Animal vocabulary in second language teaching

Tamara Stojanovi
Dept. of Semiotics, Tartu University
Tiigi 78, 50410 Tartu, Estonia
20.04.2011.

Introduction
Animals are object of study of many disciplines: biology, zoology and ethology, to name
just a few. In the last fifty years, a new discipline with a unique perspective has immerged
zoosemiotics. It is official beginnings date back to 1963 when Thomas Sebeok coined the term
zoosemiotics and placed it on the crossroads of life science and sign science. Its focus is on
semiosis in the animal world and that includes: signification, representation and communication.
Zoosemiotic studies can be divided in two main branches, ethological zoosemiotics and
anthropological zoosemiotics. The former, classical, is more related to natural sciences and it
covers the notions of semiosis among animal, while the latter is concerned with semiosic
interactions between human beings and (other) animals. (Martinelli, 2010:1-11).
One specific object of research for zoosemiotics, although not a central one, is animal
presence in culture: in literature, films, rituals etc. In this area zoosemiotics finds itself working
with different disciplines of the humanities such as anthropology, semiotics, media studies,
literary criticism, ecocriticism etc. This paper opens the possibility of zoosemiotics finding
common ground with general and comparative linguistics, and by consequence with educational
linguistics.
Our object of study is animal vocabulary in second language teaching (SLT) and by that
we mean animal names, names of their bodily parts, words used to describe animals etc. The aim
of the paper is one hand to show that the animal vocabulary is inseparable from culture and on
the other hand to open some questions of mutual interest for zoosemiotics and (educational)
linguistics.
We will first analyze the complex issue of teaching vocabulary in a foreign language
classroom and we will then focus specifically on animal vocabulary. In that sense Marcel
Danesis semiotic approach to language acquisition will serve as a theoretical framework.

Finally, we will see what would be the benefits of a cooperation of zoosemiotics and
(educational) linguistics.
Vocabulary in second language education
People have been learning foreign languages at least since the second century BC, when
Romans were studying Greek. From that time until now, numerous methods of second language
learning (SLT) were developed and each of them proposed a specific way of teaching both
vocabulary and grammar. (Schmitt, 2000:10) The grammar-translation method, for instance,
presupposed the primary role of grammar and vocabulary was conceived mainly as a way of
illustrating grammar rules. On the other hand, the practitioners of the direct method assumed that
learners would be able to learn a great deal of vocabulary just by being exposed to the language
and even more modern methods such as the situational approach or communicative language
teaching leave vocabulary learning somewhere in the background. The newest findings in the
field, however, show that vocabulary is inextricably related to grammar and that lexical choices
often restrict grammar. (Schmitt, 2000:15) More practical approaches to vocabulary were
developed in the 80s relying largely on the frequency, structural value and universality of words.
(Schmitt, 2000:16)
Although the method one uses to teach a foreign language will determine also his or her
approach to vocabulary, the central question will nevertheless be the same: what does it mean to
know a word? Nation (Nation in Schmitt, 2000: 5) proposes the following list of the different
kinds of knowledge that a person must master in order to know a word:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

the meaning(s) of the word

the written form of the word
the spoken form of the word
the grammatical behavior of the word
the collocations of the word
the register of the word
the associations of the word
the frequency of the word
In this paper we will mainly focus on the first point of this list, although, as we shall see, the

meaning cannot be fully separated from the other aspects.

Language and culture

It is clear that learning a word is not as simple as it might sound in the first place. If we take
the word snake for instance we have to say that its meaning is different in the following three
sentences:
1) Laura is afraid of snakes.
2) I cant believe she did that. What a snake!
3) Ok, its my turn to toss the dices Snake eyes!
These simple examples illustrate well the idea that there is more to a word then its denotative
meaning. The culture of its speakers is intertwined with language and it would be correct also to
say that culture is reflected in language. According to the members of the Tartu-Moscow school
of semiotics, natural language is a primary modeling system, a basic infrastructure for all other
human sign systems; and the foundation for the construction of all other superordinate structures
such as myth and religion. (Sebeok, 1988:68)1 Lessard-Clouston (1997) gives an historical
account about the study of culture in second language teaching (SLT) and states that today rather
than saying that it is an absolute imperative to teach culture along with language, we can say that
teaching language is teaching culture.
This viewpoint brings to the table some fundamental questions such as: what is culture?
Whose culture do we teach when we teach language? How is culture taught? What are the
problems encountered in that process?
Answering these questions is well beyond the scope of this paper, but it is important to
say that we consider here the term culture to refer to the culture of the native speakers of a
certain language in a specific environment. For instance, the culture of French native speakers in
France and Canada is quite different. English language has a quite specific position in this sense,
since it is becoming more and more an international language. There are specific textbooks of
American or British English, the two main variants, but there are also many textbooks that are
more neutral.

Thomas Sebeok does not agree with this view, finding that language is a secondary modeling system, whereas
senses provide primary models. However, this is a much debated issue that exceeds the scope of this paper.

