[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