors, it's nothing we can change, but if we make errors in LINKS, we<br>
> can change this, and are doing so, if people point us to problems.<br>
> You'll see that we are actually investing quite a lot in trying to avoid<br>
> problems, e.g., we do not link "animal / meat", as a concept from the<br>
> hunter-gatherer database and used in Australian (?) languages to ANIMAL,<br>
> but only those cases where we are sure the people intend to elicit the<br>
> concept in a consistent way in which they try to elicit "animal" in all<br>
> questionnaires over the world.<br>
><br>
> The problem, as it appears from some people's answers with these<br>
> databases is that linguists rather trust the data they coded themselves.<br>
> Well, we basically understand that, although we know nobody can code all<br>
> data for all questions themselves, AND we believe in community effort.<br>
> For that reason, all who would like to double-check the sources are<br>
> cordially invited to do so. If, among the papers and tutorials published<br>
> on Concepticon and CLICS, you do not find the right answer, please also<br>
> just consider either filing github issues<br>
> (<a href="https://github.com/clics/clics2" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/clics/clics2</a>), or sending an email to me. We're<br>
> always glad to help.<br>
><br>
> And sure, if your questions are more detailed, David, it is clear that<br>
> you will want to make a different questionnaire and see what patterns<br>
> you find. In fact, if this thread leads to a community effort where<br>
> people pull together an enhanced network of terms used to denote animals<br>
> and the like, I'd say: please share it openly, make open data out of it,<br>
> so we can also present it to everybody via CLICS, as it is no problem to<br>
> extend our database, if people create cool resources.<br>
><br>
> All the best,<br>
><br>
> Mattis<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 16.10.18 13:13, David Gil wrote:<br>
>> Hedvig and others,<br>
>><br>
>> CLICS is a great resource, and not (only) because it is housed almost<br>
>> directly across the corridor from my own office here in Jena.  And I<br>
>> have found it profitable to use in other contexts.<br>
>><br>
>> However, it is not clear to me how it might be of help in the present<br>
>> case.  The problem is, when I click (pun unintended) on, say, the<br>
>> "animal" link below, and see a range of concepts that are supposedly<br>
>> colexified with "animal", I simply have no idea which understanding of<br>
>> the term "animal" was made use of by each of the various sources that<br>
>> the CLICS database relies on, and little confidence that they all made<br>
>> use of the same purported meaning of the word "animal".<br>
>><br>
>> The problem is actually a more general one that just "animal" and<br>
>> CLICS.  Martin and other similarly-minded typologists have argued that<br>
>> meaning provides a more solid basis for the formulation of<br>
>> cross-linguistically valid comparative concepts than does form.  My own<br>
>> feeling is that such arguments significantly overestimate the validity<br>
>> of supposedly universal concepts (a la Wierzbicka, or the<br>
>> "CONCEPTICON"), while underestimating the degree to which languages may<br>
>> differ also with respect to their semantic structures.  But that's a<br>
>> topic for a different conversation ...<br>
>><br>
>> David<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 16/10/2018 03:56, Hedvig Skirgård wrote:<br>
>>> I think that Ian and Martin may be talking past each other somewhat<br>
>>> here. I think that they have different meanings of "questionnaire"<br>
>>> (reading grammars or searching through corpora and systematically<br>
>>> cataloguing the information into a sheet could be seen as filling out<br>
>>> a questionnaire), but I'll leave that to Ian and Martin to work out. I<br>
>>> also appreciate Östen's attention to the impact of the phrasing of<br>
>>> questions to informants, I think that's a very good point.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Another resource that David could make use of is the recently released<br>
>>> Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications (CLICS) from the<br>
>>> CLLD-project and CALC/DLCE group at MPI-SHH. It contains info on<br>
>>> co-lexification, and can display information in network graphs. Here<br>
>>> are some relevant graphs:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Animal<br>
>>> <a href="https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Insect<br>
>>> <a href="https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_620" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_620</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Bird<br>
>>> <a href="https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_937" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_937</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> *<br>
>>> *<br>
>>><br>
>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar**,*<br>
>>><br>
>>> *Hedvig Skirgård*<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> PhD Candidate<br>
>>><br>
>>> The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity<br>
>>><br>
>>> ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language<br>
>>><br>
>>> School of Culture, History and Language<br>
>>> College of Asia and the Pacific<br>
>>><br>
>>> The Australian National University<br>
>>><br>
>>> Website <<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> P.S. If you have multiple email addresses, I kindly ask you to just<br>
>>> use one with corresponding with me. Email threads and invites to get<br>
>>> confusing otherwise. I will only email you from my gmail, even if<br>
>>> other email addresses re-direct emails to them to my gmail (ANU etc).<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Den tis 16 okt. 2018 kl 08:46 skrev Ian Maddieson <<a href="mailto:ianm@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">ianm@berkeley.edu</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ianm@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">ianm@berkeley.edu</a>>>:<br>
>>><br>
>>>      Hi Martin,<br>
>>><br>
>>>      I find it a very bizarre claim to say that questionnaires are the<br>
>>>      ONLY way that cross-linguistic research can be carried out.<br>
