conklin folk taxonomies
DESCRIPTION
linguisticsTRANSCRIPT
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 1/24
PROBLEMS IN
LEXICOGR PHY
Edi ed
y
FRE W HOUSEHOLDER
and SOL S PORT
ublished by
INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOUMINGTON
MOUTON Go. T ~ EAOWEHENETHERL NDS
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 2/24
yHarold C Canklin
a l e
University
0 t r oducti
on
Many lexical,
problems
are of
conrsidesable
importance to 1331
guirsts and
ethnographers.
i t h
the
interaetar
of
bath groups in
mind, would
like
to
discuss
certa in a~ p ec ts
f
folk
claersificatfan
which
I feel
deserve
more rigorous ~exfcogxapM c ttention than
they have typically
rsc ived,
n
dequ te ethnographic
descriptian,
of the c u b r e
[Goodenough
19571 of a
particular
society preeuppaaets a detailed
analysis
of the
communications system
and
of the
culturally defined eftuatfontu in
which
all
relevant
distinctfans in that system
occur. his
re-
gard accurate
knowledge
af both
the
grammar
and
Iexfcun
of the
local spoken language con~titutas minimum requbxament. When
the
ethnographer
works In an
area for
which dequ te statementar
about the
local
language are unavailable in publf
shed suurcee,
his
f irst and often continuing task fa
the?
canertructfon of set of valid
rules fur the
hterpretation o
the local language.
n his
phona-
Logical and grammatical
analysis
of
new
speech form s, he may
find
many helpful madeke
n
the
dstrcriptive linguistic literature.
attempting, however,
to account
o x
the
obligatory semantic
relations inherent fn his lexical carpus he
may
not be
61
fortu-
nate
While extant
dic
anarise a.nd vocabularies
do
provide
glasses
and
definitional
information,
many of the
nontrivial,
and
often
essential* memantic
and
contextual relationships
obtaining
among lexical item8
are often either
neglected or handled in an
i m pr e c i ~ e
nd
unsystematic
manner [cf Mewman 954:86
1
For formal linguistic analysis it f a necessary that utterances
be acceptable and interpretable grammatically,
For ethnographic
(including lexicographic)
analyeis
u t t e r a x e
r
must also be ac-
captable and
interpretable
semantically.
White an
appeal
to
meaning
does not h p r a v a grammatical ana lysis,
neither
does
an
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 3/24
intuitive
appeal
to morphos p t a c
i
farm yf eld
the
most
appropriate
analy~is f
meaning
and reference
see
1.5 below).
n fact, an
adequate grammar may
generate ~sernantically nacceptable prop-
ainitiuxla [Chamsky 1955:149* 1957:103-41 cf Landar 1960:352;
Frake 196f:f.13], Results ~f same recent atternpt~ o develop
non
intuitive pracadurss
fur
the evaluation
of
the
grammaticakxese
and
meaningfulness of
sentences
[e.g., Maclay and Sleator
19603
cf
Jaos 19581 indicate
that
this Wference
is
of considerable impax-
tancs. The
distinction
between these two aspects of the
analysis
of speech
is
apparent
even in the
treatment
of isolated forme.
the
course
of several years of linguisti and ethnographic
fiel d work
among the Hanun60 in the Philippines, it became
abundantly
evident
that providing such
segments as
ah, tabikuq,
isarnparzmsiarknr-
qaUstun,
and
lgda, balaynutl. tagraZxlarn, qf
run-
piidiq
each
with the
same
gloss (d is thct ) kind of plant
was--while
adequate for certain syntactic
purposes--most unsatisfactory
for
the taak of semantic analysis.
Had Inat modified
this
procedure,
would
have ended
up
with
more
than
2 lexical
iteme
[including
~ a v e ~ a l
undred
referential synonyms)
each
labeled identfcaliy
While
employing glosses Xfke
teas and tobacco in
the
f irst
two
cases
above) proved useful
in
labeling
familiar objects, the
m a -
jority
of these culturally
~dgnificzant
Hanuncia designations
referred
to entities
which to m e
were
quite
unfamiliar,
In t h i s type of
ethnographic context ans inds
many
instances where the problems
faced
traditionally by the cumpflsra
of
bilingual dictionariesr
are
caneiderably m a g d i e d [ N i b
19581
For
the s t h a g r a p h ~ r , he
eemtsntic structure
of
euch folk classification
is
of paramount
significance
Upon hi^ analysis
of it
depend^
the
accuracy
of
many crucial
sttatements about
the culture being
described,
Prob-
lems af amlyzing and presenting such structures
fn
a succinct
faahfon may
be
of interest even
to
lexicographers who
work
only
rehtfvfaly familiar
cultural
surroundings.
1 .
Folk classltffcatfon
In the lexicographic treztbent af
folk
classification, we are
concerned primarily with 1 ) the identification of relevant eryn-
bc t f c oagments, 2 ) the identification
o
fundamental
semantic
d t a r
fn
~pec i f i c ontexts, 3 )
the dslhaatian of
aigrzificant
a s t e of
semantic
d t s
in
particular domains,
and
(4) the
translation
(and
markrfng) of
these
un f ta
so
that important semantic
relationships
wdl1 not be obecured, discusering different system8 of clasei-
f y h g
xssgmsntrs of the
natural and social
environment,
the
neutral
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 4/24
Lexicographical
Treatment
of
Folk Taxonomies 121
term segregate [Canlclin 19541
serves as a label
for any terrni-
nolagfcally-distjslgui ~skbed i a F conventionally-named)
grouping of
objects.
1 . 1 Linguistic
structure. The
shape and
cambinataria1
structure
of the
linguf
etic forms which designate folk
segregates
are
irrelevant,
n
a
atrict
sense, to
the analysis of the
system of
classrification
itself I ., to the aernantic Btructure [CanMh
19573,
Labels
and categoriaa
can change
independently
and there-
fore must be analyzed separately,
O n he other hand* a knowledge
of the linguistic structure invalved is e s ~ e n t f a lor understanding
the
principles of
folk nannsnclatur
e; and In
working
out this atruc-
ture, clues for isolating folk
segregate
labels and far
eliciting
information
about such
segregatebit
may be found,
1,2. Lexical uni ts and
coartexta,
A full lexical statement (f .e ,,
n
adequate
dictionary) should
provide
a
emantic
explanation,
as wel l
as
phonological and grammatical identffication* for every
meaningful
farm
whom signification
cannot be inferred
from a
knowledge of anything
elee
n the language, t f s convenient to
refer
to these elementary lexical
u d t a
as
lexemes [cf.
