Anthropocentrism in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries - Revisited Reinhard Heuberger Heuberger 2003 analyzed monolingual English (learners’) dictionaries with regard to anthropocentrism, an ideology that regards nature primarily from the viewpoint of its usefulness to human beings. Focusing on reference works published in the mid-1990s, that article identified strong anthropocentric biases concerning animals within definitions. 20 years later, the present article revisits the learners’ dictionaries examined in said study and investigates whether the treatment of animals has become more objective in the current editions. 1. Introduction Dictionaries can be a revealing source when examining the prevailing views and biases of a society (cf. Landau 1993: 309). Lexicographers aim to provide objective information, and the biases which dictionaries nevertheless contain are usually those widely shared by the general public - thus going unnoticed at the time. Anthropocentrism is a prime example of overlooked bias. It regards nature and animals as means or instruments rather than ascribing any intrinsic value to them (cf. Kopnina et al. 2021). Within the framework of ecolinguistic 1 research, this paper compares animal-related dictionary definitions in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries from the mid-1990s with their present-day counterparts and investigates 1 According to the International Ecolinguistics Association, ‘ecolinguistics’ is a field which “explores the role of language in the life-sustaining interactions of humans, other species and the physical environment.” It is concerned with how the language used to talk about the environment contributes to its degradation, and also how linguistic diversity, like biodiversity, makes for a healthier planet. Cf. https: / / www.ecolinguistics-association.org/ . AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Agenda: Advancing Anglophone Studies Band 49 · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ AAA-2024-0003 Reinhard Heuberger 74 whether the anthropocentric attitudes prevalent decades ago are still found in the current generation of reference works. 2 It seems justified to raise the question why anthropocentric language structures in general - and human-centered dictionary definitions in particular - should be studied critically in the first place. The short answer is that language is believed to influence the way we think and, ultimately, the way we act. 3 Or, to use the words of Michael Halliday (2001: 185): “language does not correspond, it construes.” Language thus not only reflects our (psychological) reality but has a share in forming it. The ecolinguist Alwin Fill has emphasized that anthropocentric language use can have significant detrimental effects (2002: 21): “[It] suggests contrasts where none exist in nature, it introduces causality into processes where there is only interdependence, and it separates humans from the rest of nature.” Compared to newspapers and television news programs, dictionaries play an only minor role in shaping public opinion. At the same time, dictionaries are commonly regarded as authorities on language issues (cf. Moon 2003: 634; cf. Jackson 1994: 42), and language learners are thus particularly likely to store and emulate the style and content of the definitions (cf. Veisbergs 2005: 537). As Moon (2014: 85) puts it: “Ideologically positioned meaning is central to the concerns of critical lexicography, and particularly important with respect to learners’ dictionaries because of their positioning as global texts for a pluralist multicultural usership.” Anthropocentrism in (learners’) dictionaries should therefore not be regarded as trivial or negligible, and it ought to be investigated in the same way as other ideologies, e.g. sexism, ageism, racism or ethnocentrism. 4 2 Heuberger (2003) not only analyzed printed learners’ dictionaries (such as LDOCE and OALD) but also CD-ROM reference works intended for learners (e.g. CCSD and LIED) as well as dictionaries for native speakers (e.g. OED and ENCARTA). Several of the dictionaries investigated have not had any subsequent editions - for instance, the two CD-ROM dictionaries mentioned. To account for this fact, and to achieve a clearer research focus, the present article concentrates on the online versions of the “big five” monolingual English learners’ dictionaries and compares them to their predecessors examined in the 2003 article. 3 This notion is known as ‘linguistic relativity’, a concept particularly associated with the linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. 4 Several studies have investigated ideology in dictionaries, though none of them with regard to anthropocentrism. Cf. Kachru & Kahane (1995, reprint 2013), a pioneering volume addressing various issues related to cultures, ideologies and the dictionary; see also Moon (2014), Chen (2018) and Benson (2001). Anthropocentrism in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries - Revisited 75 2. Anthropocentrism: a brief typology There are two main types of linguistic anthropocentrism. The most common form of human-centeredness, both in everyday language and in (learners’) dictionaries, is what Jung (2001: 275) and other linguists have termed utilitaristic anthropocentrism. Here, animals are viewed as a resource for human use. For instance, on the lexical level, they are categorized as ‘furbearing animals’, ‘experimental animals’ or ‘domestic animals’. The latter can be