[Lingtyp] query: "animal"
Mattis List
mattis.list at lingpy.org
Tue Oct 16 15:30:19 UTC 2018
David, you are right: if you look for extensions of concepts (some kind
of "cat is an animal", "dog is an animal", "fly is an insect", if I get
you right), but people ask for a proto-typical "animal", there's no
chance to recover that in CLICS, as the data was not collected or
annotated for that purpose.
I just wanted to avoid that people get the impression that the data
obscures what people meant to elicit. This is not the case, but people
working on word lists obviously usually don't ask for the extension of
concepts, they are fine when finding the best counterpart, and that's
it. What you're mentioning here is -- at least for me -- a completely
new type of question in a questionnaire, and it is definitely worthwhile
trying to think of ways how it could be further formalized, to avoid
that such a study remains anecdotic.
So far, our efforts to work on future CLICS improvements are less
elaborate, as we now try to seek to annotate lexical associations that
can be uncovered from looking at forms (Nathanael Schweikhard, doctoral
student in our project, just wrote an outline on our current state of
the art: https://calc.hypotheses.org/570), but it never even occurred to
me so far to look into extensions from a purely semantic perspective.
I am sure this can be best approximated with a questionnaire, if you
want to go largely cross-linguistics, while corpus-studies, as mentioned
by Volker, could help to gain insights from the few more well-studied
languages, so "quantitative" in the sense of explicit ways to handle
those data definitely exist, and are the best way to proceed, but --
again -- CLICS is really not the place to look for here...
Best,
Mattis
On 16.10.18 14:50, David Gil 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
>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list