Swadesh
19461 Newman 1954;
Jorden
955; Goodenough 19563
although
other terms
have
been suggested e, g,, idiom [Mockett
1956 ;
cf.
Householder 1959:508-24; Weinreich 1960:337]). o far
as
Iexernfc
~ h t ~
s
concerned,
the
marphusyntactic or aserurned
etymological
relations
of
a
particular
linguisti form ar e incidental; what
is
essential
is
that
i t
meaning cannot
be
deduced
from
its
gram-
matical structure. Single
morphemes
are necessarily lexemes,
but f o r
palymorphemf canetructiuns
the dsciaion depends on
meaning
and
use (Implying
an analysis of
the constraint8
imposed
by the semantic
structure, and the
specuication
of
relevant
h
mediate
contexts),
Formal segments
such
as black
bird VB. blackbird) or
in the
old
house
vs. in
the do~house) an be excluded from the lexical
statement because they
re
predictable,
meaningfully,
In that
they can be considered
semantically
endocentric [Nida 1951:12-3,
1 9 5 8 ~ 2 8 6 ;
cf.
Chaa 1 9 5 3 : 3 8 5 ] .
Put another
way,
those
construe
tiaras which are never
semantically
exocantric
may
be
classed as
nonlexemic
forms
e. g., sunburned
face,
long pink
strand),
Prob-
ems
do arise*
however, in
degrees of lexemalc exocentricit).
[Nida f958: 86] and,
again, i caution is not
exercised in
distin-
guishing
clearly between
grammatical, and
semantic
criteria.
The
compounds firewater
and
silverff
ah,
for
example,
are endoc
entric
morphosyntactical3y
either
on an attribute-plus- head
basis
or on
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 5/24
A Problemer in
Lexicography
the
perhaps
stranger grounds
of
formal selection
rules
[Lees
1960:128, 1S8J),
but ssmaxxUcaUy they
are
as exocentric s vodka
and moth*
he
study
of
bsegrsgate
Iabels n folk
classification, and
despite some of the difficultfes of technical definition noted, I
find
it
ttusefd to distinguish by explkft
semantic
criteria
h o
inds
of
lexsmic unitst unit ry
laxemas
no segmenta of
which
may desig-
nate categorietn which
are identical with, or superordfnats
to,
those designated by the
farms
in queetfon) and composite
lexemes
(one
ox mare aegmenta of which,
under
spec3fisd conditions,
may
[a] esignate
the ieama
categorfesr
a those designated
by
th forms
in quastfun [abbreviation], or [b designate catsgaries
supesordfnate
to
thaae
designated
by the farme in
question [generalimatfan],
see
2. 2 .2 .
)
Unitary Iexemes may
be either
s imp le
(unsegmentablef
or
coxnplm
(segmentable),
These distfnc tions
are
exemplified
below:
Unitary
e3imple Uxrita
xy
c
omplex
Composite
oak
paiaun oak
white
oak
pine
pfxlsapple
pitch pine
B O ~
grandson
son-
n-
aw
dart
(an
artifact)
darts [a game) Baldwin
apple
Jack
jack-in-the-pulpit
Port-orford cedar
dandelf
on
black- eyed Susan black-crwvned
night
heron
caterpillar (larva) cat*a- eye
caterpillar tractor
For contrast, consider a few similar but
nanlexemic
forms: cheap
pine, ine and oak, black-eyed Joe, dart (plural of dart [Wockett
7
956t229X . For a native speaker,
such
distinctions cause
little
concern,
but
in
new linguistic and
cuJturaX environs
difficultiess
may arise.
F o r =ampler on
fir s impsction,
the fallowing partially- iden-
tical ~an u n 6aorms [ConMin 19541might appear
to
belong to a
simple
paradigm
(they could all be recorded durislg a
conversation
about
ric
a
cultivation
nd weeding problems):
paray:parap
atta tail
paray. miyah
immature
wild pZdaq
(plant)
3 pZray qigkantufi
kind
of
wild
sedge
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 6/24
Lexfcagraphical
Treatment
of Folk Taxonarnias
kind of rice
* P ~ O ~ Qne ( e b e ) ~ice
that
rice
The gloaaas,
however,
indicate that asvsxal type@of
lexical
units
may be hvolved.
Are
there
any formal linguistic clues?
Each
of
the six
farms
is
easily segmented into two rnorphs,
as
h v e
indicated
by the use
o
do t s
Loo~e-joining, phonemically,
is
repreeented
by
a
single
raised
period.
E3xcept
for the closely-
joined
doubling
in
item number
-,
the f a m a
in this
~ e trovide
no
obligatory intonational ar
junctural
contra sts J?urthermore,
each
fo rm
occurs in many identical frames such a e filmy ti
--
8
is fare)
certainly
dffferant, Thurs*
or
most
of
he
seman-
tically
di dnc t
types
of
joining
eruggeatsd
by
the
g los~ les , here
are
no phaaalagical
c l u s ~
nd
few,
if
any, immediate, formal indica-
tions, ( A f u l l syntactic tittatemant
covering
the structure
of
corn-
pounds
would
separate
out aome of these forms n gram-
matical
grounds
[cf. Lees I96OJ
Given
the
necesaaxy semantic
Infarmation,
however,
these
distinctions can be noted carvily or
lexicagraphical
purpoBes by
rewriting
the
former ars
follows:
paramray
pgray-rn5yalr
p i
ray-qi~kantuh.
~ i x a v .
fhud
Thie procedure clearly mark^ 1,
2
and
3
semantically
exocentxic
- - -
unitary lexernes;
4 as
a
composite lexerne; and and as
non
lexemic
rsemanticolly andacentric
canstructltan-rr the Wtial Zexerns
of
which is
rsupsrordhatsly
related to 4
Minimally, forms - -
3 , 4, Sa, and 6a could be labeled kinhof plant, but by not at-
- -
tending
to
essGtial semantic distinctions this
type
of short cut
would obscure such important contrastive relations as the mutual
exclusion
of coordinate categories
1 : [ p a 9
mplied--but not
covered--by the specific growth sta;e term number
2 : :
5a or
-
- -
ba ,
and the poeaible total
inclusion
o eubordinate categories 4
by
a/6a; but not 1, 2, or
3
by Salba . Statements about
such
Fe
- - -
lations, hinted at in soma i l o sse and definitions,
may
be dam-
anstrated only
by
systematic pairing
in
minimal,
and
relatively
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 7/24
controlledJ linguistic and semantic contatcs,
1 3.
