Foxy chicks and Playboy bunnies;

A case study in metaphorical lexicalization1

Caitlin Hines
San Francisco State University

1. Introduction
It is no longer controversial to state, as Lakoff and Johnson did in 1980, that
metaphors are not "a matter of mere language [but] rather...a means of structuring
our conceptual system" ( :145). This paper, however, will show that so-called
"mere" language is itself highly structured, by presenting a case study of meta
phorical lexicalization: the convergence of both linguistic and conceptual features
which delimits an English lexical field. Cognitive theories of metaphor have im
plicitly assumed by their silence that the specific terms used in metaphorical ex
pressions are selected pretty much at random, once the conceptual parameters
have been established through cross-domain mapping (for example, Langacker
1990; Lakoff 1987). By contrasting the actual items used to lexicalize one target
domain with unused items available in the source domain, I will show that the
active terms are instead subject to multiple and sometimes overlapping motiva
tions, to what Bolinger might have called "cross-influences...as pervasive as in the
currents of a river" (1965 [1947]: 233).
The lexical field I am concerned with is exemplified by such "pet names"
(more about that later) as chick, kitten, fox, etc., and is experientially manifested in
customs such as women dressed as Playboy bunnies. The presence of a virtual
menagerie of these terms (see the list of attested words in the appendix) points to
an underlying conceptual metaphor of DESIRED WOMAN AS SMALL ANI
MAL; shared phonosemantic features of the actual terms used in metaphorical
expressions points to an underlying rule-governed process of lexicalization.
1.1. Decomposition of the metaphor
There is a common metaphor in English that PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS, as ex
pressed in epithets such as "You pig!" or "loan shark." This combines with the
stereotype of women (construed as small in relation to men) as desired objects or
game to be pursued, conquered, and displayed (as symbolized by a groom carry
ing a bride over the threshold (Dundes 1980: 161-2) and by phrases such as
"trophy wife" or "kept woman"), to produce the metaphor of a DESIRED
WOMAN AS SMALL ANIMAL.2

10

CAITLIN HINES

And this is as far as current metaphor theory takes us. If this were all there is
to it, however, we would expect the metaphor to be just as likely to generate an
expression like *she 's a fine otter as she's a fine mink, and #she 's a hen should
mean about the same as she's a chick.3 The fact that these expressions are not at
all equivalent suggests additional constraints on the metaphorical mapping, as
detailed below.

2. Componential features analysis

2.1.

Central vs. peripheral terms

My first step was to gather as many animal metaphorical expressions for womenconsidered-sexually as possible from the literature. Because sexual slang and ani
mal names are both highly taboo,4 I consulted a wide variety of sources, some
decidedly beyond the academic Pale. Next, I wanted to capture the intuition that
chicks and (sex) kittens are more central than alley cats and does. Native speakers
(including, of course, compilers of dictionaries of slang) will often disagree as to
the meaning and/or frequency of a term, so I wanted to use criteria that were as
objective as possible. I have followed Lehrer 1974 in adapting Berlin and Kay's
1969 tests for centrality, as shown below:
1) Must have a non-metaphorical sense, i.e., must refer both to a woman-considered-sexually and to an actual pet or game animal
(rules out e.g. coney [obs. = 'rabbit'], coquette, minx [obs. = 'small dog'], and
animals not primarily kept as pets or hunted, such as heifer, nag, shrew)
2) Must be multiply cited
(rules out e.g. badger, game hen, squab)
Applying these two tests to the raw data results in the following list of active cen
tral terms:
bird, bunny, canary, cat, chick, filly, fox, goose [Brit. = prostitute], grouse, kitten,
partridge, pigeon, plover, pussy (cat), quail
Although some of these strike me as archaic, I have citations for all of them within
the last 30 years (see Hughes 1991 on the shifting currencies of these and other
terms for women). Goose, in the sense of 'prostitute', although obsolete in Ameri
can slang, still appears in British usage, e.g. Holder: "goose (1) a whore" (1989:
142).
Note that I am concerned here only with terms of (sexual) attraction - there
are, of course, numerous abusive terms for women described as animals, such as

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

11

#harpy, #pig, and #shrew. I will argue that these belong to a different metaphori
cal mapping; my evidence is that they differ in small but interesting phonetic and
semantic ways from the terms of attraction, as discussed below. Similarly, I am
specifically excluding terms such as lioness f [= prostitute], tigress, and vixen,
which belong to the WOMAN AS PREDATORY ANIMAL metaphor (a special
case of the WOMAN AS FEMME FATALE metaphor; see Hines, forthcoming).5