subdivided into ‘milk cows’, ‘laying hens’ and ‘porkers’. On the discursive level - in our case within dictionary definitions - the utility (or harmfulness) of animals is emphasized, while other relevant features may be ignored. Such usage is, prima facie, convenient as the corresponding terms and definitions immediately indicate the most important benefits and uses of animals. At the same time, it is debatable from an environmentally ethical and ecolinguistic point of view, given that intrinsic features and values, e.g. the animals’ appearance and their unique ecological role, are disregarded. Such usage reinforces the idea that the animals in question can and are meant to be used for the purposes given. The disproportionate focus on the utility of animals constitutes the most widespread form of anthropocentrism in dictionary definitions. Another form of anthropocentrism known as distancing (cf. Heuberger 2018) refers to the use of different words for equal or analogous human and non-human concepts. Such usage creates emotional distance between the species, usually putting humans in a superior position and thus indirectly justifying exploitative behavior. For instance, while humans ‘live’ in a certain area, animals ‘are found’ there. Words such as ‘eat’, ‘skin’ and ‘corpse’ are typically associated with humans, whereas ‘feed’, ‘hide’ and ‘carcass’ are used for animals. Defining terms like ‘vermin’ and ‘pest’ also have a distancing, i.e. separating, function. From an ecolinguistic perspective, the use of such terms should be questioned critically as they discriminate against other species and provide a distorted view of ecological reality. There are further subtypes 5 of anthropocentrism, but the two categories named above - utilitaristic anthropocentrism and distancing - are the ones found most often in dictionaries. 3. Anthropocentrism in learners’ dictionaries: a critical investigation Twenty years ago, Heuberger (2003) argued that the 1995 generation of learners’ dictionaries was “characterised by a striking tendency to empha- 5 For instance, metaphors and euphemisms can also be anthropocentric. Cf. Heuberger (2018) for a more detailed typology. Reinhard Heuberger 76 size anthropocentric features within the definitions for animal terms.” Rather than describing the animals’ phenotype, e.g. appearance and behavior, lexicographers primarily accentuated their utility. As more than 25 years have passed since the publication of those dictionaries, one might expect the current 6 generation of learners’ dictionaries to have progressed 7 toward a more objective and neutral portrayal of animals. Disappointingly, this is not the case. The following definitions illustrate anthropocentric biases typical of both the 1995 and the current generation of monolingual English learners’ dictionaries. 8 The first set concerns the lexical field ‘marine fauna,’ which has repeatedly been portrayed as a food resource, often ignoring more objective and inherent features of the animals: sardine a young pilchard or a similar fish, cooked and eaten fresh or preserved in tins in oil or tomato sauce (OALD 1995) sardine a small young sea fish (for example, a young pilchard) that is either eaten fresh or preserved in tins (OALDO 2022) trout a fish that lives in rivers, lakes, etc and is good to eat. There are several types of trout (OALD 1995) trout a common freshwater fish that is used for food. There are several types of trout (OALDO 2022) shrimp a small pink sea creature that you can eat, with ten legs and with a soft shell (LDOCE 1995) shrimp a small sea creature that you can eat, which has ten legs and a soft shell (LDOCEO 2022) 6 The dictionaries investigated are the online versions of the ‘big five’ British monolingual English learners’ dictionaries (in alphabetical order): The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online (CALDO), the Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online (COBUILDO), the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (LDOCEO), the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners Online (MEDALO) and the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online (OALDO). 7 A more progressive approach to a different social area, gender, is reflected in the official consent form for COVID-19 vaccinations published in Austria in December 2022. The form lists no fewer than five options for the signatory’s gender - ‘female’, ‘male’, ‘diverse’, ‘inter’ and ‘open’ - thus reflecting important social and linguistic changes.https: / / www.sozialministerium.at/ dam/ jcr: e11b58c1-71d3-47d4-b059- 5960bfe39ef5/ Schutzimpfung_Covid-19-Formular_mRNA-Impfstoffe.pdf 8 The Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (MEDAL) was first published in 2002 and was not considered in the 2003 article. Thus, MEDAL does not appear in the following comparison of definitions. The latest online version (MEDALO), however, has been included in Table 1, which portrays anthropocentrism in the current generation of online reference works for learners. Anthropocentrism in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries - Revisited 77 Such definitions are debatable from an ecolinguistic and a lexicographic point of view - for several reasons. Dictionary users are unlikely to benefit from the information that the animals in question are edible, as this is true of many animals and thus often not a distinctive feature. In explaining and distinguishing headwords, some semantic features are clearly more characteristic than