>>>      Sure, using a questionnaire can be a useful tool for certain<br>
>>>      purposes, but consulting dictionaries, articles and grammars,<br>
>>>      analyzing texts, analyzing recordings, conducting experiments and<br>
>>>      so on are all possible ways of doing cross-linguistic<br>
>>>      research.<br>
>>><br>
>>>      In the context of the present discussion, the referential scope of<br>
>>>      "animal”-words might emerge more reliably from looking<br>
>>>      at large bodies of text to infer actual usage than from even a<br>
>>>      very well-designed questionnaire. Of course, large bodies of<br>
>>>      text are only available from a small sample of languages, and<br>
>>>      processing the data is non-trivial!<br>
>>><br>
>>>      Ian<br>
>>><br>
>>>>      On Oct 15, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Östen Dahl <<a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se" target="_blank">oesten@ling.su.se</a><br>
>>>>      <mailto:<a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se" target="_blank">oesten@ling.su.se</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      Dear Martin,<br>
>>>>      Since Hedvig did not really specify what the questionnaires<br>
>>>>      should look like, could you make more precise what you mean by<br>
>>>>      “questionnaires of the sort proposed by Hedvig”? Also, are you<br>
>>>>      saying that one cannot carry out cross-linguistic research by<br>
>>>>      corpus work or psycholinguistic experiments or by reading grammars?<br>
>>>>      I think that some caution is necessary when constructing a<br>
>>>>      questionnaire to compare how words like “animal” are used. There<br>
>>>>      may well be a conflict between perceived norms and actual usage.<br>
>>>>      Direct questions such as “What does X mean?” or “Is X a Y?” may<br>
>>>>      yield answers which are biased towards the former.<br>
>>>>      Östen<br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>>      *Från:* Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>      <mailto:<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>> *För *Martin<br>
>>>>      Haspelmath<br>
>>>>      *Skickat:* den 15 oktober 2018 15:40<br>
>>>>      *Till:* <a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>      <mailto:<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>      *Ämne:* Re: [Lingtyp] query: "animal"<br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      In fact, questionnaires of the sort proposed by Hedvig and<br>
>>>>      endorsed by David are the ONLY way in which cross-linguistic<br>
>>>>      research can be carried out.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      There is no contradiction at all between lists of comparison<br>
>>>>      meanings (like David's original list of 8 organism types) and the<br>
>>>>      recognition that languages "function" differently.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      In order to express how a language "functions" (= in order to<br>
>>>>      describe a language), one needs descriptive categories, and these<br>
>>>>      may well involve prototypes.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      In order to find out what languages have in common, one needs<br>
>>>>      comparative concepts (for lexical concepts: comparison meanings,<br>
>>>>      e.g. the concept-sets in the<br>
>>>>      Concepticon <a href="https://concepticon.clld.org/parameters" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://concepticon.clld.org/parameters</a>).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      One should avoid the mistake of thinking that a mapping from<br>
>>>>      language facts to comparative concepts is a description, or the<br>
>>>>      opposite mistake of thinking that descriptive categories would<br>
>>>>      necessarily be useful for comparison.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      (Sorry for belabouring this methodological point, but it seems to<br>
>>>>      come up again and again...)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      Best,<br>
>>>>      Martin<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      On 15.10.18 15:03, David Gil wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          In response to the latest posting by Johanna, I think there<br>
>>>>          is widespread agreement that the meanings of words exhibit<br>
>>>>          the kind of internal structuring that is usefully represented<br>
>>>>          in terms of prototypes.  But this does not preclude the need<br>
>>>>          for adequate descriptions of what is included — protypically,<br>
>>>>          less prototypically, marginally, or not at all — in the<br>
>>>>          extension of words such as "animal" and its putative<br>
>>>>          counterparts across languages.  And questionnaires have<br>
>>>>          proven to be a useful tool for gathering this kind of data —<br>
>>>>          it's quite easy to formulate a questionnaire in such a way<br>
>>>>          that it will elicit judgements of prototypicality (as opposed<br>
>>>>          to categorical "black-and-white" judgements).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>           <br>
>>>>          On 15/10/2018 14:49, Johanna Laakso wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>              Dear All,<br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>>              to be honest, I don't believe that languages function<br>
>>>>              with clear categories for concepts like "animal". More<br>
>>>>              probably, there is something like a prototypical "core"<br>
>>>>              for "animalness" (or many of them, if there are many<br>
>>>>              categories corresponding to "animal"), surrounded by grey<br>
>>>>              zones and depending on contexts, styles, subcultures, etc.<br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>>              My own anecdotal experience (which first caught my<br>
>>>>              attention years ago, when working on a translation job):<br>
>>>>              in Estonian, "loomad ja linnud" (‘animals and birds’,<br>
>>>>              implying that ‘birds’ are a category distinct from<br>
>>>>              ‘animals’) seems to be a pretty frequent expression (more<br>
