Biased semantics forrightandleftin 50 Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages

The sinister story of a gauche deliverer and his corrie-fisted tribesmen: Ehud and the left-handed artillery

Bias against left-handers is well-documented and seen in the etymology of "left" and "right" in most languages. The subject of this study, Ehud, lived between the exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt and the establishment of the Israelite kingdom (c1200-1000 BC), at the transition between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age 1. His left-handedness was crucial to his deliverance of the proto-nation from tyranny, recorded in Judges in the Hebrew Bible. The description of Ehud as left-handed ('iṭṭēr yaḏ-yεmînô) is used once more in the Hebrew Bible, also in Judges, to describe the artillery of Ehud's tribe. The words apparently mean "bound/restricted in the right hand", sometimes interpreted as "ambidextrous". This is unlikely: ambidexterity is uncommon. The artillery used the sling with either hand, but Ehud used his left (śεm'ōl) hand to draw his sword. śεm'ōl, used throughout the Hebrew Bible, means left, without bias or derogatory implications. We suggest that 'iṭṭēr yaḏ-yεmînô was a right-handed bias towards left-handed people, but Ehud's left-handed victory was recognized as significant. Significant enough that (a) the language changed and the biased description was dropped in favour of simple description, and (b) the army changed with the development of left-handed slingers (artillery).

The importance of understanding function and evolution

Ocklenburg et al. (2020, Laterality 2020: Entering the next decade. Laterality) provided the field of laterality research with a stimulating research perspective for the coming decade, based on the current state of the art in both animal and human laterality research. Although this is paper takes many different approaches of laterality into account, we emphasize that the eco-evolutionary approach needs more attention. This concerns the question why organisms are lateralized in the first place, in other words, how does lateralization enhance the Darwinian fitness of the individual. We argue that laterality can be distinguished along four dimensions, and that each of them requires different ultimate explanations. Studying these functional and evolutionary explanations requires the development of ecologically relevant tests, adapted to the species at hand. It also requires experimental manipulation of laterality, testing the effect in (semi)-natural conditions on fitness parameters. Tools for such manipulation of laterality urgently require a better understanding of the developmental plasticity of lateralization, extending the field of evo-devo to that of eco-evo-devo. We also warn against seeing the minority in the distribution of direction or strength of lateralization as being a pathology as such minorities in biology can often be explained as adaptations by natural frequency dependent selection.