Lexical
sats and
domains.
n many ways
it can
be said
h t
the
more
discrete the phenomena referred to the simpler the
task of
treating the
aed~ocfated erminology
in a XezcicograpMcaUy
adequate
maaner [cf
Wallace
and
Atkinsn 19603
3f this is true fur
particular lexical items it
is
equally true far t h
eemantically
structured
sats
which such
items may cornprirre [Frake 19611
M b h a U y r
a
lexical
set
consist^
of
aU
rssmaatically
contrastive
lexemss
which bn
a
given, culturally
relevant context @hats e c l u -
sively
at Leamat one defining feature [Loxtaebury 1956:61- 2]
The
semantic
range
of
all
~ u c h
examea
defines
the domain
of
the la
ical set The initial e s t a b f i ~ h e n tf domain boundaries
while
wfdsiy
recogniz;ed aa
an
ideal goal, is often a very difficult
task
[cf Voegelin and o e g e l h 19571.
Effective
eliciting
frames
and
procedural t e s t s unad to deteranhe
such
boundaries
and canvhcing
demunstratioaz~ f
their
Intracdtural real t y
axr
e
subject
not often
d i ~ c u ~ s e d
n the Linguistic or
ethnological literature.
Some of the
essentf k
factors involved in
t h i ~
ype
of analysis are treated
briefly
below
under levels 2 . )
and
dimensions
3 . )
of
con-
trast.
In general, the
number and complexity of
boundary problems
increaaea
as one moves f rom the investigation
of lexfcal
domains
within
a
particular language
to an
attempt to umatchn
he
domains
of different languages [ ~ h m a n 9 5 3 ; cf. uine 1960~26 -791 . This
doe not.
however,
pr ecluda rigorous contrastive analysis.
1-4. Translation and semantic
structure.
W i t h
sw excep
fons, the lexical
items employed
3n
ay~tema
f folk classification
alwaya
comprise
a
segment of the
everyday vocabulary
of the
particular language [Gonklin
9573
The rules governing the
ab-
Ugatoxy
semantic
relations
among
the
categories
in
such
lexical
sets are t h u s
to
be determined, evaluated,
and described
far each
language, Such
rules
camat
be
prescribed
merely
on
the baisis
of familiarity S another system
with the
concrete dsnotata of
he
sets
fnvulved,
In the case of folk botany, f o x example, this
meaas that a
local system
of plant cfasslffcation
cannot
be
de-
scribed
accurately by
attempting to obtain
only vernacular
* agufvalsnta for
botanically
r
cognf
zed s p e d s
Translati~n
labela (glasere~) re frequently necessary, but they ghould be con-
sidered neither as defbitfons nor as
exact
equivalanta [Launsbury
1956:163;
POT
an attempt to
use
acsonyms
s
a partial mnemonic
solution
to
such translatian problem s,
see
Landar
et
al
1960:
7 This well- es tablished
and
perhaps obvious semantic
prfn-
ciple
is
s u m e t h s s forgotten
where
the aasumed absolute
nature
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 8/24
Lexic ographical T eatsrnent of
Fofk
Taxonomies
125
f cross- lhguist ic
s e n ~ e )
f
scientific
names or
of
other
long-
established traditional dlstbctionsl
n
certain
Western languages
is hvo ived
16brxlaxz
953;
cf, Simpsan l961:11].
1.5.
Syntactic
vs,
semantic
structure.
Implicit
he
pre-
ceding remarks is theasaumptian that the relation between formal
linguistic
(syntactic,
in
the
general, semiotic sense [Morris 19461
structure
and 'semantic structure need not be
ialarnarpkfc
fltouns-
bury
1956:
1891.
f
this assumption
is
taken
seriouslyr a
full
dic-
tionary
should state explicitly
the
necessarl and
sufficient con-
ditions far
the unambiguous structural interpretation o each
in-
cluded
lexerne
in the
context of the
total
'lexicon
as
well as
in
that
of
the
grammar. While
su h
coverage h r rarely
been achieved,
even for relatively
small lexical domains, J feel that recognition
of this goal ha8 considerable
relevance
for
this
f
scusaian.
A
brief illustration
may
help to indicate the kind
~f
crucial lexical
data
that
are often ignored, sspscia'bly where meanings
are
either
assumed
on
the
basis
af
semantic
patterning
in more
familiar
language, or where
they
are treated only partially as in the
der-
ivation of
definitianaX
statements from tranpilatioml lab els ).
C ~ a s i d e
the
following situation
(which,
with minor differences,
I
have
encountered on a numb er
of
occasions): a, woman, whose
brother x)
and
husband {y) are
both
named
Juan, has sont also
named Juan a) and a
daughter who
in turn
has
a,
son named Pedra
P). The genealogical situation is
diagrammed
in Ftg.
I we
can
ignore
the broken
lines for a
moment).
Two fluent
speakers
of
English, F a
Filipino whose
first language
was Tagalog, and
A,
a
native speaker of
a dialect of American English, bath
b o w
Pedro and.the specified
members of
hits family. The
fact
that
one
of
he
Juans x, y or 2; h s died i~
known
only
to
A
or
F)
who in
turn wishes to relate t h i a circumstance to his
friend
F
far
A).
A
~ctraightforward tatement cornpfe t h g
the
sentence
P'
Juan
died
would
seem
to do the
trick;
and, depending
on
the circum-
tances,
one
of
two
unitary
lexemas
(grandfather,
uncle)
might
be
used
to
fill the blank:
Pedro's Grandfather Juan
died.
Pedro's
Uncle Juan died.
