37.1165, Reviews: How We Talk About Animals, and Why it Matters: Alison Sealey (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-1165. Sun Mar 22 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.1165, Reviews: How We Talk About Animals, and Why it Matters: Alison Sealey (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 22-Mar-2026
From: Laure Gardelle [laure.gardelle at univ-grenoble-alpes.fr]
Subject: Discourse Analysis, General Linguistics, Translation: Alison Sealey (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-3662

Title: How We Talk About Animals, and Why it Matters
Subtitle: The Power of Discourse
Series Title: Bloomsbury Advances in Ecolinguistics
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
           http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/
Book URL:
https://www.bloomsbury.com/how-we-talk-about-animals-and-why-it-matters-9781350519619/

Author(s): Alison Sealey

Reviewer: Laure Gardelle

SUMMARY
This volume investigates discourse about (nonhuman) animals, in
particular anthropocentric representations and behaviour. Studying
discourse on animals matters because language both reflects and shapes
beliefs, which in turn serve to justify “human exceptionalism” – the
idea that humans stand apart from other species – and a view of
animals’ worth primarily in terms of their value in our economy (p.2).
The book is meant to be of interest both to linguists and non
linguists, and it is indeed very accessible to all, including the
general public. Its aim is to document and describe a wide range of
conceptions that humans have of animals, across a variety of contexts:
“surrogate humans, objects of affection, industrial products,
experimental models, unwanted intruders and so on” (p.3).
The study relies primarily on three different datasets. The first is a
9-million-word corpus collected as part of a collective project
co-investigated by the author, entitled “People”, “Products”, “Pests”
and “Pets”: The Discursive Representation of Animals (PPPP), and
funded by the Leverhulme Trust. This corpus is made up of contemporary
British English, collected over the years 1995-2015 across a variety
of genres or discourse types, such as academic journals, press
reports, legislation, and campaigning literature. This corpus is
complemented with interviews. Interviewees include 17 producers of
discourse about animals, ranging from the RSPCA to the British Pest
Control Association to an organisation associated with the meat
industry (which preferred not to be named). There are also interviews
with prominent individuals, from a leading advocate of animal
experiments (Sir Colin Blakemore) to wildlife broadcasters (David
Attenborough, Chris Packham). The interviewees were asked to comment
on samples of texts which they (or their organisations) had produced,
as well as samples of texts exhibiting different perspectives on
similar themes. The third dataset contains transcriptions of
discussions in nine focus groups, with participants such as farmers
who work with animals, people who conduct experiments with animals,
young people (18-23 years old), or older people (60+).
To our knowledge, this is the first extensive study of discourse on
animals, and it is much needed at a time when awareness of the
anthropocentric, utilitarian view of the world has risen in the public
debate and causes very divisive reactions. The focus is not only on
discourse content, but also on speakers, contexts and effects.
The volume is divided into twelve chapters. Chapter 1 is an
introduction to the topic and the methodology for data collection and
analysis. Chapter 2 considers which animals have proper names, which
leads to a study of taxonomies (ch.3), then animal representations in
fiction, fables and sayings (ch.4). The volume then moves on to
discourse, with an analysis of descriptive and evaluative terms
(ch.5), practices in the description of where they live (ch.6), and
representations of animal perceptions (ch.7). Chapter 8 addresses
biosemiotics (how animals communicate), Chapter 9 interaction between
people and animals, and Chapters 10 and 11 discourse on interactions
among animals (animal culture, sex and relationships). Chapter 12
rounds out the discussion with a synthesis of the main themes and
avenues for further research.
A review cannot do justice to the wealth of issues and findings in
this volume. Here is a sample of those which particularly drew my
attention. First, a major issue explored in the volume is the use of
language by investigators themselves, starting with how to name the
category of animals that are not humans: “animals”, “nonhuman
animals”, “other animals”, “animals other than humans” (but these are
cumbersome and take a binary view (“non”, “other”), or “critters” (in
the wake of Donna Haraway 2008)? Or “anymal” (a contraction of “any”
and “animal” suggested by Lise A. Kemmerer 2006)? Alison Sealey opts
for “animal”, where unambiguous (p.5). Related issues are the use of
pronouns (“he / she / who” or variation with the neuter? The author
points at “inconsistencies” over the course of the volume, and at the
complexity of the issue), or what noun to use for what is commonly
categorised as “pets” (“companions”? “companion animals”?) and their
“owners” (“companions”, “guardians”?). Given the very low number of
occurrences of these more recent terms in the author’s data, she
chooses to use the traditional terms, which should not be interpreted
as endorsement of human exceptionalism in the volume.