>>>>              than 60,000 Google hits). As a native speaker of Finnish,<br>
>>>>              I find the Finnish equivalent expression, "eläimet ja<br>
>>>>              linnut", less natural or not as idiomatic and acceptable<br>
>>>>              as the Estonian one; it does occur but clearly less<br>
>>>>              frequently than in Estonian (13,700 Google hits), and<br>
>>>>              according to my intuition, the Finnish ‘bird’ is a<br>
>>>>              borderline case – birds might be "animals" or<br>
>>>>              "not-animals", depending on context and use. I'm also<br>
>>>>              pretty sure that many other Finnish speakers might see<br>
>>>>              this differently.<br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>>              Therefore, I have great doubts concerning the use of<br>
>>>>              questionnaires for gathering data. Or, at least, the<br>
>>>>              questionnaire should be very carefully planned, to<br>
>>>>              accommodate vagueness and fuzzy or overlapping categories.<br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>>              Best<br>
>>>>              Johanna<br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>>              PS. Note also that terms for animals in many languages<br>
>>>>              are greatly affected by taboos. And that the term<br>
>>>>              ‘animal’ in itself is often a derivative (Finnish eläin =<br>
>>>>              "living thing", Estonian loom = "creature", Hungarian<br>
>>>>              állat = "standing thing") or a result of semantic<br>
>>>>              extension or specification (cf. German "Tier" and its<br>
>>>>              Scandinavian cognates with English "deer", or the fact<br>
>>>>              that Hungarian "állat" a few centuries ago had a more<br>
>>>>              general meaning, something like "entity" or "being") and<br>
>>>>              that these developments might be connected to cultural<br>
>>>>              changes.<br>
>>>>              --<br>
>>>>              Univ.Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso<br>
>>>>              Universität Wien, Institut für Europäische und<br>
>>>>              Vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL)<br>
>>>>              Abteilung Finno-Ugristik<br>
>>>>              Campus AAKH Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7<br>
>>>>              A-1090 Wien<br>
>>>>              <a href="mailto:johanna.laakso@univie.ac.at" target="_blank">johanna.laakso@univie.ac.at</a><br>
>>>>              <mailto:<a href="mailto:johanna.laakso@univie.ac.at" target="_blank">johanna.laakso@univie.ac.at</a>> • <a href="http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/</a><br>
>>>>              Project ELDIA: <a href="http://www.eldia-project.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.eldia-project.org/</a><br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                  Hedvig Skirgård <<a href="mailto:hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com" target="_blank">hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>>                  <mailto:<a href="mailto:hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com" target="_blank">hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com</a>>> kirjoitti<br>
>>>>                  15.10.2018 kello 13.55:<br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  Dear everyone,<br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  Queries like one David posed are often improved via<br>
>>>>                  more systematic data collection using a form. I<br>
>>>>                  suggested Google Forms because it's one of the most<br>
>>>>                  user friendly and familiar interfaces out there where<br>
>>>>                  David could set up a questionnaire and collect data<br>
>>>>                  on people's usage of words in their respective<br>
>>>>                  language, and also get systematic data on exactly<br>
>>>>                  what language they speaks.<br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  I'm not going to set this up for anyone else or<br>
>>>>                  compile the information in this thread, I'm merely<br>
>>>>                  suggesting that it a Google Form may be a productive<br>
>>>>                  way of going about this.<br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  *Med vänliga hälsningar,*<br>
>>>>                  *Hedvig Skirgård*<br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  PhD Candidate<br>
>>>>                  The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity<br>
>>>>                  ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language<br>
>>>>                  School of Culture, History and Language<br>
>>>>                  College of Asia and the Pacific<br>
>>>>                  The Australian National University<br>
>>>>                  Website <<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/</a>><br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  P.S. If you have multiple email addresses, I kindly<br>
>>>>                  ask you to just use one with corresponding with me.<br>
>>>>                  Email threads and invites to get confusing otherwise.<br>
>>>>                  I will only email you from my gmail, even if other<br>
>>>>                  email addresses re-direct emails to them to my gmail<br>
>>>>                  (ANU etc).<br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                   <br>
>>>>                  Den mån 15 okt. 2018 kl 22:50 skrev Assibi Apatewon<br>
>>>>                  Amidu <<a href="mailto:assibi.amidu@ntnu.no" target="_blank">assibi.amidu@ntnu.no</a><br>
>>>>                  <mailto:<a href="mailto:assibi.amidu@ntnu.no" target="_blank">assibi.amidu@ntnu.no</a>>>:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                      Dear Hedvig,<br>
>>>>                       <br>
>>>>                      I am not myself into google, twitter, facebook,<br>
>>>>                      etc. beyond pressing 'like' buttons. If you wish<br>
>>>>                      to put the information on these platforms, too,<br>
>>>>                      please, do so, as long it does not distract from<br>
>>>>                      David's exploration.<br>
>>>>                       <br>