Semiotics and animal vocabulary

Culture is a term that encompasses a variety of different notions and concepts: from
handshaking practices to religious beliefs, from TV programs to ideologies. In this universe
animals occupy a specific place and according to the culture-language relation that we discussed
above, this specificity is actualized in language. Taking English language as an example, we will
first describe animal vocabulary in its complexity and to this aim we will rely upon the tools of
semiotics, more specifically on Marcel Danesis approach to language and language education.
We will then argue that such complex cultural conception of animals should be an integral part of
second language learning textbooks.
In his Semiotics and language education (2000), Danesi states that second language
education is among the most researched and developed areas of general education and that it
involves teachers who are among the most informed and pedagogically-knowledgeable of all
time. (Danesi, 2000:42) However, it seems that one of the central problems of SLT still has not
been fully solved. It is the so-called SLT dilemma and it regards the fact that SL learners are often
unable to use the foreign language in a natural way. Simply out, student discourse is far too
literal and devoided of target cultural meanings. What student discourse typically lacks, in other
words, is what has been called above conceptual fluency. The reason for this, in my view, is that
students have rarely studied the language in terms of how it reflects or encodes concepts on the
basis of the cultures signifying order. (Danesi, 2000:35, emphasis mine) The two emphasized
terms are of crucial importance to us. Let us first clarify the latter.
The signifying order is a kind of mediator through which a member of a certain culture
processes raw information. It can be compared to the default mode of computer software an
automatic mode of functioning (Danesi, Perron 1999:70). Metaphorically, and very simplified,
the signifying order is a pair of glasses through which the world is perceived. Accordingly,
culture is a way of life based on such signifying order (Danesi, Perron 1999:23). The figure
below illustrates the signifying order in a single culture.

Danesi (2000), p.36

In this context language is a representational device, along with musical or pictorial

devices a code among other codes.
Now let us go back to the notion of conceptual fluency. Based mainly on the notion of
concept in the work of Lakoff and Johnson and on the semiology of Ferdinand de Saussure,
Danesi distinguishes in language a deep, conceptual structure and a surface structure. The
former is the domain of meaning and it consists of denotative, connotative and metaphorical
concepts organized in networks. The denotative level concerns what is most commonly known as
dictionary meaning and this is how a very simple network of the concept snake could look like:

coldbloode
d

reptil

anim

al
snake

The main circle contains the primary concept, and its node is called focal node. There is no limit
as to how many nodes can be in a network and their visual disposition is arbitrary. The only
important issue is how nodes are interconnected (Danesi, 2000:47). The circuit consisting of
alive, snake and animal is the primary circuit, and animal generates a secondary circuit
adding mouse. We can of course go on by generating more and more circuits by association.
How our conceptual network is going to look like and what are going to be its nodes depends on
the specific concept, its context and scope of analysis. Also, conceptual networks are used for
demonstrating how both vocabulary and grammar are conceptualized. In this paper, however, we
will mainly focus on the former.
Denotative meanings are easily understandable for learners and there are numerous
techniques for teaching denotative conceptualization. The same cannot be said for connotation
and metaphor and it is precisely there that Danesi finds the main cause of unnaturalness in

learners discourse. We will illustrate metaphorical conceptualization with another example from
the animal realm: You pig! I will never be able to wash this stain!

perso
n/
huma

pig

dirty

mess

disgu
stman

anim
al

From the network we designed we can see that we have two distinct domains (the two
squares) the human domain (target domain) and the pig (source domain) and what happened
is that the domain of pig was grafted onto the domain of human. What is more, what is being
transferred is not the denotative but the connotative, culturally conditioned meaning of pig.
It is now easy to comprehend what conceptual fluency is: It is the ability to navigate
through the overarching circuitry of such networks, choosing appropriate denotative,
connotative, or metaphorical nodes according to need, and integrating them cohesively into
appropriate individually-fashioned circuitry to match the need, that constitutes conceptual
fluency in language. (Danesi, 2000:51) So, the first task for the learners would be to reorganize
their conceptual system. In fact, every concept is part of a network, a system of related concepts
and must be learned as such (Danesi, 2000:32). Depending on the similarity or dissimilarity of
the two conceptual structures this might be easy or quite challenging. The second task consists in
learning the process of reflexivization, conversion of associative conceptual structure into linear
surface codes vocabulary and grammar. The knowledge and the skill to relate deep and surface
structure is a matter of semiotic competence. This term is very adequate, as it represents grammar
6