About the (proper) names given to animals, the study confirms that
naming an animal implies that that animal has been singled out, is
possibly regarded as an individual. Chapter 2 considers pets (with
names ranging from human ones, especially two-syllable ones in -ie
like Freddie or Katie, to animal or inanimate-based ones, such as
Tiger and Bootsie), but also animals bred for competition, like horses
(with long names reflecting their pedigree, like “Lamacres first
Choice of Paddipaws”, but also, often, a “family” name, possibly
reflecting prestige, such as “Kaiser”), Instagram pets, dogs working
with police, animals in zoos. Some institutions occasionally appeal to
the public to suggest names, in order to foster engagement. A
particularly interesting topic is the practice of giving names to
animals in some animal documentaries, which even though it
anthropomorphizes them, is also a way of considering the animal as an
individual, rather than an object (p.14). In the context of hunting,
practices are different.
Individualizing animals is conducive to perceiving their personality,
as opposed to mass treatment when they are considered purely as
commodities (p.18). Emotional attachment occurs more easily when there
are very few animals (e.g. a pet dog vs. 300 sheep vs. intensive
farming), and also depends on the species of animals (rats vs.
primates or dogs, in labs) and the level and purpose of the
interaction with the animal (p.19). A recurring notion in the
discourse of hunters or lab technicians is that of “respect” for the
animal. Relating to animals is also often easier if we share the same
sensory experiences, and can interact with them (p.104). Another key
idea is that people are inconsistent in their relationship to animals
of the same species, depending on the context of interaction (p.10).
Another point of interest is that the most represented animal nouns in
the 9-million word PPPP corpus are fish, bird(s), dog(s), pig(s),
sheep, cows, horse(s), cattle, cat(s) and chicken. This is no
surprise, but it reflects what a narrow attention to animals most
humans have, especially when considering the wealth of underwater life
or insects, and more generally biodiversity. Similarly, children’s
stories featuring humanized animal characters mainly include furry and
cuddly mammals (p.39). Interestingly, Alison Sealey shows how a number
of nouns have disappeared from a children’s dictionary, because they
are less commonly used – such as kingfisher or wren, which some
authors therefore regard as “lost words”. Similarly, one focus group
participant (18-23-year-olds group) was unfamiliar with sow.
As regards broad animal categories in everyday language, a number of
which reflect an anthropocentric view (e.g. pest, livestock, domestic
animal, dangerous animal), the volume points at a distinction between
“pest control”, used by pest controllers for animals that may pose a
risk to public health, and which reflects invasion of a given human’s
space, and “wildlife management”, recommended by an RSPCA interviewee
(p.30). Interviews also bring to light how discourse might be adjusted
to the targeted audience (“language tailoring”) in some discourse
types, as reported for instance by an interviewee from the League
Against Cruel Sports, in order to convince people (p.33).
As for animal metaphors, they are predominantly negative (p.41). Being
as slow as a snail, for instance, is not said to praise someone who
takes their time. Social psychology further shows that animal
metaphors tend to be more offensive when directed at an out-group
member than an in-group one (p.42). Animal metaphors take a variety of
linguistic forms: comparatives (“as adjective as an x”), but also
verbs (“ferret (out)”, “hound”, “squirrel (money) away”, “hare”, “wolf
(down)”, “pig (out)”), adjectives (“fishy”, “sheepish”,
“elephantine”), and compounds (“snail mail”, “pack rat”, “gym rat”).
The repetition of such negative associations makes it plausible that
they  influence perceptions in some way. An obvious example is the
wolf as the “baddy” in relation to sheep.
In describing animal behaviour, again discourse tends to reflect human
concerns and interests, even when considering how animals move and
where they go. Attempts have been made to have discourse better
reflect actual experiences, but these attempts raise further issues.
