S aipsniai / A icles 165
OLENA FOMENKO
Ta as She chenko Na ional Uni e si y o Kyi
ORCID id: o cid.o g/0000-0002-2614-0883
Fields o esea ch: c i ical discou se analysis,
sociolinguis ics, onomas ics, na ion b anding, cul u al s udies.
DOI: doi.o g/10.35321/all88-08
OF MICE AND MEN: PETA’S
ANIMAL-FRIENDLY IDIOMS
AS A STRATEGY AGAINST
SPECIESISM?
Apie peles i žmones: PETA gy ūnams
d augiškos idiomos kaip s a egija p ieš
ūšiškumą?
ANNOTATION
Language shapes ou unde s anding o animals and can in luence social a i udes and
beha io s owa d hem. Despi e he p og ess in animal wel a e, he English language con inues
o pe pe ua e p ejudice agains animals ha can jus i y iolence agains hem. To comba
linguis ic speciesism and p omo e non-disc imina o y language, People o he E hical
T ea men o Animals (PETA) p oposed animal- iendly al e na i es o eplace speciesis
idioms. Examples o hese al e na i es include eed wo bi ds wi h one scone and b ing home
he bagels, sugges ed ins ead o kill wo bi ds wi h one s one and b ing home he bacon. This
s udy uses linguis ic and c i ical discou se analyses o examine he co pus o 166 wo ds and
ph ases comp ising o iginal and animal- iendly idioms. The s udy objec i e is o assess he
po en ial o PETA’s al e na i e exp essions o eplace disc imina o y language. The pape
a gues ha while some animal- iendly al e na i es migh gain public accep ance, o he s
may be oo un amilia o con i ed o be widely adop ed. Addi ionally, hese exp essions
could back i e and unde mine he animal igh s mo emen by making i appea adical o
ou -o - ouch. Despi e he limi a ions, PETA’s campaign has he po en ial o aise awa eness
abou speciesism in he English language and p omo e non-disc imina o y language use in
applied linguis ics, especially among young lea ne s and non-na i e English speake s.
KEYWORDS: speciesism, PETA, animal- iendly idioms, linguis ic disc imina ion,
c i ical discou se analysis, applied linguis ics.
OLENA FOMENKO
166 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXVIII
ANOTACIJA
Kalba o muoja mūsų sup a imą apie gy ūnus i gali pa eik i socialines nuos a as i elgesį
su jais. Nepaisan pažangos gy ūnų ge o ės s i yje, anglų kalba is da ska ina ūšių disk i-
minaciją, ku i gali pa eisin i smu ą p ieš gy ūnus. No ėdama ko o i su ling is iniu ūšiš-
kumu i ska in i nedisk iminacinę kalbą, o ganizacija „People o he E hical T ea men o
Animals“ (lie . „Žmonės už e išką elgesį su gy ūnais“) ie oje ūšies požiū iu disk iminuo-
jančių idiomų pasiūlė gy ūnams d augiškus al e na y ius posakius. Ta p šių al e na y ų y a
„ eed wo bi ds wi h one scone“ i „b ing home he bagels“ ie oj „kill wo bi ds wi h one
s one“ (lie . ienu šū iu nušau i du zuikius ‘a lik i du eikalus ienu ka u’) i „b ing home he
bacon“ (lie . pa neš i namo lašinių ‘uždi b i, pa neš i a lygį’). Remian is ling is ine i k i ine
disku so analize, šiame y ime siekiama iš i i 166 žodžius i azes, suda ančias o iginalias
i gy ūnams d augiškas idiomas. Siekiama į e in i PETA pasiūly ų al e na y ių idiomų po-
encialą pakeis i disk iminacinę kalbą. S aipsnyje eigiama, kad no s kai ku ios gy ūnams
d augiškos idiomos gali sėkmingai įsi i in i isuomenės gy enime, ki os gali bū i pe nelyg
nea pažįs amos a nena ū alios, kad bū ų plačiai p iim os. Be o, šie posakiai galė ų neigiamai
pa eik i i pakenk i gy ūnų eisių judėjimui, pa e čian jį adikaliu a a i ūkusiu nuo ealy-
bės. Nepaisan galimų ūkumų, PETA kampanija u i po encialą ugdy i isuomenės sąmo-
ningumą apie ūšiškumą anglų kalboje i ska in i nedisk iminacinę kalbą aikomosios kalbo-
y os s i yje, ypač a p besimokančio jaunimo i žmonių, ku iems anglų kalba nė a gim oji.
ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: ūšiškumas, PETA, gy ūnams d augiškos idiomos, ling is inė
disk iminacija, k i inė disku so analizė, aikomoji kalbo y a.
1. INTRODUCTION
In Decembe 2018, an Ame ican animal igh s o ganiza ion People o he
E hical T ea men o Animals (PETA) spa ked c i icism a e u ging English-
language speake s o eplace speciesis idioms wi h animal- iendly al e na i es.
PETA a gued ha exp essions kill wo bi ds wi h one s one, b ing home he
bacon and bea a dead ho se we e no di e en om acis o homophobic ph ases
and, he e o e, had o be eplaced wi h al e na i es, such as eed wo bi ds wi h
one scone, b ing home he bagels, and eed a ed ho se (PETA 2018). While he
ini ia i e ecei ed mixed esponses, i aised impo an ques ions abou he
ole o language in ein o cing o challenging speciesism and he po en ial o
language change o p omo e he non-disc imina o y ea men o animals.
The p esen s udy uses he case o PETA’s animal- iendly idioms o add ess
he issue o linguis ic speciesism. The objec i e o his s udy is wo old: i s ly, o
c i ically examine he animal- iendly idioms p oposed by PETA, and secondly,
o assess he po en ial o he al e na i e exp essions o eplace speciesis
language. The s udy uses a c i ical discou se app oach o assess he s eng hs and
S aipsniai / A icles 167
O Mice and Men: PETA’s Animal-F iendly
Idioms as a S a egy Agains Speciesism?
limi a ions o PETA’s sugges ed exp essions o unde s and hei e ec i eness
in challenging and eplacing speciesis language. In doing so, his esea ch
con ibu es o a be e unde s anding o he ole o language in pe pe ua ing o
challenging speciesism. Ul ima ely, he s udy seeks o con ibu e o c ea ing a
mo e inclusi e and equi able language by challenging and ans o ming how we
speak abou and ela e o non-human animals.
The esea ch da a comp ise he speciesis exp essions ha p omo e iolence
agains animals selec ed by PETA and he al e na i e ph ases sugges ed by he
o ganiza ion o eplace hem. Mo e speci ically, he s udy analyzes a co pus o
animal- iendly idioms comp ising 166 exp essions (88 o iginal English wo ds
and ph ases and 88 al e na i e ones) p esen ed on PETA’s o icial websi e.
The o ganiza ion has upda ed he lis since he o iginal wee published in
Decembe 2018 (PETA n.d.).
The pape begins wi h a b ie accoun o he o igin and de ini ions o he
e m “speciesism”, ollowed by an o e iew o app oaches o speciesism in
linguis ics. I hen p oceeds o analyze he al e na i e animal- iendly idioms
sugges ed by PETA and hei po en ial o eplace speciesis language. Finally,
he pape discusses he implica ions o PETA’s ini ia i e o applied linguis ics,
pa icula ly in aising awa eness abou speciesism among English-language
speake s and p omo ing non-disc imina o y language use.
2. THE ORIGIN AND DEFINITIONS
OF SPECIESISM
The e m “speciesism” was coined in 1970 by B i ish psychologis Richa d
D. Ryde as a way o desc ibe disc imina ion agains non-human animals in a
pamphle c i icizing animal expe imen a ion (Ryde 2000: 5; 2010). The wo d
was inspi ed by simila e ms such as “ acism” and “sexism”. A he ime, Ryde
was a clinical psychologis a he Wa ne o d Hospi al in Ox o d and a membe o
he Ox o d g oup, which included uni e si y acul y and s uden s who belie ed
ha disc imina ion agains o he species was i a ional and unjus , much like
disc imina ion based on an indi idual’s ace o sex.
Since hen he concep o speciesism has gained widesp ead accep ance and
is equen ly used in a ious domains beyond animal expe imen a ion. In his
seminal wo k Animal Libe a ion philosophe Pe e Singe de ined speciesism as
“a p ejudice o a i ude o bias in a o o he in e es s o membe s o one’s own
species and agains hose o membe s o o he species” (Singe 2015, Chap e 1,
pa a. 13). Singe ’s de ini ion d aws om Je emy Ben ham’s p inciple o equal
conside a ion o in e es s, which applies o animals based on hei capaci y o
OLENA FOMENKO
168 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXVIII
expe ience eelings and sensa ions. Singe a gues ha animals should be ea ed
as independen sen ien beings whose in e es s ough o be conside ed he same
as hose o people.
