1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper explores various ways in which contemporary British English depicts degrees of animacy among nonhuman animals, and demonstrates the anthropocentric qualities of much discourse about animals. The first section reviews discussions of animacy in relevant research literature, highlighting how these often take for granted a categorical distinction between humans and other animals, before demonstrating how both corpus-assisted approaches to discourse analysis and developments in the analysis of animacy point to a more complex picture. The second section discusses the implications of recent work in social theory for understanding organisms, and their degrees of animacy, from the perspective of networks rather than hierarchies. The third section of the paper presents analyses of an electronically stored corpus of language about animals. Three analyses of naming terms, descriptors and verbal patterns associated with various non-human animals illustrate a range of ways in which their animacy is denoted and connoted. They also demonstrate the influence of discourse type and human purpose on depictions of animals and assumptions about their animacy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00008.sea
2018-06-28
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackerman, J.
    (2016) The Genius of Birds ( Kindle ed.). London: Corsair.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L.
    (2014) AntConc (Version 3.4.3). Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved fromwww.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
  3. Arluke, A. , & Sanders, C. R.
    (1996) The sociozoologic scale. In A. Arluke & C. R. Sanders (Eds.), Regarding Animals (pp.167–186). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Atran, S.
    (1999) The universal primacy of generic species in folkbiological taxonomy: implications for human biological, cultural and scientific evolution. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: new interdisciplinary essays (pp.231–261). Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednarek, M.
    (2006) Evaluation in Media Discourse: analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: A&C Black.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, A.
    (1991) The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett, J.
    (2010) Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatia, V. K. , Langton, N. M. , & Lung, J.
    (2004) Legal discourse: opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (Vol.16, pp.203–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins10.1075/scl.16.09bha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16.09bha [Google Scholar]
  9. Birke, L.
    (2012) Animal bodies in the production of scientific knowledge: modelling medicine. Body & Society, 18(3–4), 156–178. doi: 10.1177/1357034X12446379
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X12446379 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burghardt, G. M.
    (1991) Cognitive ethology and critical anthropomorphism: a snake with two heads and hognose snakes that play dead. In C. A. Ristau (Ed.), Cognitive ethology: the minds of other animals. Essays in honor of Donald R. Griffin (pp.53–90). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cameron, D.
    (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Charles, N.
    (2014) “Animals just love you as you are”: experiencing kinship across the species barrier. Sociology, 48(4), 715–730.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clutton-Brock, J.
    (1995) Aristotle, the scale of nature, and modern attitudes to animals. Social Research, 421–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Comrie, B.
    (1989) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: syntax and morphology: University of Chicago press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Coole, D. , & Frost, S.
    (2010a) Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp.1–43).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (Eds.) (2010b) New Materialisms: ontology, agency, and politics.10.1215/9780822392996
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392996 [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, W.
    (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dahl, O.
    (2000) Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In B. Unterbeck (Ed.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition (Vol.124, pp.99–116).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2008) Animacy and egophoricity: grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua, 118(2), 141–150.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dahl, O. , & Fraurud, K.
    (1996) Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility (pp.47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.04dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.04dah [Google Scholar]
  21. De Swart, P. , Lamers, M. , & Lestrade, S.
    (2008) Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua, 118(2), 131–140.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  22. DeLanda, M.
    (2016) Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Deleuze, G. , & Guattari, F.
    (1988) A Thousand Plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury
    [Google Scholar]
  24. DeMello, M.
    (2012) Animals and Society: an introduction to human-animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Despret, V.
    (2016) What Would Animals Say if we Asked the Right Questions? ( B. Buchanan , Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dupré, J.
    (1999) Are whales fish?In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp.461–476). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2012) Processes of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dupré, J. , & O’Malley, M. A.
    (2007) Metagenomics and biological ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 834–846.10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Enger, H. -O. , & Nesset, T.
    (2011) Constraints on diachronic development: the Animacy Hierarchy and the Relevance Constraint. STUF-Language Typology and Universals Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 64(3), 193–212.10.1524/stuf.2011.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2011.0015 [Google Scholar]
  30. Folli, R. , & Harley, H.
    (2008) Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua: Animacy, Argument Structure, and Argument Encoding, 118(2), 190–192102.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Garner, R.