However,
if A uses Grandfather F
may
ask Which grandfather ?
i F
uses Uncle,
A
may ask Which
uncle? indicating a kind of two-
ay ambiguity which
can
only be resolved by recognizing
that
despite
their unque
t ionabf
e grammatic alfty and rnorpho
syntactic identity,
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 9/24
Figure 1 A genealogical illustration o
contrasting
s y ~ t e m ~
o
kinsfiip classfficatfon
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 10/24
Lexicagraphical Treatment sfFolk
Taxonomies
f
7
A's
sentences
1 and
2
and
F s
sentences 1 and differ asman-
ticallyz
Sentemc e Ki nterm used
K Z n ~ p a f a ~ , ~ c l m d a d ( P x = p a r t n t s )
A1
Grandfather Y
(Pr
a)
Fl
H
x and y (PrFa, PrPrBx)
A2 Uncle
x
and
e
(PrBr,
PrPrBr)
F2 i t
;
(Pr r)
This, of course,
reflectls
only a small part of a very fundamental
strut
tural
f rencs in
Central
Philippine
and
North
American
systems
o k l n ~ h i p
lassification: univers l termhologfcal
rec-
ognition of
generation
in
the
f
oxmer
vs
.
uxlliva
r
aal
terminological
recognition of degree
of
collaterality in the latter
(these
wo ulimits
to
the
lexical extension
of kin class
msmbershfp
are
indicated on
the kinship diagram in Fig.
1
by the horizontal and diagonal broken
lines, re psctive3y , Although any careful investigator might
learn
this
systematic distinction after a few days of field work, the
principle
goes
unaccounted far n
the
relevant and extant bilingual
dictionaries,
The
restrictions Involved
in
this
il1ustration axe
just
as obligatory and ins scapable within the re
epective
semantic sy-
stems represented as
is
the distinction of singular VEP plural
in
English grammar,
2
Levels of
coxltraet
Folk tategoriee
within
the
same
domain may be related in
two
fundamentally different
ways:
by inclusion,
which implies
separate
levels of contrast, and
by
excluaiuni which here applies only with-
in single-level contrastive sets. There may also be ~lubcategosic,
or componential, intersection (see 3 below).
In studying semantic
relationships, as among folk
categories, it
h s often been
dem-
onstrated
th t
likenes s
gically
and edgnlffcantly
h p l i s
dff-
farence [Kelly l955:303-51,
It
Pe also pertinent,
however to
note
that
total.
antrast complete complementary erxcLusion)--whfc h
logically
relates such segregates
aa ant
nd ship or cough and
pebble-
is
less important than re trictad contrast within the
range of a
particular semantic subset
(compare the
r latioan with-
in
and
b a t w e ~ nhe partial
sets robin
wren sparrow; spaniel
errier
poodle:
and bird 3 .
henwe
speakofthe
category
dime eing included in
the
category coin e mply that every dims
l a
also a (kind of) coin--but
not
necessarily the reverse,
Further-
more
when
we
state
a )
that
the category
dime ontrasts
with
that of auartar and (bl
that
the catetrorv coin
contrasts
with
that of
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 11/24
Problems
in
Lexicography
bi l l we are
speaking of
two
instances
of
relevant
mutual exclusion
t
two
different levels of
c e n t r a ~ tCanklin 1 9 5 5 ,
1951 ;
Frake
19611.
Such
alignments
of folk categories
are common to
all
Tan-
guages,
though
systematic
indicatione
of
these
relationships
are
rare even iss the more
detailed
monolingual dictionaries.
2,1,
Hierarchic
structure.
Where the
articulation
between
succes~ive
evela,
each consisting of
a
s e t of contrastive lexical
u n i t s ,
i ordered vertically
by
inclusion such that each mono-
lexemic category at one level is totally included in only
one
category
at the
next
higher level, we can
speak of
a lexical
hierarchy*
The
two
xes of
such
structure
involve
the horizontal differentiation
of contrastive
but
coordinate
categories and
the vertical increase
of generafization OX spe~ i f i ca t ion esul thg from
ascent
to super-
ordhate (including) or descent to subordhate (Included)
levels,
raspectiveiy
[Gregg
1954;
Gonkl in
1957 ;
Beckner
1959 ;
5 5 - 8 0 ;
Frake 1961?117],
These axes
ss
fixed and camat be merged or
interchanged,
not
can the succession of levels be modified. Dime
irs
not contrasted
with
coin but
t the
same level
wit?i
nickel,
uarter, penny,
etc.
Subhierarchies
of
varying depthan are often
diacernfbPe within
larger hierarchic structures.
The
depth
in
levels) of
the subhierarchy
including
the categories
hawk,
pigeon,
nd
starling is less than that of the
subhierarchy
including hawk,
horse, and crocodile; i e,, the
fir
s t three
segregates
are included
in a
superordinate
category at a lower level than that of
the
Beg-
rcgate
ultimately bcludPng hawk,
or s and crocodile. The
embedding of shallow
subhierarchies
within increasingly deeper
ones
i~
characterfatic of many
systems of folk classification.
2 2 Folk taxonomy,
A
system
of
monolexemica~ly-labeled
olk
segregates related-byhierarchic inclusion is a folk taxonomy;,
egregates included
fn
tsuch
a class$ficat%on
re known as folk x
CaaMh 957; cf, Lawrence
95 ~53;
Sfrnpsan
1961:X9],
Same
of
the additional requirements of modal or regular taxonomic
aystems
[Woodger
1952:201ff,; Gregg 1954; Backner 1 9 5 9 : 5 5 - 8 ;
Simpson 196ll are:
I ) at the highest level,
there
1s only one
maximal (largest, imique)
taxon
which
includes aU
other taxa in
the
system; 2 )
the number of levels is
finite and
uniform through-
out
the sys
ern; 3 ) each taxon belongs to only one level;
4) there
is
no
overlap
ti.
e,, taxa at the same level are always
mutually
exclusive),
Fa& systems vary
widely wi t respect to these more
specific
*requirements,*
but the presence of hierarchically ard
ranged though less
@regularw
olk taxonomies is probably universal.
Mast af the examples
given
h r
are taken
f rom
folk botany, but
similar
iUustratiuras could
be taken
from
other
domainr~
Thomas
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 12/24
Lexicagraphical Treatment of F a k Taxonomies
12 9
1957; Frake
19611.