Singe ’s book p o oundly impac ed he animal igh s mo emen and inspi ed
Ing id Newki k, who ounded and became he p esiden o PETA. Newki k
desc ibed Singe ’s wo k as a “philosophical bombshell” ha o e e changed
he con e sa ion abou ou ea men o animals (Newki k n.d.). Fu he
acknowledging he powe ul e ec o Singe ’s wo k, animal igh s ad oca e and
au ho Joan Dunaye p omo ed he concep o “speciesism” in he linguis ic
wo ks. Dunaye ’s seminal book Animal Equali y: Language and Libe a ion (2001)
p esen s a aluable esou ce o anyone in e es ed in animal igh s and language.
Schola s and p ac i ione s om a ious ields ha e joined philosophe s in
p omo ing animal igh s wi hin hei espec i e domains. Biologis s, ecologis s,
and e e ina ians ad oca e o be e animal wel a e p ac ices, while lawye s and
policymake s wo k o es ablish mo e obus legal amewo ks o p o ec animals.
As a esul , animal igh s a e becoming a mains eam conce n in many domains,
wi h businesses, go e nmen s, and indi iduals all aking s eps o add ess issues
ela ed o animal wel a e and e hics (Linzey, Cla ke 2004; STN 2012; Kalo 2017;
PH 2018; Linzey, Linzey 2019).
Despi e he g owing in e es in speciesism, he e was li le e o o cla i y
i s meaning. Acco ding o Osca Ho a, an animal e hics schola , he e is only
one kind o speciesism, despi e di e ing iews and posi ions (Ho a 2010: 243).
Ho a and F auke Albe smeie (2020) u he a gue ha he lack o a clea
de ini ion o speciesism has caused a poo unde s anding o he concep . As a
esul , he e m has been employed in ways ha may display a speciesis bias.
Upon conduc ing an exhaus i e analysis o exis ing de ini ions o speciesism,
Ho a and Albe smeie ha e p oposed a “wide and e alua i e” de ini ion
o he e m as “unjus i ied conside a ion o ea men o hose who a e no
classi ied as belonging o a ce ain species” (Ho a, Albe smeie 2020: 1). This
app oach iews and ea s speciesism as a o m o disc imina ion, simila o
o he disc imina o y p ac ices, such as acism and sexism. Fu he mo e, his
de ini ion has implica ions o unde s anding speciesism as a se ious e hical
issue, which equi es g ea e a en ion om he public and schola s.
3. DEFINING “SPECIESISM” IN
DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS
The e m “speciesism” gained ecogni ion in he English language and
was o icially included in he Ox o d English Dic iona y (OED) in 1985
S aipsniai / A icles 169
O Mice and Men: PETA’s Animal-F iendly
Idioms as a S a egy Agains Speciesism?
(Ryde 2017: 77). The ODE de ines speciesism as “disc imina ion agains o
exploi a ion o animal species by human beings, based on an assump ion o
mankind’s supe io i y”, highligh ing he ole o exploi a ion.
O he majo English language dic iona ies also ha e en ies on speciesism,
bu hey p o ide a ying de ini ions o he e m in B i ish and Ame ican
English. Fo ins ance, he B i ish de ini ion o he e m in he Collins Dic iona y
desc ibes speciesism as “a belie o humans ha all o he species o animals a e
in e io and may he e o e be used o human bene i wi hou ega d o he
su e ing in lic ed.” In con as , he Ame ican de ini ion in he same dic iona y
desc ibes speciesism as “disc imina ion agains o exploi a ion o animals based
on he assump ion ha humans a e supe io o and mo e impo an han all o he
species” (CD). These di e ing de ini ions highligh cul u al a ia ions in he
in e p e a ion o he concep , wi h he B i ish English de ini ion emphasizing
belie s and he Ame ican English de ini ion emphasizing p ac ices and beha io .