    (2002) Political ideology and the legal status of animals. Animal Law, 8, 77–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gilquin, G. , & Jacobs, G. M.
    (2006) Elephants who marry mice are very unusual: the use of the relative pronoun who with nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 14(1), 79–105.10.1163/156853006776137159
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853006776137159 [Google Scholar]
  33. Godfrey-Smith, P.
    (2013) Cephalopods and the evolution of the mind. Pacific Conservation Biology, 19(1), 4–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldbort, R.
    (2006) Writing for Science: Yale university press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gupta, A. F.
    (2006) Foxes, hounds, and horses: who or which?Society & Animals, 14(1), 107–128.10.1163/156853006776137113
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853006776137113 [Google Scholar]
  36. Halliday, M. A. K.
    ([1990] 2001) New ways of meaning: the challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The Ecolinguistics Reader (pp.175–202). London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hallsworth, S.
    (2011) Then they came for the dogs!Crime, law and social change, 55(5), 391–403.10.1007/s10611‑011‑9293‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9293-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Herzog, H.
    (2010) Some We Love, Some We hate, Some We Eat: why it’s so hard to think straight about animals. New York: Harper Perennial.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hird, M. J.
    (2009) The Origins of Sociable Life: evolution after science studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230242210
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242210 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, P. J. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1994) Language universals, discourse pragmatics, and semantics. Language Sciences, 15(4), 357–376.10.1016/0388‑0001(93)90009‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(93)90009-H [Google Scholar]
  42. Jensen, F. H. , & Tyack, P. L.
    (2013) Studying acoustic communication in pilot whale social groups. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5).10.1121/1.4830614
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4830614 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kilgarriff, A.
    , & Lexical Computing. Sketch Engine: www.sketchengine.co.uk. Retrieved fromwww.sketchengine.co.uk
  44. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol.IIDescriptive Application). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Leheckovd, H.
    (2000) Use and misuse of gender in Czech. In B. Unterbeck (Ed.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition (Vol.124, pp.749–770).
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Levinson, S. C.
    (2003) Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Vol.5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
  47. Malchukov, A. L.
    (2008) Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua, 118(2), 203–221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  48. Marino, L. , & Colvin, C. M.
    (2015) Thinking pigs: a comparative review of cognition, emotion, and personality in sus domesticus. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mosel, U. & Spriggs, R.
    (2000) Gender in Teop. In B. Unterbeck (Ed.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition: I: Approaches to Gender. II: Manifestations of Gender (pp.321–350). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nussbaum, M.
    (2007) The moral status of animals. In L. Kalof & A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The Animals Reader (pp.30–36). Oxford & New York: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pavlinov, I. Y.
    (2013) The species problem, why again. The Species Problem-Ongoing Issues, 3–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rabinowitz, H. , & Vogel, S.
    (Eds.) (2009) The Manual of Scientific Style: a guide for authors, editors, and researchers: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Santamaria, S. L. , Fallon, M. , Green, J. M. , Schulz, S. , & Wilcke, J. R.
    (2012) Developing the animals in context ontology. Paper presented at theICBO.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sealey, A. , & Oakley, L.
    (2013) Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series Life . Text & Talk, 33(3), 399–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sealey, A. , & Pak, C.
    (forthcoming in 2018) First catch your corpus: methodological challenges in constructing a thematic corpus. Corpora, 13(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Stibbe, A.
    (2006) Deep ecology and language: the curtailed journey of the Atlantic salmon. Society & Animals, 14(1), 61–77.10.1163/156853006776137168
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853006776137168 [Google Scholar]
  57. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.2). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Thomas, K.
    (1983) Man and the Natural World: changing attitudes in England 1500–1800: Penguin UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tudge, C.
    (2000) The Variety of Life: a survey and a celebration of all the creatures that have ever lived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Yamamoto, M.
    (1999) Animacy and Reference: a cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zaenen, A. , Carletta, J. , Garretson, G. , Bresnan, J. , Koontz-Garboden, A. , Nikitina, T. , & Wasow, T.
    (2004) Animacy encoding in English: why and how. Paper presented at theProceedings of the 2004 ACL workshop on discourse annotation.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00008.sea
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00008.sea
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): animacy , animals , anthropocentrism and corpus assisted discourse analysis
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error