>>>>                      Best regards,<br>
>>>>                       <br>
>>>>                      Assibi<br>
>>>>                       <br>
>>>>                      On 15. okt. 2018, at 13:21, Hedvig Skirgård<br>
>>>>                      <<a href="mailto:hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com" target="_blank">hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>>                      <mailto:<a href="mailto:hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com" target="_blank">hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>                       wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                          May I suggest a google form to be spread<br>
>>>>                          around facebook and twitter etc?<br>
>>>>                           <br>
>>>>                          *Med vänliga hälsningar,*<br>
>>>>                          *Hedvig Skirgård*<br>
>>>>                           <br>
>>>>                          PhD Candidate<br>
>>>>                          The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity<br>
>>>>                          ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of<br>
>>>>                          Language<br>
>>>>                          School of Culture, History and Language<br>
>>>>                          College of Asia and the Pacific<br>
>>>>                          The Australian National University<br>
>>>>                          Website<br>
>>>>                          <<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/</a>><br>
>>>>                           <br>
>>>>                          P.S. If you have multiple email addresses, I<br>
>>>>                          kindly ask you to just use one with<br>
>>>>                          corresponding with me. Email threads and<br>
>>>>                          invites to get confusing otherwise. I will<br>
>>>>                          only email you from my gmail, even if other<br>
>>>>                          email addresses re-direct emails to them to<br>
>>>>                          my gmail (ANU etc).<br>
>>>>                           <br>
>>>>                           <br>
>>>>                           <br>
>>>>                          Den mån 15 okt. 2018 kl 21:31 skrev Assibi<br>
>>>>                          Apatewon Amidu <<a href="mailto:assibi.amidu@ntnu.no" target="_blank">assibi.amidu@ntnu.no</a><br>
>>>>                          <mailto:<a href="mailto:assibi.amidu@ntnu.no" target="_blank">assibi.amidu@ntnu.no</a>>>:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                              Dear David and all,<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              Your exploration is very educative. I<br>
>>>>                              cannot claim to be able to answer your<br>
>>>>                              questions, but here is a take from<br>
>>>>                              Kiswahili. In Kiswahili, the<br>
>>>>                              categorization is as follows:<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              1. /Mtu/Watu/ 'being/s' (Classes 1/2<br>
>>>>                              M/WA) includes human and other animates.<br>
>>>>                              They are superordniate terms which<br>
>>>>                              subsume (2-3).<br>
>>>>                              2. /Mnyama/Wanyama/ 'animal/s,<br>
>>>>                              ±live' (Classes 1/2 M/WA) , (historically<br>
>>>>                              undifferentiated as/ nyama/nyama/ of<br>
>>>>                              classes 9/10, N/N up to ends of the 19th<br>
>>>>                              century) which subsume (3), hence<br>
>>>>                              hypernym to (3).<br>
>>>>                              3. /Mdudu/Wadudu/ 'insect/s, crawler/s,<br>
>>>>                              parasite/s, and others, ±live' (Classes<br>
>>>>                              1/2 M/WA).<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              This gives us three generic terms for<br>
>>>>                              referring to humans, animal, insects and<br>
>>>>                              other species all the way to microbes.<br>
>>>>                              (2-3) are co-hyponyms of (1). These are<br>
>>>>                              not sharp mutually exclusive categories.<br>
>>>>                              Thus, centipede, scorpion, etc. are also<br>
>>>>                              types of  (3), and human, and other<br>
>>>>                              animals, e.g. hippo, can be described<br>
>>>>                              as /wadudu/, or better still with the<br>
>>>>                              augmentative /dudu/madudu/, depending on<br>
>>>>                              the communication intention of the<br>
>>>>                              speaker, e,g, how monstrous they perceive<br>
>>>>                              the entity. Returning to your list of<br>
>>>>                              words, they would fall under (1-2), but<br>
>>>>                              specifically under (2) in everyday usage.<br>
>>>>                              For a quick, not too detailed,<br>
>>>>                              discussion, kindly look at chapter 2 of<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              Amidu, A. A. (2007). /Semantic<br>
>>>>                              Assignement Rules in Kiswahili Bantu<br>
>>>>                              Classes/. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              Best wishes,<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              Assibi<br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              On 14. okt. 2018, at 08:11, David Gil<br>
>>>>                              <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>><br>
>>>>                               wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Randy,<br>
>>>>                                  So which of the items in (1-8) are<br>
>>>>                                  covered by Chinese /dòngwù/ (動物),<br>
>>>>                                  ‘moving thing’?<br>
>>>>                                  David<br>
>>>>                                   <br>
>>>>                                   <br>