3. Synchronic distinctive features analysis

3.1. Phonetic features
Once I had identified the set of central terms, I was immediately struck by the
preponderance of initial labial and velar consonants, which form a phonetic natu
ral class (roughly, these can be called either [-coronal] or, in Jakobsonian terms,
GRAVE, as in pussy, fox, and kitten)6. Every central term begins with a labial or
velar obstruent, with the exception of chick, as shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Inventory of initial phonemes in WOMAN AS SMALL ANIMAL metaphor
[- coronal]/GRAVE

[+coronal]/ACUTE

[- coronal]/GRAVE

labial

(inter) dental, alveolar

velar

P
b
f

k
g

residue: c (chick)
(The residue is unsurprising: the palato-alveolar affricate // is a common element
in diminutives and pet names in what Malkiel 1990 calls a "wide variety of by no
means closely related languages" [:159; see also de Reuse 1986: 59].)
This is not just a fact about the set of all animal names in English, but is a
feature particularly of those which participate in the WOMAN AS SMALL ANI
MAL metaphor. There are numerous available animal names in the lexicon which
do not have a labial or velar onset; these are either not usually used metaphorically
at all (*hedgehog, *horse, *raccoon), or, if used, are not sexual or do not apply

12

CAITLIN HINES

exclusively to women (?ass, ?dog, ?nag). Nonce terms which do not match this
phonetic prototype don't catch on (hind,1 loon, squirrel).
While this pattern is inescapable, it is not as inexplicable as it first appears.
Wescott 1971 provides a detailed analysis of labio-velarity and derogation in
English in such semantic domains as ethnicity, sexuality, bodily functions, and
mental soundness. Some of the least offensive examples are wog, fuck, barf, kook,
and quack - he lists dozens more which have a labial or velar onset or coda (or
both). His thesis, which I am extending metaphorically, is that the class of labialsand-velars is associated with derogation in English, but he cautions that
"derogation is not maximized merely by the maximization of labio-velarity. If it
were, /w/ would necessarily be the most derogatory of phonemes, and words like
wow and woe would be at least connotatively more offensive than any other
monosyllables" (1971: 132). Nevertheless, the overwhelming correlation between
a phonetic pattern and a semantic feature certainly helped motivate the choice of
the labial (and rhyming) bunny rather than the phonetically ill-formed ?rabbit or
*hare when a replacement was needed for the archaic velar coney , which fell
victim to what Leach 1964 described as "a phonemic pattern [of obscenity] penumbral to the animal category itself' (:33-34).8
The tendency towards labial or velar onset reminds us that iconicity can take
many forms - and is seldom if ever realized in any one form in 100% of the data,
suggesting that a focus on the specific iconic manifestatation may blur our vision
to the general tendency towards iconicity. Apparent sound symbolism alone, no
matter how pervasive the pattern or persuasive the hypothesis, is only one of the
possible manifestations of iconicity which even so-called literal language can ex
ploit. The confluence of metaphor and taboo here simply makes this iconicity
more transparent, allowing us to glimpse what Jakobson and Waugh call "the
chiaroscuro imagery hidden in the [phonemes]" (1987 [1978]: 185).
3.2. Semantic features
The specific animals which are most often mapped are semantically homogenous:
physically, they are small, if mature (cat, chicken, fox), or are designated as imma
ture (so we find filly but not, in this sense, mare; or bunny but seldom rabbit).
Sometimes terms for both the mature and immature animal are used as metaphoric
synonyms, so we get the pairs kitten~cat (and even puss, pussy), and
chick~chicken. The salience of size is at least part of the motivation for the con
temptuous expression, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?',"
where the (large) cow is portrayed as an unwanted encumbrance.
Intensionally, these animals are typically either hunted (grouse, fox, plover)
or kept as pets or farm animals (canary, (pussy) cat, filly). Creatures which are not
typically interacted with in either of these ways in Western culture are generally
ineligible to participate in this metaphor, ruling out most insects, fish, reptiles, and

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

13

amphibians (even lovely, desireable creatures like butterflies, which are not
hunted but caught). Leach 1964 points to a difference in our treatment of warmversus cold-blooded creatures, noting that "the concept of cruelty is applicable to
birds and beasts but not to fish [and crustaceans]. The slaughter of farm animals
for food must be carried out by 'humane' methods...But it is quite proper to kill a
lobster by dropping it alive into boiling water" (:42).
3.3.

