He prayeth well, who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

We were in the Language Larder the other day, arranging the staples in alphabetical order and contemplating whether we should follow the lead of Chicago and throw out those tins of foie gras. It was then we heard on the news that the current session of the US Congress was a lame duck one. This chance (or was it?) juxtaposition of Anseriformes sent us to the Visual Thesaurus to explore the world of bird-inspired language. In very little time, our imagination had taken flight.

It's a curious thing that in addition to the many literal kinds of duck, English has so many figurative species as well: the VT catalogs four of them, and they all fit the category of things that we'd rather see than be: besides the lame duck, there is the dead duck, the sitting duck, and -- perhaps least perilous on the face of it -- the queer duck. It is possible to imagine a sort of nightmare scenario in which one's status rapidly changed from one of these to each of the others, ending up inevitably as the dead variety; but we marvel that all of these expressions have settled on the duck as their vehicle -- especially when they can all either lead to or result from one's goose being cooked.

By nature we tend to quail from litanies of ill-considered puns and we have even been known to grouse when others swan about, inflicting them on us, but when it's time to talk turkey about feathered figures of speech, it really is quite remarkable that English has such a flock of them.

While certain bird-tropes have something complimentary or respectful to say about our feathered friends -- one can, for example, soar like an eagle, or watch someone like a hawk -- it seems that most avian analogies are somewhat akin to those for the duck: the bird ends up on the short end of the stick, serving only as the carrier of a disparaging message. Chicken is a case in point: all of its standalone figurative meanings are derisive, despite the chicken being such a harmless creature. The one notable exception is spring chicken, a prima facie commendatory thing to be, or to be called; except that the expression is typically used to characterize someone who is not one.

The turkey fares little better than its smaller cousin. It's "a person who does something thoughtless or annoying" or "an event that fails badly or is totally ineffectual." These deprecations, we suspect, are the product of nearly 400 years of turkeys appearing on holiday dinner tables, during which time they have been successively bred to please the human palate and maximize the profits of their breeders, at the expense of their better natures. When we hear that Benjamin Franklin would have preferred that the turkey be the national bird of the United States, we may be inclined to snort ironically, so low have the connotations of this creature sunk in our imaginations. Franklin's observation ran thus:

For in Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird [than the bald eagle], and withal a true original Native of America... He is besides... a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.

Though it may ruffle a few feathers to say so, we are fully in agreement with Mr. Franklin on this point, and we are sure that anyone, given an opportunity to observe this noble bird in its native habitat, would feel the same.

Is there a reason that so many of these similes are, both literally and figuratively, for the birds? We suspect that it's a phenomenon we discussed at some length in Issue No. 10, namely, the relentless anthropocentrism in language that tends to reduce any living thing that is not human to something inferior and wanting. This seems quite unfair in the case of birds, since their distinguishing capacity, flight, is the one that humankind has always most coveted.

What is perhaps more insidious, however, is the preponderance of figures of speech in English based on only two of the two dozen or so orders of birds: the earlier noted Anseriformes (broadly, waterfowl), and the Galliformes, many of whom have been noted already in this article. "Wherefore?" you may ask. Why should human culture, over millennia, have developed a much closer association with these two orders of birds than with others, to the degree that they have integrated themselves seamlessly into our discourse? We suspect that the blame for this, which humankind must bear, albatross-like, is simple: species from these two orders of birds have proven to be the tastiest. It's no accident we value the bird in hand over two of its cousins in the bush: the bird in hand is only a step away from being coq au vin. And of course it's laudable that the organization Ducks Unlimited exists to preserve the habitats of waterfowl, but part of the agenda of that organization is to insure that there will always be enough ducks to shoot!

In the end we did not make a decision about our tins of foie gras, and simply left them in the larder, between the fiddleheads and the fungi porcini. Here's a recent account of Chicago's foie gras brouhaha, in which there are new developments almost daily:


New DNA studies threaten to upset the long-standing apple cart of bird taxonomy, but it may be some comfort to know that even in the new system, fowl and waterfowl (called Galloanserae in newspeak) are one another's closest relatives and sisters to the remainder of all birds, who are to be called the Neoaves. You can read all about that here:


English owes the figurative use of "albatross" to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who we quote at the beginning of the article. If you didn't read The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in high school, or even if you did, it's a great way to spend a rainy afternoon:


Rate this article:

Click here to read more articles from Language Lounge.

Orin Hargraves is an independent lexicographer and contributor to numerous dictionaries published in the US, the UK, and Europe. He is also the author of Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions (Oxford), the definitive guide to British and American differences, and Slang Rules! (Merriam-Webster), a practical guide for English learners. In addition to writing the Language Lounge column, Orin also writes for the Macmillan Dictionary Blog. Click here to visit his website. Click here to read more articles by Orin Hargraves.