Several important differences distinguish
folk
taxa
from
t he
taxonomic groups of biological
syrstematics
[Canklfn 19571 Simp-
son
196
1
The farmer
usually
relate
only
to
Xacakly
relevant or
directly
obse~vable
hanomeata,
They a r e defined by criteria
which may
differ
greatly f rom culture
to culture.
The
number
and position
of
levels
of
contrast may change f r om one
sector
of
a folk system to another. There are no formal
rules
for the
aarnancfatural
recognition ax rejection of tgxa [cf Lawrence
1951
213-51,
though new groupings may be
added
productively
with
con-
siderable ease, 1In respect to any
particular
loca l biota, there is
no reason to expect the folk taxa to match those
of
systematic
biologyw-either
fn
n u m b e r
or in
range.
The
~a r run6o lassify their
local
plant
world, at
the
lowest
terminal)
Xeval
of
contrast,
into
more than
1800
mutually exclusrfva folk
taxa,
while botanists
divide the same flora--in terms
of
sgacfee--into less
than
1300
scientkfic taxit
2 . 3 . Special
problems. Although
they cannot
be discussed
here at length, a
number of
lexicographically
important problem s
encountered
in the analysis of
folk
taxonomies
include:
1)
Multiple and
interl c
king
Mar
archies. Unlike
scientific
taxa folk
segregates may belong shultaneoutilly to sevexal
di -
tin t hierarchic structures. The same segregates may be cXasrsed
as
terminal
categories
In
a
taxonomy baaed
an
fo rm
and
appear-
ance
and
also as terminal or nonterrninaf categories
in
another
taxonomy based on cultural treament e , g , , marphologica1ly dia
t inpi shed a d s of f loral segregates vs
functianak
categories
of
plants
as
food cultlgens, medicines,
ornamentals, etc.
[Conklh
19541. Subhierarchies
may
be interar tfculated in numerous ways
[ e ,
g. Soas 1956:296 71 and
there is always
the potentiality
of
partial inclusfan a x domain overlap.
2) Fxtrahferarchic relations. Not al l folk categories are
directly
related by
class inclusion
ax
contrast
within the range of
a particular superordinate
category.
For example,
numerous
difficulities may arise i lexemes designating separate ontogenetic
stages
or
parts of
member~ l
f particular segregate8 (see
1.2.
above) are not distinguished f rom hierarchically arranged
folk
taxa
[Chao 1 9 5 3 : 3 8 7 9 ;
Conklin
1954, 1957; Frake 1961 Part-of
part-whole)
relations are
often complicated
by ambiguities
[Magel
1961:381 3J
nut
encountered
in the analysis of khd-of class in
clusion)
relations (e. g. the eegregates plant,
stemt s p are not
elated taxonomically
like
plant, t ree,
elm).
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 13/24
particular folk
taxonomy, a rsfngle
taxon may be labeled by
pho-
aernically distinct forms, a s fn the case of
minor
dialect variants
r abbreviated terme [see 1,2.], we may apeak.uf referential syn-
o n p s or synonymouer lexemes); e. g r fb M , ive* fiver,
ive-spot, five-dollar bill,
n
many such cases,
it
may be dif-
ficult
to
demonstrate
taxonomic
identity and the
absence
of
catsgar ic overlap.
Alternative
s u b ructurfng
of the subhierarchy
may be involved.
Phonemically
identical
(homonymous)
Xexemes
may dersignata
separate
taxa of different ranges of genera1ia;atian
at su essive levels. Such
situatione
e.g , ,
animal
and man
in
he following
partial
contrastive set : animal.
vs. plant a n h a p
vs.
mad, m a d
s .
woman [cf.
~rake 1961:11?-91) re
not
un-
common
but they require careful.
contrastive pairing
and testing
far
inclusion
at
each
level involved.
Sdmilar
steps
must
also
be
taken
in working out problems concerned with diertinguishhg
polysemy from homonymy [ e l l s 1958:662- 3; cf,
Chamsky 1957:
9 5 ; Garvfn
1960:14?].
4)
Types
of contrast,
Paired
folk taxa
of some lexical aub-
setsl
are
related
by
simple, bh ar y, segre gate opposition. Many
larger sets and same dyadic ones jnvalve
important
t ypes a£ ae-
marttic contxast other than antanymy fcf. Lyons
1960:622
3 Struc-
turally,
bar
example, taxa may be
contra~tedn
aeria l , cam-
pletmentary,
or
d i sc
antinuous arrays. (For aubcategoric
attribute
relations,
eee
3.
below.)
2 4 Folk vs
botanical taxonomy.
Ideally* a
th
study of
nterrelated
l a i c a l
setla
in
folk
taxonomiao, priaxity
and
pref-
erence should be given t o
uxlaahously-agreed-upan, obligatory
dlstinctians
in
epecffied contexts. When
terated
by meaaa of
what
are
es~ential ly
ruchl
experiments--by
pairing and
contrasting
nsgatfvely and
positively--one
should be able
to
construct a model
(i,
e.,
a theoretical
statement)
of
the hierarchic
sltructure each
that aa~ertioner
of
membership and inclusion
in any of the implied
b x a are uaanimously and unambiguously
denied
whenever such
assertions are incongruent i ,e., meaningless w i t h b the s y ~ t e m )
[cf.
Joos X958:65],
The
assertion Poodles,
dogs,
and animals
are
kinds
of snails would
thus
be rejected by speaksra
of
m y
dialect of English-and an
vary
easily specified semantic groundis.
i t h i n a particular
universe
of discourse (a
taxonomic domain)
how can axle construct a nontrivial
modal by
means
af
which only
semantically acceptable, congruent propositions may
be
generated ?
An example
from Hanun6
folk
botany may
serve as a
partial
amwer.
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 14/24
Lexicographical Treatment of Folk
Taxonomf
as
131
In a
fjtituation
where
one
aaunoa
armer
wishes
to draw an-
other's
attention to a
particular fndividual pepper bush
Q, he
may,
of courme, attempt
to
describe some of Q's unique attributes with-
out naming
the
plant. Much
mare
often,
however,
even
n
the
caurae of
a unique
descrfptian, he wffl resort t o the
use of one
ox more
of at
least sight Lexical uni t8 each of which might complete
the frame rnSluq* g h d a p g
'Hey, take
a
look at this
I
ut at
different levels of
contrast
(allowing
for
different degrees
of deb~ired r required specificity):
kuwaq
'entity'
i.
e., something
that
can
be
named)
Ur kgyuh
'plant'
not a
rock,
etc.)