Phonosemantics

Intriguingly, it turns out that these phonetic and semantic features are co-terminous: there is a subtle but crucial semantic distinction between the set of terms of
explicit sexual attraction {bunny, fox, quail), which follow the phonetic pattern of
labial or velar onset, and terms of overt abuse (bitch, nag, shrew), which may or
may not (see appendix for complete list of terms discussed). For example, our
experiential knowledge of a bitch, especially one in heat, is that it may behave in a
most 'unpetlike' fashion; a nag is not merely a horse but one which is designated
as either old or in poor condition; and a shrew, being an insectivore, is neither
hunted nor kept as a pet.9 This distinction is reflected in the process of morpho
logical derivation which the terms of abuse undergo: bitch ~ bitching, nag ~ nag
ging,10 shrew ~ shrewish (and the obsolete verb "to beshrew," = "to curse"). A
near minimal pair illustrating that labial/velar onset is a necessary but not suffi
cient motivating factor is Batgirl and Catwoman, where the modern connotations
of bat block the instantiation of this metaphor. Batgirl is essentially asexual, a
mere 'girl,' whereas Catwoman, as memorably played by Julie Newmar, Eartha
Kitt, and Michelle Pfeiffer, is a pop icon of womanly sensuality.
Crucially, neither phonetic nor semantic features alone provides full motiva
tion for the use of these terms. Consider falcon and vulture, which have labial on
sets but are not used, presumably because they fail on semantic grounds (falcons
and vultures are hunters, not the objects of the hunt); and, on the other hand,
*ermine and *sable, which, like fox or mink, are small, fur-bearing mammals, yet
do not match the phonetic prototype and are not used. Other phonetically incorrect
examples are *hare, * otter, and *raccoon, while such terms as *foal and *piglet
are semantically bad, since they pick out the youngest member in a three-way age
distinction (equivalent to human 'baby', as compared with chick or kitten, which
are ambiguous between infant and adolescent).11 The importance of what Zubin
and Kpke (1986) call "interactional/functional" coherence is seen in the absence
of ferret, polecat, and weasel, which are not used here, despite being otherwise
phonetically and semantically plausible, presumably because they are classed as
vermin.12 Some of the animal names available in the lexicon which are not used
are shown in Figure 1. As Givn 1983 cautions, "iconicity is not a monolith, but
rather may operate at many different levels; and...occasionally motivations de-

14

CAITLIN HIES

rived from different - equally natural - sources may come into conflict. And the
resolution of such conflicts is not always predictable..." (:212).

Figure 1: Some animals not mapped

3.4. Lexicon
A final linguistic parameter to be considered is the overlapping lexicon between
animal terms and women considered sexually. This is most clearly seen, not sur
prisingly, in just that case when women are described exclusively on sexual
grounds: as prostitutes. Thus we have & flock, nest, or stable of gulls, minks, or
fillies who work in bird cages, cat houses, or chicken ranches. Men in search of
such game arc said to be going grousing, on the prowl, ox filly-hunting, and col
lections only of either beautiful women or of quail are usually described with
narrowly construed umbrella terms bevy and covey, as in Errol Flynn's alliteratively naming a group of starlets " bevy of beavers." Intercourse itself is rutting

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

15

or skinning the cat, and a woman who's ready for sex is hot to trot or in heat.
While both men and women can be called by pet names, the underlying pragmatic
asymmetry is suggested by the Penthouse magazine nude centerfold "Pet of the
Month." Similarly, while either gender can be horny or randy, until very recently
a stag party was reserved to describe a group only of men, often featuring naked
women as "entertainment," a sense that survives in stag film, a pornographic film
aimed at men. The word venery and its derivative, venereal, refer both to sex and
to game, nicely conflating these two concepts. Finally, there is the transparent
chiefly British expression "does your bunny like carrots?"
Tantalizing circumstantial evidence that this process of metaphorical lexicalization is not restricted to English is provided by the numerous parallel French
examples shown in the list of terms in the appendix (and see Calvet 1993 on the
etymology of the French prostitute-as-filly terms), as well as by Occhi's paper on
the Japanese kitune-gao and tanuki-gao categories (1995), and is hinted at in work
being done on the partial iconic motivation for signs in ASL metaphors (Taub
1995). Finally, in an interesting lexical boomerang, the word "slut," which has
since the 15th century meant a woman of low character, was in 19th c. US usage
applied matter-of-factly to female dogs: it seems a slut was just a bitch by another
name (Oxford English Dictionary; Todasco 1973, s.v. "slut").