Mul iple specialized dic iona ies, encyclopedias, and handbooks wi h en ies
on speciesism o e a ying de ini ions o he e m. The Ox o d Dic iona y o
Philosophy de ines speciesism as “ he imp ope s ance o e using espec o he
li es, digni y, igh s o needs o animals o o he species” (Blackbu n 2016: 453).
In A Dic iona y o Psychology, speciesism is desc ibed as “ he in insic supe io i y
o he human species o e all o he s, o en accompanied by an assump ion ha
human beings a e he e o e jus i ied in exploi ing non-human animals o hei
own ad an age” (Colman 2015: 717). Simila ly, A Dic iona y o C i ical Theo y
de ines speciesism as “[a] p ejudice o excep ionalism exhibi ed by one species
( ypically humans) wi h ega d o ano he species ( ypically animals in gene al)”
(Buchanan 2018). The Encyclopedia B i annica p o ides a sepa a e en y on
speciesism in he philosophy and eligion sec ion (Duignan 2010) and b ie ly
men ions he phenomenon in se e al o he a icles.
Despi e i s signi icance in a ious ields such as philosophy, psychology,
sociology, and c i ical animal heo y, speciesism has no ecei ed adequa e
a en ion in linguis ic dic iona ies and encyclopedias. Majo English language
dic iona ies and encyclopedias, such as The Camb idge Encyclopedia o Language,
The Camb idge Encyclopedia o he Language Sciences, and The Encyclopedia o
Applied Linguis ics, lack sepa a e en ies o men ions o “speciesism”. While
i is b ie ly ouched upon in he En i onmen and Language a icle unde he
Themes in Language and En i onmen subsec ion o he Encyclopedia o Language
and Linguis ics (Mühlhäusle 2006: 204), no comp ehensi e in o ma ion on
linguis ic speciesism o any de ini ion o he e m is p o ided. The omission
o such en ies limi s he accessibili y and unde s anding o speciesism wi hin
linguis ic s udies.

OLENA FOMENKO
170 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXVIII
4. SPECIESISM AS A LINGUISTIC
PHENOMENON
Linguis ic speciesism is a o m o disc imina ion o bias in language use ha
a o s o p i ileges ce ain species, ypically humans, o e o he s. I in ol es
language ein o cing he belie ha humans a e supe io o o he species and
ha hei in e es s and expe iences a e mo e impo an o ele an han he
expe iences o non-human animals. Linguis ic speciesism can mani es in a ious
ways, o ins ance, h ough an h opocen ic assump ions, de oga o y language,
speciesis slu s, o exclusiona y language ha dis ega ds o ma ginalizes non-
human animals. I can also mani es in he ep esen a ion and po ayal o
animals in language, li e a u e, media, and o he o ms o communica ion.
Linguis ic speciesism is a opic o ongoing deba e and s udy wi hin linguis ics,
animal s udies and e hics as i aises ques ions abou language, powe dynamics,
and e hical conside a ions in human-animal ela ionships.
Michael Halliday, he ounde o Sys emic Func ional Linguis ics, is conside ed
he i s o in oduce he concep o speciesism in Applied Linguis ics. In his
a icle “New Ways o Meaning: The Challenge o Applied Linguis ics” (2006)
p esen ed a he Nin h Wo ld Cong ess o Applied Linguis ics in 1990, Halliday
a gues ha social and poli ical issues a e linguis ically cons uc ed and ha
humans’ special posi ion is s uc u ally in eg a ed in o he language sys em.
In es iga ions in o speciesism in Ecolinguis ics we e signi ican ly in luenced
by Halliday’s c i icism o he language sys em. Wi hin his ield, esea che s
p ima ily ocus on discu si e ep esen a ions o animals, aking a c i ical
app oach owa ds he opic (Cook, Sealey 2018). No able s udies in his a ea
include wo ks by A an S ibbe (2003; 2006; 2012), Joan Dunaye (2003), Alwin
Fill, Pe e Mühlhäusle (2006), and Reinha d Heube ge (2003; 2007).
Guy Cook and Alison Sealey (2018) classi ied all s udies on linguis ic
speciesism in o h ee main ca ego ies: (1) esea ch p ima ily abou language and
inciden ally abou animals, (2) esea ch p ima ily abou animals and inciden ally
abou language, and (3) wo ks ha ocus on bo h language and animals.