IV gilamnun 'herbacsou~
lant' (not
a woody
plant,
etc,
V ladaq 'pepper (plant)' (not
a
rice plant,
etc
VI
Xgda-
balapun ous yard pepper
(plant)'
not
a
wild
pepper
p l a t )
V U
lZda.baiayaun, 'hauseyardchilipepper
maGrat (plant)
not
a
hou~eyard reen
pepper
plant)
VU3
lzda.
ba3apun- Ucat-penis houseyard
mahGrat.
chfli pepper (plant)'
qiitfn-
kutiq
(not
a
member of any
of five
oth r
terminal
houseyard
chili
pepper
taxa
such as fgda.
alaynun,
ma rat,
tghud-manuk.
the
U ~ ~ ~ k '
-spurn variety).
i t h i n
th damafn of
EXanm6o plant taxonomyl f rom ldvel W
down, and specifically within the range of izdaq, from level V down,
conversations recorded
during
many taixnfJar sdtuatfone
would
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 15/24
ultimately
provide the
lexicographer
with
fifteen
unitary and cam-
posfta
lexsrnss (including a terminal s e t of eleven pepper plant
names) arranged
at
four levels in the fo rm of
a
discrete subhier-
archy
Fig, 2 .
Specification
below the level
of
the termbal
taxa
noted in the diagram Fig,
:l-11),
and
hence outside
tMs
system
of ciaes3licwtiun, may be pr
avldsd
only
by
semantically
endoc
antric
cons
ructiona de c ibing individual plant variations, on which u-
m n h a u s accord i e rare
and
unpredictable.
n this particular case
folk
taxa 1 5 14,
and
I 1
happen to carraspond
rather
clarsely
with
the scientific taxa
Capsicum,
C. amuum L., and C
frutescens
L.,
respectively;
but
the
twelve remaining folk
taxa involve distinctions
not recognized as significant botanical
subspeclet
s
by
taxonomic
botanists who have classified
the
same flora
Structurally speaking,
however, same
of
the
most important patterns of
semantic contrast
fnvtllve ot only
the
hierarchic separation
of
these varied, Xower-
level , folk axat
but also
a
large
number
of
nonhferarchic relations
governed
by
aublexemic class Intessection (see 3-21.
Although such
relatiana cannot
be diagrammed
with
the taxonomic implications of
Fig,
2*
nor
can
they
be
treated
effectively
at
al l
in
terms
of
our
hierarchic model,
they
should
aevertheles~
be
of
cansiderabZe
interest to
linguists
and others
concerned with sylsteme of
folk
claesificatian,
3. Dimenaionhn
of contrast
At any given level within a well-defined folk-taxanarnfc
aub-
hierarchy, the relations obtaining among
three
or
more coordinate
t ae may
invalve
varying
dirnensioax~,
or kinds of subcategory con
trast.
The
conjunction o these dimension^ x more
precisely of
the
values
(or
spsclfic
attributes
fcf.
Bruner
at
al,
l956:26-30
along t ie
several
dimensions, define the categories fIlv~lvedwithin
an ss
entially
paradigmatic i. e., n ~ n h i e r a x ~ h i ~ )ubsystem
[Lounsbuxy 3956 1960~27-8; for a
discussion of
the
structurally
similar
though
more typologicalXy-oriented procedures
of attribute
gpaca substructiaa and
reduction
see Greenberg I957 and Laaslrsfeld
19611.
3.1. Nunhie
rarchic
structure, Such rnultidimens ional
con-
trasts
do
not imply,
and
M e e d
do
ot allow, the
ordering of the
resultant categories
by hierarchic
fnclurion. These features sf
nunhierarchic
semantic
structures,
while
not
always
sharply
a s -
thguished
f rom
the
principles
U s r e n t
in
hierarchic aystems,
have
been
recognized and carefully
analyzed
in
a n u m b e r of
domains,
notably
in
kinehip [Guudea~ugh
951:BZ-
11O
1956 ;
Lounsbury 1956;
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 16/24
Figure 2
A
segment
of
Hanun6
plant
taxonomy.
All folk t x included in the taxon lidaq are
indicated.
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 17/24
5kake
1960 ; Wallace and Atkfns 1960 ] , color [CanMin 1955 ;
cf.
Lemaberg and Roberts 1956; Landar t
al,
19601,
orientation [ m u
gen 19571, disearaa [Frake 19611 and, beglarnhg with Jakobsan'a
pioneering
effffarta,
Sn
sruch
partly
rnodulatianal
[Jaoe
958
t QX
para-
digms
a8 case
and
pronoun
arystems
[Jakobson
1936;
Sabeok
1946;
Harris
1948;
Latz
1949; Wandesly
19521Auaterlitz 19591, The
folkawing -mpie of multidimensional contraat
fn a
regular para-
digmatic ~tructure
will
illustrate
some
of these
pointer.
3,2,
Significant claasificatian
vs,
catafagufng,
Xf,
omitting
t he high- level, wide- ranging h w a g F e e 2.4) w e st all t he
nun60 personal name subatitutest
occurring
fn variaust
frames
such as m5luqr qhda pag bhwat ni
'Hey,
take a look
at
what
did
(here),' we will inFariably end up
with
an exhaustive
and mutually
qcl ur ~ive exical
s i t cannrieting
o
juat
efght
d t s (in
each
cage xepreaenting
a single
morpheme),
Arranged in the
l e a ~ t
eaningful type of
catalogue,
an alphabetical index (as in a
ictionary), these
lexical un ts are:
dah
uh
ih
uh
ah
-
tam
yah
YE ?
'they'
'I'
*we8
'youY
'we WQ
'we all'
'he,
shef
'you all*
The @hapee provide little that i a ~trructurally u g g e a t i v a ~ut
the gloestes do indicate th t n orderbng in terms of efght
Utradi-
tfonal distinctions along three
q u a i -
semantf dheaeaiuns
1)
first person
:
nscund
psraon
:
third person
2 ) singular : dual : plural
3 ) axclu~live : inclusive
might be attempted,
But the re~ul t ing
pplied structure
is
hardly
elegant, aconamfcal, x convincing:
ku 1s
tab
ld
mfh
lpe
-
-
tarn Ipi
uh
63 - - -
yah
3 s
w
yuh 2p
dah 3p
U a
close examination
is
made of
the disttinctive contrasts in
volved, nut in
terms o
labels but in terms of
actual,
minimal,
obligatory differences, a m re satisfactory, economical, and
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 18/24
Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies
135
semantically
verifiable solution is reached.