4. Conclusion: Why pets/game animals?

There are many associations between animals and the people who own, hunt, and
eat them; animals represent a highly motivated source domain for metaphors
about people. In Western culture, humans are thought of as higher-order beings
than animals, which in turn are higher than plants, which are higher than minerals
(this cultural model is known as the Great Chain of Being - see Lakoff and Turner
1989:170-181), so the directionality of the mapping, from the source domain of
animals to the target domain of people, makes sense. Further, it is unsurprising
that common animals (monkey, rat, sheep) appear more frequently in metaphor
than do rarer animals (polar bear, porcupine, zebra). Not all of these ani
mal/human associations are so benign, however; as Leach points out:
Broadly speaking, the language of obscenity falls into three categories: (1) dirty
words - usually referring to sex and excretion; (2) blasphemy and profanity; (3)
animal abuse - in which a human being is equated with an animal of another spe
cies (1964 : 28).
Within this third category of animal abuse, I am making a further distinction be
tween terms which are globally insulting (ass, pig, vulture) and terms which refer
to a person considered sexually. For men, this second set is quite restricted:
{beast, buck, bull, cock (of the walk), (randy old) goat, ram, stag, stallion, stud,

16

CAITLIN HINES

tomcat, wolf}.13 Terms for women are much more numerous, but the metaphorical
zoo is not inhabitated by the same animals as the real world: for example, in the
set of all possible bird names, high-frequency birds like *robin and *sparrow are
ruled out on the basis of phonetics, while *cardinal and *flamingo fail the seman
tic test, not being hunted or kept as pets; yet names of less common birds like
grouse, plover, and quail are actively used in metaphorical expressions.
This paper has shown that women-considered-sexually are described not just
as animals, but specifically as those which are hunted or possessed, conflating not
just sex and appetite, but quite explicitly, control. As Leach observes:
Anthropologists have noted again and again that there is a universal tendency to
make ritual and verbal associations between eating and sexual intercourse. It is
thus a plausible hypothesis that the way in which animals are categorized with re
gard to edibility will have some correspondence to the way in which human beings
are categorized with regard to sex relations (1964: 42-3).
Leach's thesis is that "we make binary distinctions and then mediate the distinc
tion by creating an ambiguous (and taboo-loaded) intermediate category" (1964:
45). This intermediate category is represented here by what he calls 'man-ani
mals': pets, livestock, and game (as distinct from, at one extreme, man [= not
animal] and, on the other end, wild animals [= not man]). Briefly, the generaliza
tion is that there is an overlap between incest taboos and the perceived, culturallydetermined edibility of animals. The most strongly tabooed animals are those a
culture keeps as pets (in English-speaking countries, commonly dogs, cats, and
some birds, but also certain young farm and game animals: bunnies, chicks). With
the exception of the unmarked male dog, these are also common animal terms for
women considered sexually: bird, bunny, (pussy) cat, canary, chick, (sex) kitten.
The next most-heavily tabooed animals are those which are hunted (typically,
foxes, rabbits, deer, and a variety of game birds),14 and those kept as livestock
(such as cattle, horses, pigs, and various fowl). Here we begin to see the effect of
the interplay of linguistic and conceptual levels discussed previously, resulting in
the terms filly, fox, goose (Brit.), grouse, partridge, pigeon, plover, and quail. This
correspondence also motivates the WOMEN AS MEAT terms, such as filet,
lambchop, and mutton (see appendix for additional examples, and notice that there
is no distinct word for the meat of game birds, making terms like goose, partridge,
and pheasant ambiguous).
In conclusion, the high degree of phonosemantic coherence in the lexicon of
the WOMAN AS SMALL ANIMAL metaphor suggests, to borrow John Lawler's
phrase, "linguistic structure where none had been suspected" (1990: 38), and once
again challenges two linguistic maxims: 'the arbitrariness of the sign', and the
notion that 'the morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning'. This systematicity is
not peculiar to this metaphor; I have found remarkably similar patterning in two
adjacent lexical domains, those of women described in terms of desserts (Hines

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

17

1994, 1996) and women as femmes fatales (Hies, forthcoming). Whether this
phenomenon is for some reason idiosyncratic to metaphors for women-considered-sexually, or, as I suspect, can be generalized to metaphors for other taboo
domains - or indeed is a feature of all metaphorical expressions to some degree - is
the proverbial empirical question. In closing, I echo Lawler:
And if there is this much here, what might there be elsewhere? (1990: 38).