others, and it is a key task of a lexicographer to include these contrasting features in the definition (cf. Ayto 1983: 92). As Jackson has pointed out, effective definitions do not state everything there is to be said about the meaning of a word, but they do serve to distinguish a referent from related ones in the lexicon (1994: 80). Another violation of lexicographic principles becomes apparent in the definitions for ‘shrimp’, namely the failure to recognise what Landau has called priority of essence (1993: 132). According to this principle, the most essential elements of meaning should be listed first, followed by more incidental features. The definitions above, however, give the impression that edibility is the major characteristic of shrimp, more important than their phenotype (e.g. “ten legs”). This is clearly a highly anthropocentric approach. So-called ‘domestic animals’ suffer the same lexicographic fate of objectification as their marine relatives in that they are normally treated as instruments for human use. The following definitions portray these animals as subordinate links in the human food chain or as tools. pig a farm animal kept for its meat (CIDE 9 1995) pig a large pink, brown, or black farm animal with short legs and a curved tail, kept for its meat (CALDO 2022) turkey a bird that looks like a large chicken and is often eaten at Christmas and at Thanksgiving (LDOCE 1995) turkey a bird that looks like a large chicken and is often eaten at Christmas and at Thanksgiving (LDOCEO 2022) dog a very common animal that people keep as a pet or to guard a building (LDOCE 1995) dog a common animal with four legs, fur, and a tail. Dogs are kept as pets or trained to guard places, find drugs etc (LDOCEO 2022) Compared with their 1995 learners’ dictionaries, Cambridge and Longman have included more details on the appearance of pigs and dogs in their current editions. Anthropocentric features are, however, still provided in the definitions. 9 The first edition of the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary was entitled Cambridge International Dictionary of English (CIDE). Reinhard Heuberger 78 A more objective and neutral description, without the anthropocentric focus and without losing any clarity of definition, is seen in Oxford’s definition of ‘pig’ in the 1995 edition of OALD. In its current edition, however, a more anthropocentric portrayal is given: pig a domestic or wild animal with pink or black skin, short legs, a broad nose and a short tail that curls (OALD 1995) pig an animal with pink, black or brown skin, short legs, a broad nose and a short curly tail. Pigs are kept on farms for their meat (called pork) or live in the wild (OALDO 2022) Animals that live in the wild are not excepted from anthropocentric definition, especially when humans have a practical use for them: mink mink is a very expensive fur used to make coats or hats (CCSD 10 1996) mink a mink is a small animal with highly valued fur (COBUILDO 2022) rhesus a small monkey common in N India, often used in scientific experiments (OALD 1995) rhesus monkey a small South Asian monkey, often used in scientific experiments (OALDO 2022) Collins’ definition of ‘mink’ in CCSD is particularly anthropocentric in that it completely disregards the phenotypical characteristics of the animal, only referring to the luxury item that humans derive from it. COBUILDO 2022 at least takes into account that a mink is - first and foremost - an animal. From an anthropocentric point of view, animals also have detrimental and unwanted traits that render them a potential nuisance or even threat to human beings. Lexicographers frequently emphasize these traits, treating them as more relevant than inherent features of the animals. In some isolated cases, neutral definitions are admittedly difficult to achieve, and dictionary users may not find them useful. Locusts, for example, are generally perceived as destroying plants and harvests, while, viewed objectively, they eat to subsist starvation. From an ecolinguistic point of view, the following definitions are problematic as they fail to depict the animals in an impartial and unbiased way. 10 Collins Cobuild Student Dictionary. Anthropocentrism in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries - Revisited 79 locust a type of African and Asian insect that flies in huge groups, destroying all the plants and crops of a district (OALD 1995) locust a large insect that lives in hot countries and sometimes flies in large groups, destroying all the plants and crops of an area (OALDO 2022) shark a shark is a very large fish. Some sharks have very sharp teeth and may attack people. (COBUILD 1995) shark a shark is a very large fish. Some sharks have very sharp teeth and may attack people (COBUILDO 2022) wasp a black and yellow flying insect which can sting you (CIDE 1995) wasp a flying insect, often black and yellow, that can sting (= produce a small, painful skin injury) (CALDO 2022) Even more explicit and debatable is the use of distancing or speciesist 11 defining terms, which put entire species of animals in a bad light. For instance, Oxford uses the term ‘pest’ to define rats in its latest edition of OALD. Distancing terms such as ‘vermin’ and ‘pest’ do not occur frequently within definitions of learners’ dictionaries but are sometimes found in example sentences, where they may have similar effects on the user. 12 rat a small animal with a long tail, that looks like a large mouse, usually considered a pest (= an animal