>>>>                                  On 14/10/2018 03:59, Randy LaPolla wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                      Hi David,<br>
>>>>                                      The categories as you have them<br>
>>>>                                      (1-8) reflect certain cultural<br>
>>>>                                      conceptions, and so won’t be the<br>
>>>>                                      same for other cultures. For<br>
>>>>                                      example, in Chinese bats were<br>
>>>>                                      traditionally seen as flying<br>
>>>>                                      mice, and lizards were seen as<br>
>>>>                                      four-legged snakes.<br>
>>>>                                      The word in Chinese that we<br>
>>>>                                      translate as ‘animal’ is /dòngwù<br>
>>>>                                      / (動物), ‘moving thing’.<br>
>>>>                                       <br>
>>>>                                      Randy<br>
>>>>                                      Sent from my iPhone<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                      On 14 Oct 2018, at 12:33 AM,<br>
>>>>                                      David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a><br>
>>>>                                      <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          Dear all,<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          I am interested in exploring,<br>
>>>>                                          cross-linguistically, the<br>
>>>>                                          semantic range of words that<br>
>>>>                                          correspond more or less to<br>
>>>>                                          the English word "animal".<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          Here are examples of the<br>
>>>>                                          things that English "animal"<br>
>>>>                                          refers to:<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          1. dog, kangaroo, lizard,<br>
>>>>                                          frog ...<br>
>>>>                                          2. eagle, sparrow, chicken,<br>
>>>>                                          bat ...<br>
>>>>                                          3. bee, scorpion, spider,<br>
>>>>                                          centipede ...<br>
>>>>                                          4. crab, shrimp ...<br>
>>>>                                          5. worm, leech ...<br>
>>>>                                          6. starfish, jellyfish,<br>
>>>>                                          squid, octopus ...<br>
>>>>                                          7. oyster, clam ...<br>
>>>>                                          8. sponge (?) ...<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          I am looking for examples of<br>
>>>>                                          languages in which the basic<br>
>>>>                                          word closest to English<br>
>>>>                                          "animal" is nevertheless<br>
>>>>                                          different in its coverage.<br>
>>>>                                          In particular, I would like<br>
>>>>                                          to find instances — if such<br>
>>>>                                          exist — of languages in which<br>
>>>>                                          there is a basic word that<br>
>>>>                                          covers the examples in 1-4<br>
>>>>                                          (or maybe 1-5) to the<br>
>>>>                                          exclusion of those in 5-8 (or<br>
>>>>                                          maybe 6-8).   (Note that the<br>
>>>>                                          question concerns every-day<br>
>>>>                                          words that reflect our naive<br>
>>>>                                          folk biological knowledge,<br>
>>>>                                          not with scientific terms in<br>
>>>>                                          those few languages that have<br>
>>>>                                          such terminology.)<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          Some words of background:  A<br>
>>>>                                          colleague and I working in<br>
>>>>                                          experimental cognitive<br>
>>>>                                          science have found<br>
>>>>                                          (non-linguistic) empirical<br>
>>>>                                          evidence for the<br>
>>>>                                          psychological reality of an<br>
>>>>                                          ontological category that<br>
>>>>                                          consists roughly of animals<br>
>>>>                                          of the kind exemplified in<br>
>>>>                                          1-4 (and possibly also 5).<br>
>>>>                                          We are calling this category<br>
>>>>                                          "higher animals".  The<br>
>>>>                                          characteristic prototypical<br>
>>>>                                          features of higher animals<br>
>>>>                                          include a single axis of<br>
>>>>                                          symmetry, the existence of<br>
>>>>                                          head, torso and limbs, a face<br>
>>>>                                          in the front of the head that<br>
>>>>                                          includes sensory organs such<br>
>>>>                                          as eyes, and a mouth for<br>
>>>>                                          eating, and the ability to<br>
>>>>                                          move forward in the direction<br>
>>>>                                          that the head is facing.  A<br>
>>>>                                          challenge that we face is<br>