Appendix: Terms
DESIRED WOMAN AS SMALL ANIMAL
alley cat
badger
bambi
bat [= prostitute]
beaver
BIRD (of the game) [cf. French la grue, lit.
'crane', fig. 'tart']
bob-tail
bracht [lit. 'female hound, bitch']
(bed-, cuddle, dumb, snow) bunny, bunny
head, bunster
CANARY
CAT
CHICK [cf. French la poulette, lit. 'chick',
fig. 'young girl'], chick-a-biddy
chickadee
chicken [cf. French la poule, lit. 'hen,
chicken,' fig. 'tart, mistress']
columbine
cony/coney/cunnyt [cf. French le lapin,
lit. 'rabbit' fig. 'female genitals']
coquette [lit. 'small chicken']
doe [cf. French une biche, lit. 'hind, doe',
fig 'harlot']
dormouse

duck
fawn
FILLY [cf. French la poniche, la ponette,
lapouliche, lit. 'filly,' fig. 'prostitute']
flapper

FOX
game hen
game pullet
GOOSE [= prostitute (Brit.)]
GROUSE
guinea hen
(sea) gull

hind
(sex) KITTEN
hobbyhorse
lamb, lambkins [lit. 'small lamb' (arch.)]
lioness [ = prostitute]
lone dove [poss. rhyming sl. + phonetic
erosion]
lone duck [poss. rhyming sl.]
loon
mink
minx [lit. 'small dog' (arch.)]
mouse!
nanny (goat)
nightingale
owl [= 'prostitute']
PARTRIDGE
pett
pheasant
PIGEON
PLOVER
Prix de Diane [= 'filly,' pretty girl. From
a classic French race meet for fillies
only]
puss, PUSSY

QUAIL, San Quentin quail [= 'jailbait']

18

CAITLIN HINES

rabbit, Jessica Rabbit

squirrel
squab
wren (Brit.)

slut [= female dog, bitch [19th c. US])

thoroughbred [= experienced prostitute]
venery/venereal [= game/sex]
warren [= brothel]
zoo [= brothel]

EXTENSIONS
WOMEN AS MEAT
bat house [= brothel]
beaver shot [= photograph showing
women's genitals]
bevy (of beavers"Errol Flynn)
bird cage [= brothel]
bitchery [= 'prostitution']
cat house [= brothel]
cat wagon [= mobile brothel of the early
West]
chicken ranch [= brothel; supposedly in
spired The Best Little Whorehouse in
Texas"]
covey [= group of prostitutes]
Cunny House [18th c. British strip club]
does your bunny like carrots?" [= 'do
you like intercourse?' (asked of a
woman, Brit.)]
filly-hunting [= looking for women]
flock/nest/stable (of prostitutes)
game [= women]
gamester [= prostitute]
gathering wool [= looking for women]
goat house [= brothel]
going grousing [= looking for prostitutes]
in heat [= sexually aroused]
hot to trot [= sexually aroused]
kittenish [= coy, provocative]
nanny-house [= brothel]
on the bat [= practicing prostitution
(Brit.)]
on the game [= practicing prostitution]
on the prowl [= looking for women]
pelt [= easy girl]
Playboy Bunny Club [20th c. US strip
club]
poultry [= women considered sexually]
skinning the cat [= to have intercourse]

beefsteak [cf. French le biftek, un tru

meau, lit. 'leg of beef', 'beefsteak,'
fig. 'prostitute']
carrion
filet
hot beef/meat/mutton [= prostitute]
lambchop
(laced, rig-, split-) mutton, mutton
dressed as lamb" [= old woman
dressed as young]
prime cut, -rib
pork (fresh pork of my dreams" - de
Sade)
WOMEN AS ANIMALS - (OVERTLY)
ABUSIVE
(piece of) ass
bat [= 'old woman']
biddy
bitch
cow
crone [lit. 'old ewe']
crow

dog
harridan (fr. French haridelle, 'a worn-out
horse or mare: JADE')
harpy
heifer, heffa
hen, henpecked
jade
mare, nightmare, mare's nest [= hoax]
moppet [lit., 'pugnosed dog' (arch.)]
mutt
nag
pig, hellpig
sow, swamp sow

