[Lingtyp] query: "animal"

Mon Oct 15 14:09:20 UTC 2018

Thomas, I actually thought this was what Östen meant.
Wikipedia: “Insekter (Insecta) är en klass inom leddjuren och utgör den artrikaste djurgruppen bland landdjuren.” (Swedish) insect (’insekt’) is a hyponym of djur (’non-human living being’).
“Insekter (fra latin insectum, af græsk éntomon insekt) er dyr, der hører under rækken leddyr.” (Danish) (same as in Swedish)
Even German: ”Insekten (lat. insecta) … sind die artenreichste Klasse der Gliederfüßer (Arthropoda) und zugleich die mit absoluter Mehrheit auch artenreichste Klasse der Tiere überhaupt.”
Now I am not declaring Wikipedia to be an infallible source, but what Bill Hanks said about questionable meta-statements by native speakers in a discussion at IPrA 2007 in Gothenburg, applies here, too: “We may disagree, but it is all still part of the data.”
Hartmut

Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> På vegne af Thomas Hörberg
Sendt: 13. oktober 2018 20:03
Til: Östen Dahl <oesten at ling.su.se>
Cc: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] query: "animal"

Hi Östen and everyone else. My supersmall and totally unrepresentative sample disagrees with you for Swedish.  'Bird' and 'insect' are hyponyms.
Thomas
Den 13 okt. 2018, kI 19:29, "Östen Dahl" <oesten at ling.su.se<mailto:oesten at ling.su.se>> skrev:
Hi David - so what about English? It seems that “animal” is often understood to include category 1 only. Evidence: google “animals birds and insects”. Same thing in Swedish for “djur”.
Östen

13 okt. 2018 kl. 19:22 skrev Larry M. HYMAN < hyman at berkeley.edu<mailto:hyman at berkeley.edu>>:
Hi David - Here's an example (just presented in my introduction to linguistics class yesterday!). Lack of accent = Mid tone.

14.    Taxonomies of words are culture specific, e.g. animals. Cf. Leggbó, an Upper Cross-River language of Nigeria
         a.     ɛtɛɛn  “animal”
                 i.     ɛtɛɛn ɛkkpón   ‘land animal’
                 ii.    ɛtɛɛn àsí          ‘water animal’
         b.     does not include
                 i.     lìzol     ‘bird’
                 ii.    ǹdòdò  ‘insect’

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 9:34 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

--
Larry M. Hyman, Professor of Linguistics & Executive Director, France-Berkeley Fund
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=19
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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/20181015/1a0de8ad/attachment.htm>