>>>>                                          that, in the (few) languages<br>
>>>>                                          that we are familiar with,<br>
>>>>                                          there is no simple word for<br>
>>>>                                          higher animals.  But we are<br>
>>>>                                          hoping that other languages<br>
>>>>                                          might have such a word.  in<br>
>>>>                                          addition, we would also<br>
>>>>                                          welcome grammatical evidence<br>
>>>>                                          for the category of higher<br>
>>>>                                          animals, for example in the<br>
>>>>                                          form of grammatical rules<br>
>>>>                                          that are sensitive to the<br>
>>>>                                          animacy hierarchy by making<br>
>>>>                                          reference to a cut-off point<br>
>>>>                                          between higher and other animals.<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          I look forward to your<br>
>>>>                                          responses.  Thanks,<br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>>                                          David<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          --<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          David Gil<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                           <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                          _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>                                          Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>                                          <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>                                          <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>                                          <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  --<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  David Gil<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                   <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                   <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                   <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                                  _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>                                  Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>                                  <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>                                  <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>                                  <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                               <br>
>>>>                              _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>                              Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>                              <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>                              <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>                              <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                       <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>                  _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>                  Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>                  <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>                  <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>                  <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>               <br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>              _______________________________________________<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>              Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>              <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>              <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          --<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          David Gil<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>           <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>           <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>           <br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          _______________________________________________<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>          <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>      --<br>
>>>>      Martin Haspelmath (<a href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>>)<br>
>>>>      Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>>>>      Kahlaische Strasse 10<br>
>>>>      D-07745 Jena<br>
>>>>      &<br>
>>>>      Leipzig University<br>
>>>>      Institut fuer Anglistik<br>
>>>>      IPF 141199<br>
>>>>      D-04081 Leipzig<br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>>       <br>
>>>>      _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>      Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>      <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>      <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>      <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>      Ian Maddieson<br>
>>><br>
>>>      Department of Linguistics<br>
>>>      University of New Mexico<br>
>>>      MSC03-2130<br>
>>>      Albuquerque NM 87131-0001<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>      _______________________________________________<br>
>>>      Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>      <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>      <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>      <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>> -- <br>
>> David Gil<br>
>><br>
>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
>><br>
>> Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a><br>
>> Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
David Gil<br>
<br>
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a><br>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>