and vocabulary not as having a function and meaning per se, but as standing for something else.
This might prove to be a particularly useful approach when teaching grammar, since it is very
often source of great frustration (for both teachers and learners). Finally, the students should be
able to develop a stable conceptual fluency on the level of discourse.( Danesi, 2000:70-76)
After presenting the main points of Danesis theory2 we would like now to discuss in
more details the implication of this theory for the study of animal vocabulary.
The most important point is that teaching animal vocabulary is about teaching words, on
a surface level, but on a deeper level is about teaching how a certain culture conceptualizes
animals and how that structure is related to other domains. Dario Martinelli (2010:125-126)
discusses the denotative and connotative meaning of the word animal itself, and relying upon
the work of Wittgenstein, Rosch and Wierzbicka, he points out: Not only does the meaning of a
word reect the relation between language and reality, it also reects the way in which reality is
structured and categorized in human cognition. (Martinelli, 2010:128) The examples that we
used for illustration show that animal concepts are actualized in the surface code, the vocabulary,
by the means of metaphorical language in idioms, proverbs etc. In Metaphors we live by
Lakoff and Johnson showed that the function of metaphors goes well beyond simple language
decoration. This brings us to the very important point that such actualizations of the conceptual
structure are part of common, everyday language and should be accorded due importance.
Moreover, the animal conceptual domain, as we saw, is very often grafted onto other domains:
1) The tail section of the airplane is making funny noises. (Danesi, 2000:52)
2) The professor snaked his way around the issue. (Danesi, 2000:58)
3) There is a mole in this organization. (Danesi, 2000:56)
4) Youre barking at the wrong tree.
Therefore, we argue that teaching animal vocabulary should exceed the sole teaching of
denotative meanings. There is no reason why learners shouldnt get familiarized from the very
beginning with the connotative meanings of animal vocabulary. Such knowledge is not an
addition but a necessary requirement if the learners language is to be as similar as possible to
the language of a native speaker.
2

There are many issues concerning this theory that would be interesting for discussion and further development.
The notion of mythical circuits for examples, that Danesi places among the connotative ones, while Barthes clearly
distinguishes myths from connotations. Also, there are several points of critique: some key terms are not clearly
defined, the visual representation of the circuits could be improved, and some theoretical background should be
explained more thoroughly.

SLT, animal vocabulary and zoosemiotics

In the introduction of the 14th issue of the Society and Animals journal (2006), the editors
state that it now, given the fact that the world is becoming more and more mediated, it is more
important than ever to study animal representation. In the introduction of this paper we
mentioned that animal representation in culture is indeed studied, but it mainly concerns
secondary modeling systems, e.g. arts. So we wonder, what about animals in primary modeling
systems? It seems that this issue is not so present in the scientific work of zoosemioticians.
However, one of the central questions in zoosemiotics is the question of anthropomorphism, and
one important aspect of that issue is the linguistic one, the issue of how anthropomorphism is
actualized in language. These are some questions that might be relevant: Are there languages that
are more anthropomorphic than others? In other words, onto which domains can the animal
domain be grafted? What are the domains that are grafted upon the domain animals? Although
these questions are primarily part of linguistics we think that zoosemioticians could benefit from
knowing the answers. It would be interesting to research possible correlation between a word
with a negative connotation such as snake and the behavior of humans towards the real animal.
Another issue that might appeal to zoosemioticians and language teachers is also the
representation of animals in language textbooks. Which animals are chosen? Are those animals
particularly representative or important for that culture? How are they represented - drawings,
only words or with some texts about them? These questions are closely related to the idea that
when learning animal words one learns, in fact, also about the attitude of the native speakers
towards animals. Therefore, representation of animals in language textbooks should reflect that
attitude. This could be very helpful in the learners process of conceptual reorganization, the first
step in vocabulary acquisition.
Finally, the very process of conceptual reorganization even though a learning task, can
be quite enriching. In fact, we are all embedded in our culture and its way of thinking,
categorizing and conceptualizing, whether we like it or not. What is more, we often find that way
of thinking natural and we are usually not eager to change it. It comes quite as a shock when we
are actually forced to see things differently. And that is exactly what happens when we learn a
foreign language we learn a different kind of signifying order, wear a different pair of glasses.
8

Depending on the differences between cultures the color change can be almost unnoticeable or
overwhelming. This is true as well when it comes to animals: perhaps in some cultures we could
never hear or read sentences like the ones from the previous page. We know that in some cultures
dogs are food and cows are sacred. We might consider it silly, offensive or wonderful, but in our
opinion every new perspective is a chance to become more open-minded.

References
Danesi, Marcel 2000. Semiotics in Language Education, Berlin, New York : Mouton de Gruyter
Danesi, Marcel; Perron, Paul 1999. Analyzing cultures: an Introduction and Handbook,
Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press
Jacobs, George; Stibbe Arran 2006. Guest Editors Introduction:Animals and Language, Society
and Animals, 14(1):1-7
Lessard-Clouston, Michael 1997. Towards an Understanding of Culture in L2/FL Education,
Ronko: K.G. Studies in English, Japan: Kwansei Gakuin University Press 25:131-150
Martinelli, Dario 2010. A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics, New York : Springer
Schmitt, Norbert 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching, Edinburgh, New York, Melbourne,
Madrid : Cambridge University Press
Sebeok, Thomas 1988. In What Sense Is Language a Primary Modeling System? Proceedings of
the 25th Symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Helsinki: Artor, 67-80