which is disliked because it destroys food or spreads disease) (OALDO 2022) In addition to usefulness and distancing, another type of anthropocentrism in learners’ dictionaries recalls the adage, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Both past and current editions of learners’ dictionaries feature definitions depicting animals according to anthropocentric notions of beauty. Gazelles, for instance, are described as jumping gracefully and having large beautiful eyes, while vultures are defined as ‘ugly’ birds, at least in the Longman Interactive English Dictionary (LIED) published in 1996. gazelle a type of small deer, which jumps very gracefully and has large beautiful eyes (LDOCE 1995) 11 The term was coined by psychologist and animal rights advocate Richard Ryder in the 1970s, referring to discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual’s species membership (analogous to racism). 12 A thorough investigation of example sentences would be worth a study of its own, most likely showing very similar results with regard to the amount of anthropocentrism. Reinhard Heuberger 80 gazelle a type of small deer, which jumps very gracefully and has large beautiful eyes (LDOCEO 2022) vulture a large ugly bird with an almost featherless head and neck, which feeds on dead animals. In jokes and humorous drawings, vultures often fly or sit above a person who is dying, esp. in a desert (LIED 1996) vulture a large bird that eats dead animals (LDOCEO 2022) While not all animal terms are defined from an anthropocentric viewpoint, this ideology is clearly present in both past and current learners’ dictionaries. For comparison, the following table, listing animals that play an important role for humans (at least in the Western world), shows that anthropocentric features (indicated by +) are found in the great majority of definitions. LDOCEO OALDO CALDO COBUILDO MEDALO bee + + + - + chicken + + + + + cockroach + + + + + cow + + + + + dog + + + + + donkey - + - - + frog - - - - goat + + + + horse + + + + + locust + + + + + mosquito + + + + + oyster + + + + + pig + + + + + salmon - + + + sardine + + + + + shark + + - + + sheep + + + + + snake - - - - termite + + - + + wolf - - - - - Results 15 / 20 17 / 20 14 / 20 15 / 20 15 / 20 Table 1. Anthropocentric features in definitions of current learners’ dictionaries. Table 1 confirms that anthropocentrism is strongly present in current learners’ dictionaries - undoubtedly going unnoticed by the great majority of Anthropocentrism in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries - Revisited 81 lexicographers and learners. Dictionary makers and users should, however, be aware that anthropocentrism is a bias much like racism and sexism. The only objectifiable difference is that animals - rather than humans - are the targets. A comparison of the mid-1990s generation of learners’ dictionaries with the most up-to-date editions shows that the awareness of this bias has barely increased over the past 25 years. This is especially conspicuous when compared to other social areas that have witnessed significant progress in the same time span. 4. Concluding remarks The use of the term ‘awareness’ in this context seems important. It should be emphasized that ecolinguists generally do not demand that certain language patterns be avoided or banned, whether in everyday language or dictionary definitions. Ecolinguistic language criticism is not dogmatic or prescriptive (cf. Fill 1993: 116); its main aim is to create awareness of the inherent 13 anthropocentric nature of our language and thinking patterns and of the ecological problems that may arise from them. It should be noted that dictionaries for native speakers generally present a more balanced description of animals (cf. Heuberger 2003), which can at least partly be attributed to the greater length of their entries. Native speaker dictionaries are not only lexically but also factually more scientific than their counterparts for language learners, with most animal-related definitions providing information on generic class and phenotype, sometimes also habitat. The greater amount of anthropocentrism in learners’ dictionaries is most likely due to their goal of offering ‘simple’ 14 explanations, given that information on utility (or harmfulness) is easily comprehensible in terms of lexis and complexity. Unlike certain interest groups (such as agricultural marketing companies), lexicographers should not be accused of using anthropocentric language structures intentionally for manipulative purposes. This does not, however, mean that lexicographic manifestations of human-centredness are unproblematic or negligible; the learners’ dictionaries investigated in this paper are used by millions of people worldwide, and lexicographers have their share in perpetuating anthropocentric views by continuing to include them in dictionaries. In keeping with Veisbergs (2005: 537), learners’ dictionaries can, at least to some extent, “create and consolidate biased perceptions of the meaning of various language units.” In times of growing ecological awareness, dictionary makers should finally pay due attention 13 Anthropocentrism in language may be perceived as ‘natural’ as it is a product of evolution (cf. Fill 2006: 148). However, ‘natural’ should not be equated with ‘proper’ or ‘acceptable’. 14 The definitions in learners’ dictionaries are normally compiled using a restricted vocabulary (called ‘defining vocabulary’) that consists of only a few thousand words. Reinhard Heuberger 82 to this issue and compile definitions with less bias - not only with regard to humans but also animals. 