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

shrew
swine
tabby [= 'old maid, female gossip']
tuna
turkey
M E N ( C O N S I D E R E D SEXUALLY) AS
ANIMALS
beast
buck
bull, town bull
cock (of the walk)
ram
(randy old) goat

19

rutting [= to have intercourse]

stag, -film, -party, -> horny
stallion
stud
tomcat (v.)
wolf
(cf. cuckold)

I CENTRAL TERMS ARE IN SMALL

I
CAPITALS
= archaic
= can also be used of men (not always
symmetrically)

Notes
1. Grateful acknowledgement to my friends and colleagues Katherine Branstetter, Linda DeBolt
and Juniper Bacon, Gilles Fauconnier, Lee Jenkins, Don Peterkin, Eve Sweetser, Mark Turner,
Rachelle Waksler, Carol Wilder, and especially Julia Williams for encouragement, references,
and patience. Comments from the audience at the 4th ICLA conference reading of this paper
helped clarify its final shape; Mark Turner's insight that the PREDATOR terms comprised a
different metaphor was particularly helpful.
2. Lakoff s version of this metaphor is LUSTFUL PERSON IS AN ANIMAL (1987:410), which
of course sidesteps the gender-specific distinctions discussed herein. All of his examples, how
ever, such as she's a bitch in heat or he's a real stud, are congruent with the present paper.
3. Terms preceded by an asterisk are unattested; a question mark indicates examples have been
found for men as well as women; the hash sign means that although the term is restricted to
female referents, it is outside the scope of this paper (i.e., hen = 'quarrelsome or overly protec
tive woman, esp. a wife and mother' - see Hines, forthcoming). Mink may easily have begun
as a mis-hearing of minx (which ironically used to mean 'small dog'), but its acceptance sug
gests that it fits speakers' unstated criteria for metaphorical appropriateness.
4. See Allen and Burridge 1991, and, for an intriguing anthropological perspective, Leach 1964.
The definitive works on the sexualization of slang for women remain Schulz 1975 and Pene
lope (Stanley) 1977; on phonetic symbolism and metaphor, see Rhodes and Lawler 1981 and
especially Lawler 1990. Berlin 1994 explores phonosemantic convergence in a related lexical
field (see also Hines 1994, 1996, forthcoming). In addition, much of my thinking here has
been shaped by Haiman 1985, Jakobson and Waugh 1987 [1978], Lakoff 1987, Lakoff and
Johnson 1980, and Wierzbicka 1988, as well as, more obliquely and diffusely, Barthes 1968
[1953] and Whorf 1956.
5. Compare fox and vixen; although literal foxes and vixens are of course the male and female
specimens of the same creature, in metaphorical use, they are asymmetric. Vixen is undergoing
a semantic shift (see Hines, forthcoming) but its primary meaning for most speakers is still

20

CAITLIN HINES

distinct from the more general fox, as shown by the fact that vixen is never predicated of a
man:
Carol/Carl is a fox [= good-looking, a catch"]
Carol/*Carl is a vixen [= manipulative, sexy]
6. I readily concede that these labels are highly debatable. I am not a phonetician, nor do I wish
to imply endorsement of any particular theoretical framework through adopting its terminol
ogy. The point I am trying to highlight is that there is a wholly unexpected and highly consis
tent phonetic pattern in these terms; the generalization, rather than particular features ([coronal], [- spr gl]/grave) is what interests me. I am grateful to Arnold Zwicky (personal com
munication), whose comment that he was "troubled" by the phonetic chart in an earlier version
of this paper inspired me to dig deeper to uncover the "missing g" (goose [Brit.] and grouse).
7. Hind was the term that got me started on this paper, as used by Sir Thomas Wyatt in a poem
regretting that he must give up his pursuit of Anne Boleyn once she had become Henry VIII's
wife(c. 1527):
Whose lists to hunt: I know where is an hind.
But as for me, alas I may no more:

