Bases of animal classification in the American variant of the contemporary English language

Authors

  • Anton A. Miakhouski Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

Keywords:

classification, categorisation, classification basis, motivation, biological basis, pragmatic basis, classification structure

Abstract

This article relies on the data from the WordNet database in order to establish the main bases (biological and pragmatic) which underlie the classification of animals in the American variant of the contemporary English language. Moreover, it has been determined that both of the aforementioned bases can closely interrelate. As a result, there emerge classes, which rest upon both types of classificatory bases. Simultaneous use of both biological and pragmatic bases leads us to the assumption that human classification is influenced by both natural-ontological and social-psychological conditions such as the surrounding community, as well as the language spoken by its members. The biological and the pragmatic bases complement each other: the biological basis allows a person to distinguish certain fragments of reality, while the pragmatic basis makes it possible to re-evaluate these designated fragments and integrate them into the system of social and psychological reality.

Author Biography

  • Anton A. Miakhouski, Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

    postgraduate student at the department of general linguistics

References

  1. Hjørland B, Pedersen NK. A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. Journal of Documentation. 2005;5:582–597. DOI: 10.1108/00220410510625804.
  2. Boldyrev NN. Kognitivnaya semantika. Vvedenie v kognitivnuyu lingvistiku [Cognitive semantics. Introduction to cognitive linguistics]. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University; 2014. 236 p. Russian.
  3. Kubriakova ES, Demiankov VZ, Pankratz YG, Lutsina LG. Kratkii slovar’ kognitivnykh terminov [Concise dictionary of cognitive terms]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moscovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta; 1996. 245 p. Russian.
  4. McKelvey B. Organizational systematics: taxonomic lessons from biology. Management Science. 1978;24(13):1428–1440. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.24.13.1428.
  5. Jacob EK. Classification and categorization: a difference that makes a difference. Library Trends. 2004;52(3):515–540.
  6. Rosch E. Principles of categorization. In: Levitin DJ, editor. Foundations of cognitive psychology: core readings. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002. p. 251–270.
  7. Slaughter MM. Universal languages and scientific taxonomy in the seventeenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. 277 p.
  8. Sapir E. Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1949. 623 p.
  9. Wierzbicka A. Semantics: primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. 512 p.
  10. Ellen R. Ethnobiology and the science of humankind – Introduction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 2006;12:1–29.
  11. Taylor P. The folk biology of the Tobelo people. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1990. 187 p.
  12. Rosch E. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In: Moore T, editor. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press; 1973. p. 111–144.
  13. Quine W. Ontological reality and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press; 1969. 165 p.
  14. Millikan R. Language, thought, and other biological categories: new foundations for realism. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1984. 355 p.
  15. Berlin B. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1973;4:259–271. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.001355.
  16. Dupré J. Scientific classification. Theory, Culture & Society. 2006;23(2–3):30–32. DOI: 10.1177/026327640602300201.
  17. Keil F. Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1992. 345 p.
  18. Keil FC, Smith WC, Simons DJ, Levin DT. Two dogmas of conceptual empiricism: implications for hybrid models of the structure of knowledge. Cognition. 1998;65:103–135. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00041-3.
  19. Murphy GL, Allopena PD. The locus of knowledge effects in concept learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1994;20(4):904–919. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.904.
  20. Dupré J. Natural kinds and biological taxa. Philosophical Review. 1981;90:66–90. DOI: 10.2307/2184373.
  21. Zubin D. Gender and folk taxonomy: the indexical relation between grammatical and lexical categorization. In: Craig C, editor. Noun Classes and Categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1983. p. 139–180.
  22. Leech E. Anthropological aspects of language: animal categories and verbal abuse. In: Lenneberg E, editor. New Directions in the study of language. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1964. p. 505–516.
  23. Wierzbicka A. Lingua mentalis: the semantics of natural language. London: Academic Press; 1980. 367 p.
  24. Atran S. Folk biological cognition. Current Anthropology. 1993;34(2):195–198. DOI: 10.1086/204162.
  25. Frake C. The diagnosis of disease among the Subanon of Mindanao. American Anthropologist. 1961:61(1):113–132. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1961.63.1.02a00070.
  26. Hunn E. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist. 1982;84(4):830–847. DOI: 10.1525/AA.1982.84.4.02A00070.
  27. Berlin B. Ethnobiological classification: principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1992. 364 p.
  28. Berlin B, Breedlove D, Raven P. Folk taxonomies and biological classification. Science. 1966;154:273–275. DOI: 10.1126/science.154.3746.273.
  29. D’Andrade R. Folk taxonomies. In: D’Andrade R. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. p. 92–121.
  30. Mair E. Printsipy biologicheskoi sistematiki [Principles of biological systematics]. Mina MV, translator; Geptener VG, editor. Moscow: Mir; 1971. 454 p. Russian.
  31. Pavlinov IYa. Taxonomic nomenclature. Book 1. From Adam to Linnaeus. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo nauchnykh izdanii KMK; 223 p. Russian.
  32. Cruse D. Hyponymy and its varieties. In: Green R, Bean C, Myaeng S, editors. The semantics of relationships. Dordrecht: Springer Science; 2002. p. 3–21.
  33. Kubriakova ES. Yazyk i znanie. Na puti polucheniya znanii o yazyke: chasti rechi s kognitivnoi tochki zreniya. Rol’ yazyka v poznanii mira [Language and knowledge. On the way to knowledge about language: parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in perceiving the world]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury; 2004. 560 p. Russian.
  34. Atran S. Modular and cultural factors in biological understanding: an experimental approach to the cognitive basis of science. In: Carruthers P, Stitch S, Siegal M, editors. The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 41–72.
  35. Atran S. Folk biology and the anthropology of science: cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1998;21(4):547–569. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x98001277.

Downloads

Published

2022-10-12

Issue

No. 3 (2022): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology

Section

Linguistics

License

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

[1]
Miakhouski, A.A. 2022. Bases of animal classification in the American variant of the contemporary English language. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology. 3 (Oct. 2022), 67–76.