Lecture 15. Ethnobiological classification: nomenclature

Summary

In Lecture 12 we discussed the seven principles of categorization proposed by Brent Berlin. In this lecture we explore the five principles of nomenclature he proposes. Are they as universal as Berlin asserts?

Definitions

Berlin provides the following summary of the proposed five general principles of ethnobiological nomenclature:

1. Taxa of the ranks of kingdom and intermediate are generally not named. There is growing evidence that some covert life-form taxa may also be found. When such taxa are labeled, they often show polysemous relations with taxa of subordinate rank.

2. Names for plants and animals exhibit a lexical structure of one of two universal lexical types that can be called primary and secondary plant and animal names. These types can be recognized by recourse to linguistic, semantic, and taxonomic criteria. Primary names are of three subtypes: simple (e.g., fish), productive (e.g., catfish), and unproductive (e.g., silverfish). Secondary names (e.g., red maple, silver maple), with generally specifiable exceptions, occur only in contrast sets whose members share a constituent that refers to the taxon that immediately includes them (e.g., maple).

3. A specifiable relationship can be observed between the names of taxa and their rank. Life-form and generic taxa are labeled by primary names; subgeneric taxa are labeled, in general, with secondary names.

4. There are two well-understood conditions under which subgeneric taxa may be labeled by primary names, although these two conditions do not account for all of the empirically observed data. The first condition (4a) occurs when the name of the prototypical subgeneric is polysemous with its superordinate generic. Disambiguation of polysemy is accomplished by the optional occurrence of a modifier glossed as 'genuine' or 'ideal type'. The second condition (4b) occurs when nonprototypical subgenerics refer to subgeneric taxa of great cultural importance.

5. Ethnobiological nomenclature is semantically active in that the linguistic constituents of plant and animal names often metaphorically allude to morphological, behavioral, or ecological features that are nonarbitrarily associated with their biological referents.

References:

Atran, S. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards and Anthropology of Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2 (pages 15 – 46) Folktaxonomy".

D’Andrade, R. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 5 (pages 92 – 121) "Folk Taxonomy".

Hunn, E. 1976. Towards a perceptual model of folk biological classification. American Ethnologist 3:508-542.

Tambiah, S.J. 1990. Magic, Science, Religion and the Scope of Rationality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1 (pages 1-15) "Magic, science and religion in Western thought".

Whorf, B.L. 1989 [1956]. Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by John. B. Carrol. Cambridge, M.I.T. Press. Pp. 207 – 219 "Science and Linguistics".

Example:

Examples of the three types of primary plant names taken from four Mixe botanical lifeforms:

Mixe examples of the mapping of scientific species to folk generics and specifics, showing cases of one-to-one (equal) correspondence, overdifferentiation and underdifferentiation at the generic rank.

Based on the table of Mixe examples of the three types of primary plant names and the diagram of the mapping of scientific species to some Mixe generics and specifics, judge whether these examples provide support for or against Berlin’s contention that:

• generic taxa are labeled by primary names and subgeneric taxa are labeled, in general, with secondary names.

• subgeneric taxa may be labeled by primary names, when the name of the prototypical subgeneric is polysemous with its superordinate generic or when nonprototypical subgenerics refer to subgeneric taxa of great cultural importance.

Perspective for discussion:

"Hopi has one noun that covers every thing or being that flies, with the exception of birds, which class is denoted by another noun. The former noun may be said to denote the class (FC-B) – flying class minus bird. The Hopi actually call insect, airplane and aviator all by the same word, and feel no difficulty about it. The situation, of course, decides any possible confusion among very disparate members of a broad linguistic class such as this class (FC-B). This class seems to us too large and inclusive, but so would our class ‘snow’ to an Eskimo. We have the same word for falling snow, snow on the ground, snow packed hard like ice, slushy snow, wind-driven flying snow – whatever the situation may be. To an Eskimo, this all-inclusive word would be almost unthinkable; he would say that falling snow, slushy snow, and so on, are sensuously and operationally different, different things to contend with; he uses different words for them and for other kinds of snow. The Aztecs go even farther than we in the opposite direction, with ‘cold’, ‘ice’, and all represented by the same basic word with different terminations; ‘ice’ is the noun form, ‘cold’ the adjectival form and for ‘snow’, "ice mist"."

From Whorf, B.L. 1989 [1956]. Language, Thought and Reality.

BACK