Fu he mo e, hey ound ha mos esea ch on linguis ic speciesism alls in o
he i s ca ego y, wi h he language being he p ima y ocus and animals only
inciden ally add essed. Howe e , hey a gue ha i is i al o include animals as
a cen al ocus in language s udies because linguis ic ep esen a ions o animals
can ha e eal-wo ld implica ions o hei ea men and wel a e.
Animal Equali y: Language and Libe a ion by J. Dunaye (2001) emains one
o he mos signi ican wo ks on linguis ic speciesism. Th ough he analysis o
common ph ases and e ms used o e e o animals, such as beas s, c i e s, and
S aipsniai / A icles 171
O Mice and Men: PETA’s Animal-F iendly
Idioms as a S a egy Agains Speciesism?
li es ock, Dunaye c i iques how language ein o ces speciesism and disc imina o y
a i udes owa d animals. She also examines he use o language in a ious con ex s,
including scien i ic esea ch, ad e ising, and popula cul u e, o demons a e
how he language we use shapes ou a i udes and beha io s owa d animals.
Fu he mo e, Dunaye emphasizes he impo ance o linguis ic awa eness and
encou ages eade s o challenge ha m ul p ac ices and p omo e language ha
e lec s a mo e compassiona e and espec ul iew o non-human animals.
Ano he comp ehensi e s udy in o linguis ic speciesism is Animals E ased by
A. S ibbe (2012). The book highligh s he disappea ance and e asu e o animals
om ou consciousness, no only in he sense o ex inc ion bu also in e ms o
hei ep esen a ion h ough discou se. S ibbe (2012: 3) a gues ha discou ses
ep esen ing animals in disc imina o y and inhumane ways a e “des uc i e”
and sugges s c ea ing al e na i e discou ses ha p omo e econnec ion o
animals and na u e.
O he s udies ha e ound ha animal names used me apho ically in gene al
discou se can ein o ce speciesism. In addi ion, wo ds whose “co e” meaning
is o name an animal a e o en used in his way o e e o human a ibu es
and alues, as animal me apho s o humans a e p e alen in gene al discou se
(Cook, Sealey 2018: 317). And ew Goa ly (2006) ound ha such me apho s
a e o en pejo a i e, sugges ing a desi e o dis ance ou sel es om animals
concep ually and emo ionally. Animals wi h indi idual names can be classi ied
as “pe s” o “membe s o he amily”, while a m animals a e less likely o be
named, bu when hey a e, hey a e o en known o hei “cha ac e ” (Cook,
Sealey 2018: 317). Fu he mo e, p o e bs o en depic nonhuman animals
being killed o used by humans, making such ac s seem accep able due o he
speciesis belie ha humans ha e he igh o exploi animals o hei pu poses
and enjoymen (Gue a a Labaca 2017: 4).
Howe e , esea ch on animal idioms has p ima ily ocused on lexicog aphic,
psycholinguis ic, neu olinguis ic, and compu a ional pe spec i es, simila o
he analysis o o he idioma ic exp essions (Espinal, Ma eu 2019). Cook and
Sealey (2018) emphasize he necessi y o c i ically examining how animals a e
ep esen ed in language and discou se. They also highligh he impo ance o
in e disciplina y app oaches in ecolinguis ics ha uni e schola s om a ious
ields o gain a mo e comp ehensi e unde s anding o he in ica e ela ionships
be ween language, cul u e, and he na u al wo ld. The e o e, i is essen ial o
c i ically analyze how animals a e po ayed in language and explo e al e na i e
ways o speaking abou hem ha challenge ha m ul s e eo ypes and p omo e
g ea e empa hy and espec . Such c i ical analysis can help o iden i y and
add ess ins ances o speciesism in language and encou age he de elopmen and
adop ion o non-disc imina o y language use.
OLENA FOMENKO
172 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXVIII
5. THE ANALYSIS OF PETA’S
ANIMAL-FRIENDLY IDIOMS
People o he E hical T ea men o Animals (PETA) is a well-known
Ame ican nonp o i o ganiza ion ha has been a ocal ad oca e o animal
igh s in a ious indus ies such as ag icul u e, clo hing, and en e ainmen .
The o ganiza ion is known o i s hough -p o oking campaigns ha u ilize
slogans, images, and idioma ic exp essions o p omo e language change and
challenge socie al no ms a ound animal c uel y.