5. Bibliography Dictionaries evaluated CALDO. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online. https: / / dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/ learner-english/ [November 2022]. CCSD (1996). Collins COBUILD Student’s Dictionary on CD-ROM. London: Harper- Collins Publishers Ltd. CIDE (1996). Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Ed. Paul Procter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COBUILD (1998). Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. Ed. John Sinclair. London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. COBUILDO. Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online. https: / / www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/ english [November 2022]. ENCARTA (2001). Encarta Concise English Dictionary. Ed. Kathy Rooney. London: Bloomsbury. LDOCE (1995). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Ed. Della Summers. Harlow: Longman Group Ltd. LDOCEO. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online. https: / / www.ldo ceonline.com/ [November 2022]. LIED (1996). Longman Interactive English Dictionary. Ed. Della Summers. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. MEDAL (2002). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Ed. Michael Rundell. London: Macmillan Publishers. MEDALO. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners Online. http: / / www.macmillandictionary.com/ [November 2022]. OALD (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Ed. Jonathan Crowther. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OALDO. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online. https: / / www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/ [November 2022]. OED (1933). Oxford English Dictionary. Eds. James A. H. Murray, Henry Bradley, W. A. Craigie and C.T. Onions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Works cited Ayto, John R. (1983). On specifying meaning: Semantic analysis and dictionary definitions. In: Reinhard R. K. Hartmann (Ed.). Lexicography: Principles and Practice. London: Academic Press: 89-98. Benson, Phil (2001). Ethnocentrism and the English Dictionary. London: Routledge. Chen, Wenge (2019). Towards a discourse approach to critical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 32 (3): 362-388. Fill, Alwin (1993). Ökolinguistik. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fill, Alwin (2002). Tensional arches: Language and ecology. In: Alwin Fill, Hermine Penz & Willhelm Trampe (Eds). Colourful Green Ideas. Wien: Lang. 15-7. Anthropocentrism in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries - Revisited 83 Fill, Alwin (2006). Literatur und Ökolinguistik: Anthropozentrische, anthropomorphe und physiozentrische Sprache in englischen Gedichten. Anglia 124 (1): 144- 177. Fill, Alwin & Peter Mühlhäusler (2001). Introduction. In: Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (Eds.). The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, Ecology and Environment. London: Continuum. 1-9. Halliday, Michael A. Kirkwood (2001). New Ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In: Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (Eds.). The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, Ecology and Environment. London: Continuum. 175-202. Heuberger, Reinhard (2003). Anthropocentrism in monolingual English dictionaries. An ecolinguistic approach to the lexicographic treatment of faunal terminology. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 28 (1): 93-105. Heuberger, Reinhard (2018). Overcoming anthropocentrism with anthropomorphic and physiocentric uses of language? In: Alwin Fill & Hermine Penz (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York/ London: Routledge. 342-354. Jackson, Howard. (1994). Words and Their Meaning. London: Longman. Kachru, Braj B. & Henry Kahane (Eds.). 1995. Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kopnina, Helen, Haydn Washington, Bron Taylor & John J. Piccolo (2021) Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. The International Journal of Ecopsychology 3 (1): 109-127. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ s10806-018-9711-1 Jung, Matthias (2001). Ecological criticism of language. In: Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (Eds.). The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, Ecology and Environment. London: Continuum. 270-285. Landau, Sidney I. (1993). Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moon, Rosamund (2003). Dictionaries: Notions and expectations. In: Anna Braasch & Claus Povlsen (Eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX International Congress: EURALEX 2002: Copenhagen, Denmark, August 13-17, 2002, Volume 2. Kopenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi. 629-636. Moon, Rosamund (2014). Meanings, ideologies, and learners’ dictionaries. In: Andrea Abel, Chiara Vettori & Natascia Ralli (Eds.). Proceedings of the XVI EURA- LEX International Congress: The User in Focus. Bolzano: EURAC research. 85-105. Veisbergs, Aandrejs (2005). Ideology in dictionaries: Definitions of political terms. In: Henrik Gottlieb, Jens Erik Mogensen & Arne Zettersten (Eds.). Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Lexicography May 2-4, 2002 at the University of Copenhagen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 537-548. Reinhard Heuberger University of Innsbruck