The
neces ary a d
sufficient conditions for defining
each
of the
eight categories de
pend
on
the
regular
intersection
of
sfx
components
which comprise
three
simple
oppositions
minimal
membership
aonmfnimal membership Ma)
inclusion
of speaker
e x c ~ u ~ f u a
f speaker S 1
inclusion
of hearer
excluaian of
hearer H .r
doh
y u h
m i h
f urn
y o
muh
k u h
f a h
m i
i
SH
MS
SH
M
SA
M S H
MSR
M S H
Figure
3
Paradigmatic structure
of
a ~ a n u x 1 6 o p r o n o m ~ ~
es .
These
relations can be represented in l i d t
or
diagrammatic form
Fig.
3 . Even
witbout
hrther
elaboration,
the basic semantic
atsucture of
t is
lexical set should now
be
clear,
h
assing, it
may
be
noted that
pronoun
systems
Tagalog,
nocano
[Thomas
19551,
Maranao [Mclcmughan
1959 ]
and B o r n e
other
Philippine lan
guagea exhibit very airnilar,
if not
identical, obligatory aemantic
r
lationahips
This
example
also
flluatratesl
a
vary
important, though perhaps
less
obvious, character1stic of paradigmatic relation8
t one
level
in
taxonomic subhierarchy
n
contrast
to
the nancommutat;Ive
re
lations o class inclusion governing the larger taxonomic sysltem
i t h i n
such
a contrastive
lexical set { st
in Fig,
31, ordered by
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 19/24
class inter section*
the constituent
categories cannot be arranged
in
a
taxaaamic hierarchy. Any
arrangement
e. g.
a circular, block,
or
branching diagram) superficially appearing ta contradict this
statement w3ll prove on
closer
inspection either a) to constitute
what the
biolagi~ts
all a
ke y
[Mayr et a1, 1953: 162-8; Simpson
961313-61 es~entfaf ly
nother
k h d o
cataXogue
or
finding l i t
ordered by
successiva-
-but not nec essar ily taxonomically
signHi-
cant--dfcHatamous exclusion* or b)t be baaed on same
other ar-
tific
ially
imposed, and hence semantically nonsignfficant, clas ai-
ficatfan.
4, Lexicagraphic
treatment
The
ways in which
th problem~l
mentioned n
t h h
paper may
be
treated
in
bilingual dictioaarie8 especidly ethnographic
dic-
tionaries, a r e
practically
unlimited.
That very few of the possi-
bflitiera
have
bean
explored to date f jl
df
sappofnting, but not dis-
couraging*
There have been a
number
of new attempts t expanding
the analytf
c
procedures
of
deexcriptive
linguistic
a
to
include more
rigorous, thorough, and theoretically
rewardfng
analysist o
B e
mantic stru ture
[e,
g.,
Goodenough 1956; Launabury 1956; Nida
1958; Frake
196
J
Despite th s more encouraging
signs,
:
realize th t
mast
dictionaries will continue
to
be
organized
prisna-
riiy as
alphabetical
indices.
Suggestions
regarding
the
ways
in
which
structural.
s rnantic information especially
with
reference
to folk taxonomies) might be mare adequately covered in
such
dic-
tionaries would include, wherever
pasaible:
1) consis nt marking
of each
entry
as
t
its status as
a
lexical unit
and
taxon,
its
im
mediately subordinate
taxa
and
oupsrordhate taxon, and all
caar-
dfpate
taxa included with t in this next
higher taxon
simple dia-
riti s
nd abbreviations can be devised for syeternatic
use fn
compilation
and
checking);
2 ) differential marking of translation
labels
and
of
definitions; 3 ) concise
indication of
distinctive at-
tributes which defhe categories belonging
to analyzed
lexical sets;
4) systematic crass-referencing to maximal
taxa
in a l l
major
subhierarchiea,
to referential
synonyms, and
to
al l
units involved
in
categaric
overlap;
and 5 ) frequent
use of
structural charts and
diagrams,
Where only l imited
oppo~tunities
re available
far
accomplishing such
tasks, priority might
be given
to
those
pasts
of
the lexicon which
on
the
basis of
nunintuitive and
fntracultural
criteria*
appear
t
involve semantic relations of an everyday*
obligatory
nature.
n number
of
segregates, paradigmatic com-
plexity, and hierarchic depth,
certain
lexical
domains are likely
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 20/24
LexicographicaX Treatment of Folk Taxanomf
est
1 3 7
to
be mare
highly structured than others [Brown 1956:307; Mi&
1958:283-4; Worth
1960:277; Frake 1961:
121- 21.
F o r the
student
of
olk
taxonomy,
focusing attentfan
on these domains
should
f
ad
not
only
to
more interssting
analytic problems
but
alao
to
reaulta
of greater
laxicographical and general cultural r levance
.
5
References cited
~ u s t e r 1 i t z ,Robert,
1959.
Usemanticcomponents of
pronoun
ays -
terns: Gilyak,*
Word
15 1:102-f09.
New Yark.
e c h e r , Marton, 1959 . The Biological Way of Thought. vifl*
200
pp.
New York: Columbia Udverroity Preas.
Brawn,
Roger
W. 1956. Language and categories, pp.
247-
31
2
(Appendix)
in A
Study
of
Thinking,
by
Jerome;
S
Bruner
et l. New
Yorkr
John
wiley and
Sons.
Brunerl Jerome S
Jacquaber 3. Goadnow,
and
George
A,
Auatin.
1956 .
A Study
f
hinking
(with
an
Appendix
on Language
by
Roger
W
Brown). xii
330
pp.
New Yarkt
John W h y
and
Sans.
Chao,
Yuan Ren. 1 9 5 3 Popular Chhsae plant
wards,
a
descrip-
tive lexico-gsarnmaticzaX study, Language
29,3:379-414.
Baltfmor
a
Chomsky, A. Noam,
1955
Semantic cone3ideratians in grammar,
Georgetown U l J
onograph
Serierr an Languages and
inguistics No. 8, pp. 141-150.
wasfig=, D.C
Chomsky,
No-.