Join the conversation

Comments from our users:

Friday December 1st 2006, 4:27 AM
Comment by: Patrick M.
I am a French-speaking Belgian and I find your Thesaurus incredible!

it is simply the best tool I ever found to progress in my mastery of the English language. It should be (may be probably already is) widely used in language courses.

Thank you for that.
Friday December 1st 2006, 7:30 AM
Comment by: Norman A.
Friday December 1st 2006, 8:03 AM
Comment by: Amy D.
Use of "albatross" to Samuel Taylor Coleridge,

I think that came from the Bible, having a larger audience than Coleridge?
Friday December 1st 2006, 10:45 AM
Comment by: Roy A.
I wish to bring a use of the word 'duck' to your attention. Cricket is a game, the mention of which immediately brings feelings of antipithy or great pleasure to huge numbers of people. The fact remains, that Cricket is played on all continents and, arguably, by the second greatest number of people in the world - soccer being the first.

That all said, a batsman who is called 'out' before scoring a run in an innings, is said to have been 'out' - or 'dismissed'- for a duck!
Friday December 1st 2006, 11:35 AM
Comment by: Michael M.
It was a real hoot reading your article that was all for the birds, but I did think there might be a few things missing, and we wouldn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers now, would we? But then, if you had been up like me with the lark this morning, rather than larking about late last night, there might have been more to crow about. So, crane your neck for a while, and like birds of a feather, take a minute to listen without either railing or grousing about it.

I would have taken up my quill to do this, but the dealer managed to hawk me a computer, and being a real booby, I fell for it. At first the whole thing was hard to swallow, but it all seemed a bit if a lark, even tho I was totally loony when it came to the price -completely cuckoo, in fact. But then the old coot parroted off some numbers out of his catalog, sounding like a wise old owl; so , even tho he is totally pigeon-toed, and swanning about all over the place, he took me under his wing and I bought into it.

The question now, of course, is willet or won't it work? If it helps me to fly like a kite, then maybe. So, since one good tern deserves another, I'm just going to go change out of my birthday suit into my penguin suit, and go and warble about the whole thing to the better business bureau. They're all eagle-eyed birds of a feather up there, just a lot of boobies in fact, so it shouldn't be too hard to gull them with my story.

So, my sweet little turtledoves, hope you don't think I've been sniping at you over this, or else my goose would be totally cooked this time.

Regards from the frozen north, where the only feathered friends to be seen at this time of the year are the willow ptarmigan and ravens,

Michael Morse, Yellowknife NT
Friday December 1st 2006, 11:43 AM
Comment by: Krista C R.
It's good to see you contributing to the language, and to the love of language, but must you contribute to English's decline and fall as well? I have evidence that you're feeding one of my pet peeves, right in front of God and everybody:

"part of the agenda of that organization is to insure that there will always be enough ducks to shoot!"

Insure? Surely you jest! What sort of policy are they taking out? Don't you mean ENsure? Fie, fie!
Friday December 1st 2006, 4:15 PM
Comment by: Mary F.
Comment on previous (Krista's):
Fie, fie on you for 'fieing' on anyone!

Dictionaries are repositories-historis of any human uses of words throughout available written history -- NOT a Rule of Correctnesses or Rules of individual choices.

Check out "purposes of dictionaries" versus "Guides to Correct Grammars" - by dates. Guides are specific to individuals, groups, dates of publishing, etc.

Peace! Relax! Have Fun!
Friday December 1st 2006, 4:33 PM
Comment by: Valerie B.
I LOVE the Visual Thesaurus. I am an editor (69 years old). A young friend of mine first
introduced me to your Web site, but he felt that the format would be too "progressive"
for an old timer like me. He thought I would prefer the printed pages of my Roget's. Well,
I have news for him...although I still like my Roget's, I am definitely loving the Visual Thesaurus.
Valerie Bailey, San Antonio, Texas
Saturday December 2nd 2006, 12:52 AM
Comment by: Sean S.
I needn't duck for cover, now that I know so much about our feathered anseriformes and their closely related galliformes. Now that I can fly through the many pages on this site, learning more everyday about this the language that teases and tantalises my taste buds for our feathered friends.
Monday December 4th 2006, 9:43 AM
Comment by: anna maria B.
C'est chouette!
Tuesday December 26th 2006, 3:55 PM
Comment by: LEW
I loved Michael Morse's witty work of words.

Do you have a comment?

Share it with the Visual Thesaurus community.

Your comments:

Sign in to post a comment!

We're sorry, you must be a subscriber to comment.

Click here to subscribe today.

Already a subscriber? Click here to login.