[Lingtyp] query: "animal"

Sun Oct 14 08:43:50 UTC 2018

A reminder: the larger issue (matters of ‘categorization’, also of linguistic entities) was discussed 2 or 3 years ago on this list.
This resulted in a special issue of LT (20-2, 2016) on cross-linguistic comparison (‘Of categories: Language particular - comparative – universal’).
Here is a quotation from my contribution to this issue, showing that it is hardly surprising to find that ‘animal’ means different things in different languages:

“The fact that people may take different decisions in matters of categorization was already anticipated by the British philosopher John Locke (1689/1825: 322). In ‘An essay concerning human understanding’ he concluded that all categories are the products of our cognitive system, i.e. without us humans, there would be no categories:

“Men determine the sorts of substances, which may be sorted variously. From what has been said, it is evident that men make sorts of things. For, it being different essences alone that make different species, it is plain that they who make those abstract ideas which are the nominal essences do thereby make the species, or sort. ...
… Nature makes many particular things, which do agree one with another in many sensible qualities, and probably too in their internal frame and constitution: but it is not this real essence that distinguishes them into species; it is men who, taking occasion from the qualities they find united in them, and wherein they observe often several individuals to agree, range them into sorts, in order to their naming, for the convenience of comprehensive signs; …”

In other words, since it is humans who do the categorization, we decide what is contained in the category adjective or how we rank entities on a scale of animacy or actuality. How we define categories or which features count as ‘relevant’ or ‘necessary’ depends on one’s theory, goals, method, data and, last but not least, cultural factors, so disagreement is an inherent aspect of the categorization enterprise. It is probably easier to agree on what counts as a member of the category Bird (but see Bulmer 1967) than to agree on what counts as a member of the category Adjective - but this is just a matter of degree.”

Bulmer, Ralph. 1967. Why is the cassowary not a bird? A problem of zoological taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea highlands. Man 2(1). 5-25.

Jan

From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Ian Maddieson <ianm at berkeley.edu>
Date: Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 00.24
To: Daniel Ross <djross3 at gmail.com>
Cc: "LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: "animal"

As already mentioned, English usage is variable; for this native (British) English speaker ‘animal’ in non-scientific discourse
applies almost exclusively to mammals, and definitely does not include birds, fish, insects, etc.

In several West African languages the word for ‘animal’ also means ‘meat’, e.g. Yoruba ẹran /ɛɾɑ̃/ which applies
primarily but not exclusively to domesticated animals, like goats and cattle, and also to meat and also human muscle.

Ian

On Oct 13, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Daniel Ross <djross3 at gmail.com<mailto:djross3 at gmail.com>> wrote:

David (and others),

As already indicated by some replies, English is not that simple. In fact, there is a huge amount of variation between speakers. As a child I was interested in reading about animals (encyclopedias, etc.) and going to zoos, and for me personally the wide, encompassing definition (all the way through sponges!) would apply. But I remember being in disagreements with other speakers who don't find insects (or 'lower' groups) to count, and some don't even count fish. It seems that the definition operates as a prototype, with some speakers accepting a wider group (in effect radiating down the hierarchy) and others keeping the narrower prototypical group, maybe even just synonymous with "mammals" for some. Some survey research on the exact distribution (with a very large sample, including different education levels, etc.) would be warranted here to make any strong generalizations. There's also a puzzle at the other end of the hierarchy, where humans are technically animals but many are reluctant to mention or even accept that. At the same time, many or most speakers probably recognize that there is a technical definition, so this is also a question of register/context, and it might be variable within speakers. It would also be worth looking at other similar terms like "bug" in English, which to me is essentially synonymous with "insect" (and I guess including other land-arthorpods), but for some speakers I think would extend further. As you asked, David, trying to find terms for other parts of the hierarchy is relevant.

Thanks for sharing an interesting question!

Daniel

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Peter Arkadiev <peterarkadiev at yandex.ru<mailto:peterarkadiev at yandex.ru>> wrote:
Dear All,

I'm afraid that the "animals, birds and fish" test does not really work, because one easily finds apparently contradicting examples "birds, snakes and other animals" suggesting that "birds" and "snakes" are "animals".
(I am not claiming that I know how to interpret this discrepancy, I only point out the potential difficulty, which, I am sure, will pop up in other languages as well.)

Best regards,

Peter

--
Peter Arkadiev, PhD
Institute of Slavic Studies
Russian Academy of Sciences
Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow
peterarkadiev at yandex.ru<mailto:peterarkadiev at yandex.ru>
http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev

13.10.2018, 21:17, "David Gil" <gil at shh.mpg.de<mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>:
So from the comments by Hartmut (below) and Östen a short while ago, it is becoming clear that I was a little cavalier in my initial statement to the effect than English "animal" refers to 1-7 and maybe 8.  Interestingly, though, German "Tier" apparently does.  Also, there may possibly be a split between Hartmut's Danish "dyr" (1-7) and Östen's Swedish "djur" (1 only) — though I now see some further discussion that calls this into question.
The observations that have been offered about the semantic range of English "animal" have already provided me with a solution to the problem that motivated my original posting.  Under the (apparently) false assumption that English has a single word for 1-7/8, it was a problem for the proposed notion of higher animal (covering 1-4/5) that there seemed to be no simple word for it.  But if indeed ontological categories such as living creature (covering 1-7/8) can exist without a simple word to designate them, then it is not a problem for the proposed notion of higher animal that there would seem not to be a single word for that category — at least from what I have been able to gather so far.
Still, it would be nice if somebody came through with a language that had a simple basic word for higher animals (1-4/5), so I welcome further comments and discussion on this thread!

On 13/10/2018 20:00, Hartmut Haberland wrote:
Three comments:
In German, 1.-7. would work.
Where are fish like plaice, turbot, or eel? Category 2a?
My wife, L1 speaker of English, often commented on my typical German concept of Tier (1.-7.), when I referred to birds, fish and insects as animals which I stopped doing now.
Turbots have more axes of symmetry than anyone who ever filleted one for sushi will agree with me are convenient.
In my opinion, the cut-off point for English is after 1.
I use Danish dyr like German Tier and nobody ever commented on it in 40+ years.
What about bacteria (6a)? At least they move.
Hartmut
Den 13. okt. 2018 kl. 18.35 skrev David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de<mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>:

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

Ian Maddieson

Department of Linguistics
University of New Mexico
MSC03-2130
Albuquerque NM 87131-0001

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181014/91b40dc3/attachment.htm>