silentactic (silentactic) wrote in linguaphiles,
silentactic
silentactic
linguaphiles

Hyponymy of beans

I was inspired to make this post after reading a recent post on lj-vegancooking. Here's a quote from the post:

"As far as beans go there are garbanzo, red, white and fava beans."

Now, in my dialect of English, garbanzo beans are known as chickpeas. I don't think of chickpeas as being a subset of beans, so I'd probably never write a sentence that read "chickpeas, fava and other beans". I think of beans and chickpeas as subsets of legumes, so I might say something like "chickpeas, fava beans and other legumes".


THE POLL QUESTIONS:

1!
Are these garbanzo beans or chick peas?

2! Using the example sentences as tests, which conceptual hierarchy is more natural to you?


(a) chickpeas/garbanzos are not a type of bean

legumes---> beans---> fava beans
---> cannellini beans
---> and other types of beans, etc.
---> chickpeas/garbanzos
---> lentils
and whatever else is a legume.
Are lentils legumes? I don't even know.


(b) chickpeas/garbanzos are a type of bean


legumes---> beans---> fava beans
---> cannellini beans
---> chick peas/garbanzos
---> etc.
---> lentils, other legumes,
etc.


3! Where are you from/what's your native dialect?


SPECIAL ADVANCED QUESTION!
4!
What does this say about the way a simple lexical difference can influence our conceptual hierarchies? Do you think it's just a linguistic difference or a conceptual one? Does hyponymy come encoded in words, or is it a natural feature of the world, or something else?
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 25 comments