[Lingtyp] query: "animal"
Eitan Grossman
eitan.grossman at mail.huji.ac.il
Tue Oct 16 14:46:24 UTC 2018
Hi all,
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.
Here's the link - http://lextyp.org/en/publications/
Eitan
Best,
Eitan
Eitan Grossman
Senior Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972 2 588 3809
Fax: +972 2 588 1224
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:53 PM David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
> Dear Mattis,
>
> Thanks for your response. I have just one question/comment (a bit of
> both, actually), and please excuse me if the answer is actually already
> clearly spelled out in your database and website. (Of course I could
> just pop across the hallway and ask you this, but I think this
> discussion is of sufficient general interest to justify letting the
> entire list in on it.)
>
> Let me illustrate my question with reference to
> https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619, which purports to show
> colexifications for ANIMAL. My problem is that I do not know what
> exactly is meant by ANIMAL. Since BIRD appears on the graph, my first
> assumption was that ANIMAL doesn't include things like eagles and
> sparrows, and that what the line connecting ANIMAL and BIRD shows, when
> I run my cursor over it, is that, whatever ANIMAL means, it is
> colexified with whatever BIRD means in the 9 languages that are then
> listed to the right. Already that strikes me as odd, given that, from
> the discussion of the last few days, it appears that ANIMAL and BIRD are
> colexified in lots of other languages, including major ones such as
> German, Mandarin and Indonesian (if not, perhaps, everyday English).
> But ignoring that, I then assumed that your ANIMAL probably has a more
> limited extension, perhaps restricted to such prototypical entities as
> dogs, cats, giraffes, and so forth. But then I see OX, BULL and COW
> listed separately, with no lines at all connecting them to ANIMAL, even
> though, presumably and by definition, any word for ANIMAL in any
> language would include, in its extension, oxen, bulls and cows, amongst
> others. So I am now bewildered ...
>
> What I guess I don't quite understand is how CLICS represents
> relationships of hyponymy, or strict inclusion — which is, in a sense,
> the subject of my original query. If you were to create a graph
> referring exclusively to (disjoint) basic level concepts, e.g. CAT, DOG,
> EAGLE, WORM, EEL etc, then I suppose your method could be invoked to
> show how, say, in Language A, CAT, DOG, EAGLE, WORM, EEL were all
> colexified with a single superordinate term, call it "ANIMAL1", while in
> Language B the corresponding superordinate term colexified CAT, DOG,
> EAGLE, WORM to the exclusion of EEL, call it "ANIMAL2". So my original
> query, "What does 'animal' mean?" would receive its answer from an
> analysis of such patterns of colexification. But if, as in
> https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619, ANIMAL is presupposed as one
> of the original concepts, then I don't see how CLICS, in its current
> form, can be used to answer my query.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I think CLICS is a great tool, and as you know, I
> have already used it in one of my own papers (on the colexification of
> DO and GIVE — though come to think of it, even there, the issue of
> hyponymy rears its head, seeing as how GIVE is a hyponym of DO). It's
> just that I don't see how it can be used to answer the specific question
> that I posed.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> David
>
>
> On 16/10/2018 14:03, Mattis List wrote:
> > Dear David,
> >
> > The sources and the original meanings are all transparently tracked if
> > you go to the concepticon database (https://concepticon.clld.org) and
> > search for the relevant concept list. If those concept lists then make
> > errors, it's nothing we can change, but if we make errors in LINKS, we
> > can change this, and are doing so, if people point us to problems.
> > You'll see that we are actually investing quite a lot in trying to avoid
> > problems, e.g., we do not link "animal / meat", as a concept from the
> > hunter-gatherer database and used in Australian (?) languages to ANIMAL,
> > but only those cases where we are sure the people intend to elicit the
> > concept in a consistent way in which they try to elicit "animal" in all
> > questionnaires over the world.
> >
> > The problem, as it appears from some people's answers with these
> > databases is that linguists rather trust the data they coded themselves.
> > Well, we basically understand that, although we know nobody can code all
> > data for all questions themselves, AND we believe in community effort.
