Wanted: Ideas for Linguistic Anthropology Paper
When I received an e-mail from a student of Linguistic Anthropology asking for help with a research paper, my first reaction was: Where was that class when I was in school?
My second reaction was: Boy, have you come to the right place.
Check this out:
I am interested in the treatment of animals cross-culturally and what factors which influence empathy, treatment and views about nonhuman animals. I have to write a research paper and have been struggling to incorporate my interests within linguistics. A couple minutes ago I found your posting on applied linguistics and vegan education. It is exactly what I have been looking for. The wording people use to describe animals, as in food, or a companion directly impacts their personal relationship with them. I still am trying to think of a research question though.
Think of it like the game show Jeopardy, where you come up with the question.
I think there's a question built into the penultimate sentence: How (/in what ways) does the wording people use to describe animals impact their personal relationship with them?
I also might get into: How does the language we have come to associate with animals, or certain specific animals or their traits, influence how we view/perceive/speak about the nonanimal world?
There might also be some kind of examination of the history of certain words or the linguistic treatment of specific animals. And then there's how language affects which animals we choose to like or dislike (and vice versa) and why.
What question would you ask?
I wonder if the question might be more:
"How is the language we have come to associate with animals, or certain specific animals or their traits, influenced by how we & others view/perceive/speak about the nonanimal world?"
Is our language about animals formed more by the world around us & our own deeply held beliefs, or does it really form those beliefs?
I suppose if I had to come up with something in addition to your suggestions, Mary, I would say "How does referring to beings/subjects as things/objects affect our cultural and psychological detachment from them as beings/subjects?"
We use "it" instead of a personal pronoun; "that" instead of "who". Our speciesism is indeed embedded in our language.
The student should probably cite "Animal Equality: Language and Liberation" by Joan Dunayer. I haven't read it myself (yet) but I've heard good things and it's definitely on point for this paper.
I strongly encourage all animal rights advocates to read "Animal Equality" by Joan Dunayer:
http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?id=0-9706475-5-7
In this book, Dunayer discusses the many ways humans exploit other animals and how language plays a critical role in this oppression. It has profoundly changed my own language usage and increased the effectiveness of my advocacy. If we are serious about rights for all sentient beings, our movement needs to consciously avoid language that perpetuates speciesism and instead use language that liberates!
The work of Norman Fairclough may be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Fairclough
Dunayer's first book, Animal Equality, has not received the attention that it deserves, perhaps due to the controversies surrounding her second.
I remember doing a review of Animal Equality for a "AR" newsletter but I cannot say animal advocates in general see the importance of a linguistic challenge to the conventional articulation of speciesist norms and values, which I regard as short-sighted as most orthodox animal advocacy. Most apparently still say 'animal', 'fish', 'it', etc. Dunayer's notion of calling 'fish tanks' 'aqua-prisons' and 'farmers' 'animal enslavers' does not seem to be catching on.
"How language affects which animals we choose to like or dislike (and vice versa) and why."
If I understand the question correctly, I'd say words like "livestock" and "cattle", influence perceptions of property and wealth: "stock" and "chattel". And there's the ugly word/concept "pig"… a most misunderstood animal. Other misused negative words are "ass", "chicken", "monkey", "rat", etc. – All can become animals we choose to dislike. And doesn't even the word "animal" have undesirable connotation?
But to me, no one word defines our emotional connection (or lack of), more than the word "pet". It unfortunately, distinguishes "desirable animals" from all others, and limits objectivity and compassion. As a verb, the action describes affection, caressing and touching. "Pet" makes non-pets "un-touchable" and perhaps even unworthy of such(?).
And in describing animals – it's always interesting to note which adjectives influence our perception of which animal: "old" cow, "fat" sow, "sly" fox, "dirty" dog, "gentle" lamb, "wise" owl and so on… Vernacular definately influences our perception of animals. Even defining them within catagories like "food" animals, "working" animals, "lab" animals, "fur-bearing" animals gives nonhumans the impression that this is the animal's purpose for being. We define them, therefore – that's what they are.
And just a quick mention of what I've been observing in children's books regarding animals as things: "it". I see stories now that just call an animal species, it's "name"… as in "Cow walked up the hill", or "Pig played in the mud". This is alarming to me because it even further distances farm animals from others. I haven't seen this type of reference in kids stories that involve pet animals though… Thus far, they retain their adorable "Spot" and "Fluffy" names. Things like this are so deliberate, that it makes one suspicious of a malevolent agenda.