Animals, animacy and anthropocentrism

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. Coole, D. , & Frost, S.
    (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. Dahl, O.
    (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. Dupré, J.
    (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]