[-]
And graven with diamonds in letters plain
There is written her fair neck round about:
Noli me tangere, for Caesar's I am,
and wild for to hold, though I seem tame.
8. Another example Leach gives, here involving multiple syllables rather than place of onset, is
the replacement of ass by donkey, in violation of Zipf s law ("word length is an inverse func
tion of word frequency," Zubin and Kpke 1986:40).
9. It is tempting to see this as an example of what Whorf (1956) called a CRYPTOTYPE, or
COVERT CLASS. The terms which carry a reflex of derogation explicitly in their semantics
are not obliged to redundantly express this in their phonetics, while those which seem on the
surface innocuous turn out to be covertly derogatory. In Whorf s terms, this is "a linguistic
RAPPORT as distinguished from a linguistic UTTERANCE" (1956:69). See also Lehrer 1974
(:46), and, arriving at almost the same point in a quite different fashion, Barthes 1968 [1953],
who observes that "language is never innocent: words have a second-order memory which
mysteriously persists in the midst of new meanings" (: 16).
10. While the equine nag and the verb to nag are derived from different roots, they are synchronically conflated: nagging is a stereotypically female behavior. The verb to harp and the noun
harpy in the FEMME FATALE metaphor (Hines, forthcoming) have a similar relationship. As
Julia Williams has pointed out (personal communication), each of these focuses on a woman's
inappropriate speaking, giving new meaning to the term 'verbal abuse'.
11. See Tyler 1969 for a discussion of the folk taxononomy of the English category "livestock";
adolescent horses are 'colts' (if male) or 'fillies' (if female), while both male and female pigs
are 'shoats' until about one year old; adolescent female swine are 'gilts', while there is a lexi
cal gap for adolescent males, who proceed directly from 'shoat' to 'boar', 'pig', or, if neutered,
'barrow' (:9). In a fascinating investigation of the non-arbitrariness of grammatical gender,
Zubin and Kpke found the same distribution in German, which requires that determiners
agree with nouns in gender: baby horses and pigs are (neuter) das Fohlen 'foal' and das Ferkel
'piglet', while adults are (feminine) die Stute 'mare' and die Sau 'sow' or (masculine) der
Hengst 'stallion' and der Eber 'boar', with the 'generic' names taking neuter pronouns: das

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

21

Pferd 'horse' and das Schwein 'pig'. Zubin and Kpke show the same systematic correlation
between grammatical and 'natural' gender in some 25 German livestock and game animal
names (1986: 154).
12. Interestingly, ferret and weasel are slang terms for "penis" in some dialects (although not
mine! See Allan & Burridge 1991: 109; Cameron 1992: 380).
13. This set isn't sufficiently elaborated to permit analysis on phonetic grounds, but it is highly
consistent semantically: notably, the terms refer to adult, uncastrated males frequently used for
breeding purposes only, as in the nouns buck, ram, and stallion and the verb tomcat (usually in
the phrase tomcatting around). Terms like *calf *gelding, or *steer are almost definitionally
inappropriate. The unconscious acceptance of this metaphor provides a context for understand
ing the phenomenon of "deadbeat dads": studs don't settle down.
14. Leach states, in a discussion of fox-hunting, that otters, stags, and hares are sometimes hunted
in a comparable ritual manner (1964: 52). All of these animals hunted in Britain, as well as
their American counterparts bears, ducks, and elk, fit nicely into the phonosemantic categories
discussed in this paper.

References
a) General
Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as
Shield and Weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1968 [1953]. Writing Degree Zero. Translated by Annette Lavers and
Colin Smith. New York: Hill and Wang.
Berlin, Brent. 1994. "Evidence for pervasive synesthetic sound symbolism in ethnozoological nomenclature," in: Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala
(eds.), Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76-93.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965 [1949]. "The sign is not arbitrary," in Forms of English. Cam
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 231-9.
de Reuse, Willem. 1986."The lexicalization of sound symbolism in Santiago del Estero
Quechua," International Journal of'American Linguistics 52, 1 (Jan.): 54-64.
Dundes, Alan. 1980. "The crowing hen and the Easter Bunny," in Interpreting Folklore.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 160-175.
Givn, Talmy. 1983. "Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax," in:
John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187-220.
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hines, Caitlin. 1994. "Let me call you 'Sweetheart': The WOMAN AS DESSERT meta
phor," in: Mary Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, Laurel A. Sutton, and Caitlin Hines (eds.),
Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language
Conference. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 295-303.
Hines, Caitlin. 1996. "What's so easy about pie?: The lexicalization of a metaphor," in:
Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford,
CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), pp. 189-200.