PETA’s ini ia i e, also known as he “B inging home he bagels” campaign, o
eplace disc imina o y idioms wi h animal- iendly al e na i es is one example
o he o ganiza ion’s ongoing e o s o p omo e a mo e compassiona e wo ld
o all animals. PETA launched he campaign on i s social media pla o ms in
Decembe 2018. The ini ia i e has become one o PETA’s mos publicized and
con o e sial campaigns.
As pa o he campaign, he o ganiza ion sugges ed al e na i e exp essions
o common idioms such as kill wo bi ds wi h one s one, bea a dead ho se, and
b ing home he bacon. In pa icula , PETA ecommended using eed wo bi ds wi h
one scone, ee a ed ho se, and b ing home he bagels. I explained he easoning
behind he campaign by s a ing ha wo ds ma e , and ou language mus e ol e
as ou unde s anding o social jus ice e ol es. The o ganiza ion’s message was
clea : emo e speciesism om you daily con e sa ions. The campaign ecei ed
a s ong media eac ion, wi h The Washing on Pos epo ing in Decembe 2018
ha he wee had o e 3,000 e wee s, 9,000 likes, and 1,500 commen s, and
as he a icle s a ed, “I ’s sa e o say people we en’ oo h illed” (Wang 2018).
The ini ia i e also ea u es a se ies o pos e s and educa ional ma e ials wi h
speciesis exp essions and hei animal- iendly al e na i es. The campaign
is aimed a young lea ne s because PETA belie es ha child en a e mo e
ecep i e o new ideas and, he e o e, mo e likely o adop animal- iendly
language. The o ganiza ion ad oca es he adop ion o al e na i e idioms among
young indi iduals o os e a mo e compassiona e and espec ul socie y owa ds
animals (PETA 2018).
Since 2018, PETA has expanded he lis o al e na i e idioms. The “Comple e
lis o animal- iendly idioms” cu en ly con ains 166 exp essions, including 88
o iginal wo ds and ph ases and 88 al e na i es p oposed by PETA (PETA n.d.).
The o ganiza ion con inues i s campaign on i s o icial websi e and Twi e ,
in i ing he public o c ea e new animal- iendly idioms.
Be o e analyzing PETA’s animal- iendly exp essions, i is impo an o add ess
a e minological issue ega ding hei use o he e m “idiom”. In linguis ics,
S aipsniai / A icles 173
O Mice and Men: PETA’s Animal-F iendly
Idioms as a S a egy Agains Speciesism?
idioms a e de ined as “ ixed mul i-wo d exp essions ha concep ually encode
non-composi ional meaning” (Espinal, Ma eu 2019). In o he wo ds, idioms
a e ph ases ha unc ion as a single uni (Ay o 2020) o con ey a igu a i e
meaning ha canno be in e ed om he li e al meanings o he indi idual
wo ds. The e o e, i is wo h no ing ha no all en ies labeled as “idioms” by
PETA con o m o he s ic de ini ion o he e m. Fo example, single-wo d
me apho s such as badge , pa o , and dog igh on PETA’s lis a e no idioms in
he adi ional sense o he e m.
Howe e , Raymond Gibbs (2007) challenges he adi ional iew o idioms
as “bi s and pieces o ossilized language” (p. 702) and a gues ha he adi ional
app oach ails o accoun o he me apho ical hough p ocess o con empo a y
language speake s. Acco ding o Gibbs, s udying idioms p o ides a unique
oppo uni y o unde s and he ich and lexible na u e o na u al language and
human hough (Gibbs 2007: 721).
Ano he issue ha needs o be conside ed is he na u e o idioms. Acco ding
o John Ay o (2020), idioms a e cha ac e ized by seman ic opaqueness and
ixedness, meaning ha hei componen s a e ypically ixed, a leas o some
deg ee (Espinal, Ma eu, 2019), and di icul o subs i u e. Replacing keywo ds
in o iginal idioms aises doub s abou whe he PETA’s p oposed al e na i e
exp essions a e ue idioms o should be classi ied as quasi-idioms. Howe e ,
his s udy does no aim o de ine hei s a us, as i may be explo ed in u u e
esea ch. Fo con enience, his pape uses he e m “animal- iendly idioms”,
widely ecognized by he public amilia wi h he campaign and equen ly used
in he media.