> > For that reason, all who would like to double-check the sources are
> > cordially invited to do so. If, among the papers and tutorials published
> > on Concepticon and CLICS, you do not find the right answer, please also
> > just consider either filing github issues
> > (https://github.com/clics/clics2), or sending an email to me. We're
> > always glad to help.
> >
> > And sure, if your questions are more detailed, David, it is clear that
> > you will want to make a different questionnaire and see what patterns
> > you find. In fact, if this thread leads to a community effort where
> > people pull together an enhanced network of terms used to denote animals
> > and the like, I'd say: please share it openly, make open data out of it,
> > so we can also present it to everybody via CLICS, as it is no problem to
> > extend our database, if people create cool resources.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Mattis
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16.10.18 13:13, David Gil wrote:
> >> Hedvig and others,
> >>
> >> CLICS is a great resource, and not (only) because it is housed almost
> >> directly across the corridor from my own office here in Jena. And I
> >> have found it profitable to use in other contexts.
> >>
> >> However, it is not clear to me how it might be of help in the present
> >> case. The problem is, when I click (pun unintended) on, say, the
> >> "animal" link below, and see a range of concepts that are supposedly
> >> colexified with "animal", I simply have no idea which understanding of
> >> the term "animal" was made use of by each of the various sources that
> >> the CLICS database relies on, and little confidence that they all made
> >> use of the same purported meaning of the word "animal".
> >>
> >> The problem is actually a more general one that just "animal" and
> >> CLICS. Martin and other similarly-minded typologists have argued that
> >> meaning provides a more solid basis for the formulation of
> >> cross-linguistically valid comparative concepts than does form. My own
> >> feeling is that such arguments significantly overestimate the validity
> >> of supposedly universal concepts (a la Wierzbicka, or the
> >> "CONCEPTICON"), while underestimating the degree to which languages may
> >> differ also with respect to their semantic structures. But that's a
> >> topic for a different conversation ...
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16/10/2018 03:56, Hedvig Skirgård wrote:
> >>> I think that Ian and Martin may be talking past each other somewhat
> >>> here. I think that they have different meanings of "questionnaire"
> >>> (reading grammars or searching through corpora and systematically
> >>> cataloguing the information into a sheet could be seen as filling out
> >>> a questionnaire), but I'll leave that to Ian and Martin to work out. I
> >>> also appreciate Östen's attention to the impact of the phrasing of
> >>> questions to informants, I think that's a very good point.
> >>>
> >>> Another resource that David could make use of is the recently released
> >>> Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications (CLICS) from the
> >>> CLLD-project and CALC/DLCE group at MPI-SHH. It contains info on
> >>> co-lexification, and can display information in network graphs. Here
> >>> are some relevant graphs:
> >>>
> >>> Animal
> >>> https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_619
> >>>
> >>> Insect
> >>> https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_620
> >>>
> >>> Bird
> >>> https://clics.clld.org/graphs/subgraph_937
> >>>
> >>> *
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>> *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 tis 16 okt. 2018 kl 08:46 skrev Ian Maddieson <ianm at berkeley.edu
> >>> <mailto:ianm at berkeley.edu>>:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Martin,
> >>>
> >>> I find it a very bizarre claim to say that questionnaires are the
> >>> ONLY way that cross-linguistic research can be carried out.
> >>> Sure, using a questionnaire can be a useful tool for certain
> >>> purposes, but consulting dictionaries, articles and grammars,
> >>> analyzing texts, analyzing recordings, conducting experiments and
> >>> so on are all possible ways of doing cross-linguistic
> >>> research.
> >>>
> >>> In the context of the present discussion, the referential scope of
> >>> "animal”-words might emerge more reliably from looking
> >>> at large bodies of text to infer actual usage than from even a
> >>> very well-designed questionnaire. Of course, large bodies of
> >>> text are only available from a small sample of languages, and
> >>> processing the data is non-trivial!
> >>>
> >>> Ian
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 15, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Östen Dahl <oesten at ling.su.se
> >>>> <mailto:oesten at ling.su.se>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> *För *Martin
> >>>> Haspelmath
> >>>> *Skickat:* den 15 oktober 2018 15:40
> >>>> *Till:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>>> <mailto: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
> >>>> <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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >> Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
> >> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > 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
> Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181016/4583db90/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list