22

CAITLIN HINES

Hines, Caitlin. forthcoming. "She-wolves, tigresses, and morphosemantics," in: Natasha

Warner, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language
Conference. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
Hughes, Geoffrey. 1991. Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths, and
Profanity in English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jakobson, Roman, and Linda R. Waugh. 1987 [1978]. "The spell of speech sounds," in
The Sound Shape of Language. (Second ed.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 182234.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago Univer
sity Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lawler, John. 1990. "Women, men, and bristly things: The phonosemantics of the BRassonance in English," Michigan Working Papers in Linguistics (Winter): 27-38.
Leach, Edmund. 1964. "Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categories and
verbal abuse," in: Eric Lenneberg (ed.), New Directions in the Study of Language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 23-63.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North-Hol
land Publishing.
Malkiel, Yakov. 1990. Diachronic Problems in Phonosymbolism. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Occhi, Debra. 1995. "Women, foxes, and badgerlike things: The Japanese schematic
categories kitune-gao and tanuki-gao".Paper presented at the Fourth Conference of
the International Cognitive Linguistic's Association.
Penelope (Stanley), Julia. 1977. "Paradigmatic woman: The prostitute," in: David L.
Shores and Carol Hines (eds.), Papers in Language Variation: SAMLA-ADS Col
lection. Alabama: Alabama University Press, pp. 303-21.
Rhodes, Richard A., and John Lawler. 1981. "Athematic metaphors," in Papers from the
Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Lin
guistic Society, pp. 318-42.
Schulz, Muriel. 1975. "The semantic derogation of women," in: Barrie Thorne and
Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House, pp. 64-75.
Taub, Sarah. 1995. "Metaphor in signed and spoken languages," ms., Linguistics De
partment, University of California at Berkeley.
Tyler, Stephen A. (ed) 1969. "Introduction". Cognitive Anthropology - Readings. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Wescott, Roger. 1971 "Labio-velarity and derogation in English: A study in phonosemic
correlation," American Speech 46: 123-136.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. (Edited by John P. Car
roll.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

FOXY CHICKS AND PLAYBOY BUNNIES: A CASE STUDY

23

Zubin, David A, and Klaus-Michael Kpke. 1986. "Gender and folk taxonomy: The indexical relation between grammatical and lexical categorization," in: Colette Craig
(ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139159.
b) Dictionaries

and word sources

Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1993. "Le hareng et la pouliche," Le Franais dans Le Monde 33,
259: 37-38.
Cameron, Deborah. 1992. "Naming of parts: Gender, culture, and terms for the penis
among American college students," American Speech 67: 367-382.
Farmer, John S, and W. E. Henley (eds.). 1965 [1890-1904]. Slang and its Analogues.
New York: Kraus Reprint Corp. (Seven vols, reprinted in three vols.)
Green, Jonathon. 1986. The Slang Thesaurus. London: Penguin.
Grose, Captain Francis. 1992 [1796]. A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue.
(Edited by Eric Partridge.) New York: Dorset Press.
Hrail, Rene James, and Edwin A. Lovatt. 1984. Dictionary of Modern Colloquial
French. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Holder, R. W. 1989. The Faber Dictionary of Euphemisms. (Revised ed.) London: Faber
and Faber.
Lighter, J. E. (ed.). 1994. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Vol.
1, A-G. New York: Random House.
Mills, Jane. 1989. Womanwords: A Dictionary of Words about Women. New York:
Henry Holt.
Partridge, Eric. 1984. Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English.
(Edited by Paul Beale.) New York: MacMillan.
Partridge, Eric (ed.). 1986. A Dictionary of Catch Phrases. New York: Stein and Day.
Rawson, Hugh. 1989. Wicked Words. New York: Crown Trade Paperback.
Richter, Alan. 1995 [1993]. Sexual Slang. New York: HarperPerennial.
Spears, Richard A. 1981. Slang and Euphemism. New York: Jonathan David.
Simpson, J. A., and E.S.C. Weiner (eds.). 1989. Oxford English Dictionary. (Second ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press .
Sutton, Laurel. 1992. "Bitches and skankly hobags: The place of women in contemporary
slang," in: Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz (eds.), Gender Articulated. New York:
Routledge., pp. 279-296.
Todasco, Ruth. 1973. An Intelligent Woman's Guide to Dirty Words. Chicago: Loop
Center YWCA.
Wentworth, Harold, and Stuart Berg Flexner. 1975. Dictionary of American Slang.
(Second supplemented ed.). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Wilson, Robert A. (ed.). 1972. Playboy's Book of Forbidden Words. Chicago: Playboy
Press.