While he easons behind PETA’s selec ion o 88 speciesis idioms a e no
clea , i is s ill impo an o c i ically examine he al e na i e exp essions and
hei po en ial impac on shaping a i udes and beha io s owa ds animals. Some
o hese exp essions explici ly p omo e iolen beha io owa ds animals o a e
disc imina o y, such as mo e han one way o skin a ca , like a chicken wi h i s head
cu o , o shoo ish in a ba el. O he s cas animals in nega i e conno a ions o
use he names o animals o desc ibe nega i e human ai s, o ins ance, chicken
ou , bull in a china ac o y, o s ubbo n as a mule. On he o he hand, idioms snail
mail o back he w ong ho se a e no inhe en ly disc imina o y. Howe e , i can be
a gued ha some idioms, such as hose men ioned abo e, may con ibu e o he
no maliza ion and pe pe ua ion o ce ain disc imina o y a i udes and beha io s.
The al e na i e exp essions p o ided by PETA use a ious linguis ic s a egies
o c ea e animal- iendly idioms. The mos popula s a egy is a subs i u ion,
whe e he o iginal wo d e e ing o an animal is eplaced wi h an animal-
iendly al e na i e. Fo ins ance, kill wo bi ds wi h one s one was eplaced wi h
eed wo bi ds wi h one scone, whe eas mad as a Ma ch ha e was eplaced wi h
OLENA FOMENKO
180 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXVIII
STN – Smulewicz-Zucke G ego y R., Co nell D ucilla, F anklin
Julian H., Kend ick Hea he M., Mendie a Edua do, Linzey And ew,
Ca alie i Paola, P eece Rod, Ben on Ted, Thompson Michael J., Fox
Michael A., G uen Lo i, Acampo a Ralph R., Rollin Be na d, Slo e dijk
Pe e 2012: S ange s o Na u e: Animal Li es and Human E hics, Lanham: Lexing on
Books.
Wang Amy 2018: PETA wan s o change “an i-animal” sayings, bu he In e ne
hinks hey’ e eeding a ed ho se. – The Washing on Pos . A ailable a : h ps://
www.washing onpos .com/science/2018/12/05/pe a-wan s-change-an i-animal-
sayings-in e ne - hinks- hey e- eeding- ed-ho se/.
Apie peles i žmones: PETA gy ūnams
d augiškos idiomos kaip s a egija p ieš
ūšiškumą?
SANTRAUKA
Šiame y ime nag inėjamas o ganizacijos „People o he E hical T ea men o Animals“
(PETA, lie . „Žmonės už e išką elgesį su gy ūnais“) pasiūlymas pakeis i nusis o ėjusias
anglų kalbos idiomas, ku ios ska ina smu ą p ieš gy ūnus, gy ūnams d augiškomis al e -
na y omis. Išanaliza us 88 gy ūnams d augiškus žodžius i azes ling is inės i k i inės
disku so analizės me odu, y ime siek a į e in i kampanijos s ip iąsias i silpnąsias puses.
S aipsnyje kons a uojama, kad no s PETA siūlomos al e na y os, ikė ina, nepakeis gy ū-
nus disk iminuojančios kalbos dėl sa o di b inumo i kul ū inio a o ūkio, inicia y a u i
eigiamą po eikį aikomajai ling is ikai i š ie imui. Kampanija plečia sup a imą apie gy-
ūnus disk iminuojančią kalbą i agina žmones eng i su gy ūnais susijusių disk imina-
cinių posakių. Be o, PETA inicia y a kelia klausimą apie p ieš gy ūnus nuk eip os kalbos
a ojimą kaip nusis o ėjusią no mą i ska ina k i iškai mąs y i apie žodžiais pe duodamas
žinu es. No s ši kampanija gali nea neš i skubių pokyčių, ačiau ji u i po encialą paska in i
nedisk iminacinį kalbos a ojimą aikomosios kalbo y os s i yje, ypač a p besimokančio
jaunimo i žmonių, ku iems anglų kalba nė a gim oji.
Į eik a 2023 m. gegužės 4 d.
OLENA FOMENKO
Ta as She chenko Na ional Uni e si y o Kyi
60, Volodymy ska S .
01033, Uk aine, Kyi
[email protected]