For instance, the use of descriptive terms such as “nervous” or “calm”
might sound anthropomorphic; but avoiding them might be denying other
species the capacity to have such feelings or states. Still, a
distinction is drawn in the volume between such adjectives, which seek
to reflect an experience the animal might be having, and adjectives
that merely reflect human judgment, such as “disgusting” (p.57).
Other, seemingly more neutral, words must be considered in relation to
their context of use; a case in point is “other”, which may draw out
exceptional characteristics (as in “no other reptiles can compete with
it”). Another is “wild”, which is polysemous, meaning either “in a
state of nature” or, more subjectively, “out of control”.
Another field that raises the issue of how best to adjust language use
concerns the sounds made by animals. Are “call” and “scream”, which
are also used for human experience, anthropocentric and misleading?
Our vocabulary is obviously deficient in words to denote many aspects
of animal communication, as it is tailored to human experiences
(p.121).
Alison Sealey concludes that the answer to the question “How do we
talk about animals?” depends on “which animals, which speakers, to
whom, for what purposes and in what contexts” (p.185). Unsurprisingly,
those that feature most in people’s experience get the most attention.
The author also points out how difficult it is to find the right
stance when talking about other species – how to avoid excessive
anthropomorphism –, also how difficult it can be to adopt an animal’s
standpoint. A key takeaway is that human exceptionalism tends to
emphasize the properties that (allegedly) distinguish other species
from ours (as with outgroup treatement among humans). Recently,
posthumanist and postanthropocentric research has stressed the need
for more “interconnectedness” – a less rigid separation between
people, plants, animals and land –, some turning to Indigenous or
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), which encourages a more
beneficial attitude to nature and emphasizes reciprocal relations
between people and their environment.
EVALUATION
The volume is a must-read for anyone who is interested in discourse on
animals, views of the world and the place of humans, perhaps
especially specialists in disciplines other than linguistics and the
general public. It investigates a number of discourse contexts that
had not been the object of books or book chapters before, offering a
nuanced view. The inclusion of interviewees who work with animals, and
of focus groups, is also a definite plus. It cannot have been easy to
reach some of these people, especially lab technicians, hunters or
people involved in the production of meat.
The great care taken by the author to be accessible to all sometimes
leads to what some scholars might feel is a rather loose progression
within chapters. For instance, Chapter 2, “Names and numbers”, which
deals with the proper names given to animals, includes a whole
discussion on the representations associated with the noun “pet”; a
remark on names in hunting contexts leads from names to the
distinction between “dog” and “hound”, then the use of generic “the +
singular” in grammar books. But the resulting wealth of remarks could
also be felt to be an asset. Again for the scholar, at times,
quantitative data would have been welcome. For instance, about names,
a chart with the list of names found in the corpus, and/or figures for
each naming strategy, and/or a closer look at naming practices for
horses in racing, would have been welcome. More generally, given the
size of the corpus and the number of interviews and focus group
discussions, more data might have been provided, which could have been
used in further studies. But choices had to be made, and other
publications that come out of the PPPP project can perhaps offer that.
The volume definitely provides food for thought, as well as for
further reading of existing research and for further research. For
instance, the author’s stating that most named animals in the PPPP
corpus are mammals (ch.3) calls for a closer investigation of
practices with new pets, such as spiders, phasms or roaches. Or
mention of how difficult it is to take an animal-centred perspective
made me feel like reading more on cross-species behaviour, since, for
example, criticism of the utilitarian view of animals begs the
question of how this compares with how other species relate to their
environment.
REFERENCES
Haraway, Donna. 2008. When Species Meet. University of Minnesota
Press.
Kemmerer, Lise A. 2006. Verbal activism: “Animal”. Society &
Animals14(1): 9-14.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Laure Gardelle is a Professor of English linguistics at Université
Grenoble Alpes, France. Her research interest is the interface between
grammaticised categories and views of the world, in particular in
light of  the Animacy Hierarchy. She has worked extensively on gender
and number, and is currently studying generics and stereotypes, in
relation to the grammar of noun phrases. Her theoretical framework is
mainly Cognitive Grammar, but she incorporates findings from other
fields of linguistics, such as formal semantics, and other
disciplines, in particular philosophy of language and social
psychology.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-1165
----------------------------------------------------------