“Who” Or “Which”? How We Learn To Talk About Animals
As most animal advocates know, humans often unconsciously distance ourselves from nonhuman animals – especially farm animals. One way we do so is through our language. In this paper, the author investigates the use of the relative pronoun “who” with nonhuman animal antecedents in learning material used by students of English as an additional language (EAL).
The paper also outlines some of the different ways in which our linguistic choices shape our world and relationship with other animals:
- Using lexical distinctions that treat humans and nonhumans as two separate entities when there are no major differences between them. For example, describing dead human bodies as “corpses” and dead nonhuman bodies as “carcasses.”
- Through erasure. This particularly happens in relation to identity categories. For example, when using “’which” instead of “who” when speaking of animals, animals are stuffed into a category of “things” with no sentience, feelings or personalities.
By using the pronoun “which,” the “unique nature and complexity of the beings being represented” are linguistically erased. This is yet another mechanism which divide humans and nonhuman animals into “us” and “them.” Those in power, with a consciousness and personality, and those without.
The author collected data from online learner’s dictionaries (a common reference resource for EAL learners) and a collection of graded readers (“easy reading” books used by EAL students). He looked at: 1) whether the relative pronoun “who” with animal antecedents was deemed acceptable in EAL reference materials, 2) if this construction even occurs in the reading materials, and 3) some qualitative elements of discourse, e.g. whether the animals were presented anthropomorphically, whether the animal’s sex were known/assumed, etc.
The study found that all dictionaries treat the use of “who” with nonhuman animals as unacceptable. While nonhuman animals are not explicitly mentioned, it is indicated that “who” is used with individual (human) persons/groups. And as we cannot expect students of English as a second language to reflect on the English terms for “person” and “personhood” in the context of animals, they will understand that “who” is restricted to humans, and that “which” is for all other animals.
In the reading material, however, “who” was used with nonhuman animal antecedents 13 times. For example: “I help horses who’ve got people problems” (Horse Whisperer) and “…only one other animal who can come…” (The Jungle Book). A previous study of mainstream text material also found frequent usage of “who” when referring to animals (Gilquin & Jacobs, 2006).
Thus, the learner’s dictionaries and the graded readers are not aligned in this respect. In terms of discursive elements triggering the choice to use “who”, the findings were inconclusive. For all we know, the decisions may be made entirely at the preference and beliefs of each language user.
So what does that mean for animal advocacy?
This lack of alignment between the reference and reading material is puzzling as most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive – meaning that our language use dictate our dictionaries rather than the other way around. Thus, “the rules do not match reality.” This contradictory usage must also confuse the students.
Although this study has a narrow scope, it does contribute to our understanding of how our relationship is represented by our language. Hopefully, future studies will dig deeper into human exceptionalism vs. biocentric language as well as consider other linguistic aspects of this topic, such as “he/she” versus “it.” This study also informs us that the entries in some dictionaries are not aligned with how some of us in reality speak of animals.
As this study, and other studies such as Faunalytics’ readability study make clear, our language is no doubt an important piece in the puzzle in the work of animal advocacy. As the author writes: “It’s hard to expect people to consider and care about things that are systematically erased.”