1957 . Syntactic Structures, 16 pp, 's-
Gsavenhage:
Mouton,
Corzklirt Harold C
1954.
The
relattan
of Hanu60 culture to the
plant world.* Unpublished Ph.
D.
dig sertatfon
in
anthropaXogy,
Ya l e University, New Haven.
.
1955
Hanun60
color
categories
.
Southwestern
Journal
of
Anthxopaloq f 1 3 9 - 344,
Albuquerque.
.
1957
~Ethnobotan ica l
roblem s in
the campar
ative
study af folk axonomy. Paper read at the Ninth Pacific Science
Congress, 1957.
Bangkok.
f ~ u b l i s h e d i n P r o c e e d i n ~ s ,inth
Pacific Science Congress,
957,
4:299 301, Bangkok, 1962.1
FraEce Charles
0
1960. The Eastern Subanun
of
Mindanaa.
pp.
5
64
in Social
Structure
n Southeast Asia , ed. George
Peter
M u r d ~ c k . Chicago:
Quadrangle
Books.
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 21/24
. 1961. The dfagno~iaof
disease
among the
Subanuxl
o
b b n t t a ,
American. h t h r o p o l o g i ~ t
3 1:113-132.
Garvh, P a d L. 1960. On structurallat Georgetown
Univer~ i ty
Monograph
Series an.Language
and
inguistice
No.
11,
pp.
145-148.
washin&, D.C.
Gaadenaugh*
Ward
L 1951, Property,
Kin,
and Community
on
ruk.
ale
Univar
sity
Publications
in
Anthropology.
~ 0 . 4 6
90
pp,
New
Haven,
1956
CemponentJsrL
analysis and
the
study
of
meaning.
Language 32.2:
195-
216. 13altimars.
1957, YCultural
ant&opalogy and
bgufarticr~..
Georgetown
University
Monograph Serieti an Language8 and
inguistics No.
9
p p ~
167-173. washing&,
D.
C.
Greenberg, JasrephH,
1957
*The nature anduet8 of
l i~guir~t ic
typalogf
e
e,
International
Journal
of
American Lin gui~ti c
2 3 . 2 ~ 6 8 - 1 7 .
BaLtfmora,
Gregg, John
R
1954.
The
anguage
rf
Taxonomy:
an
pplication
of
symbolic logic
t o he
study of cl&sificatory syateme. xi.,
pp.
New
Yorkt Columbia
~Tiversity
ress
Harria, Zellig, 1948, Componential amiysia of a Hebrew para-
digm, Language 24.X:87-9i. BaLthars. <
Haugatn, E h r ,
9 5 1
The a
emantit
s
of
Icslandic orianta tion,
Ward 13,
?:a?-459,
New Yark,
o c k h t t ,Charlea
F.
i956
Idiom formation,
p
2 2 2 - 2 2 9 frz
For Roman Jakobsan, The Haguer
Mouton,
-
Muusshulder,
Fred
W
r,
1 9 5 9 . Review of:
A
course in modern
linguistics, by Charles
F
Hockatt, Language 3 5 3 : 5 0 3 - 5 2 7
Brtlthora.
Jakobr~an,
Roman,
1936, Beitrag zur allgemeinen
KaauaLehre,
Travawx
du
Cercls Linguistiqut dt
Prague
6~240- 88
Prague.
- -
Joos, Martin
1956
Review of: Machine
translation
of languages:
Fourteen
essaye.
Ed,
William N.
Lacke
and
A.
Donald
Booth.
Language 3 2 2 : 2 9 3 - 2 9 8 .
Baltimore
958.
USemolagy:
a
lhguf stfc theory ofmeanhg.
Studies in
L3nguiatics
13,3-433-70,
Buffalo.
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 22/24
LexicographicaP Treatment of
Folk
Taxonomies
139
Jorden Eleanor Wars,
1 9 5 5
YThea p t a x
of Modern
Colloquial
~ a p n e e e ,
Language
3 f , l (part 3 : i-vf, 1-135
Baltimore.
Kellyr
George
A.
1955
The
sychology
of
Personal
Canrstructe,
Val.
l. A
Theory of Personality. xzii
566 pp.
New
York:
-
W. W ~oGton.
Landar, Herbert 3.
1 9 6 0
A note on accepted and rejected ar-
rangements of
Navaho wards. XnternatianaX Journal
o
American
Linguistics 26.4:
351 354
Baltimore.
Landart Herbert J., Susan M. Ervin, and Arnold E Horawftz,
1960.
Navaho color categorieba. Language
3 6 . 3 : 368-
382
Baltfnnore.
Lawrence, George
H . M .
1951. Taxonomy
of
Vascular Plants,
xiv,
8 2 3 pp.
New
Yarkt
MacrnilXan,
Zaaarsfeld,
Paul
F.
1961, uThe
algebra of dichatomous
systems,
pp.
11-
15
7
in Shxdia in Item
Analysi~ nd Prediction,
d.
Herbert
Solomon.
Stanford:
Stanford
Univer aity
Lees*
Robert
B. 1960
The
grammar
o
English naminaXfzatione,
hternatiunal Journal of American Lhguinrtic a 26 3
(part
XI):
i-xxvi,
1
205
(~ublicat ion
2
Indiana University Research
Center
in Anthropology,
Folklore,
and Limguistics).
Baltimar
e
Lameberg, Eric
H
nd
J a h n M .
Roberts. 1956 @Theanguage
of experisnce a study in methodology,
International
Journal
o American Lingui~ticeMemoir
No,
13 xi, 33
pp.
~a l t lmare ,
Lota
John. 1949.
The h~emantlc
analysia
of the nominal base8
fn
Travaux du e x c l e Linguistique de Copenhagua
5 : 185 - 191
Capenhague,
Lousbury, FloydG,
1956 .
'A
semantic analysis of
he
Pawnee
kinahip usage.
Language 32:158-
194. Baltimore.
1960.
Similarity and contiguity relations in
language
and culture.
Georgetown
University Monograph
Series
an
Languages
and inguistics
No.
12, pp. l23ci28.
~ a s h t ~ o n ,
Lyons, J, 1960,
Review of:
Language change and linguistic re-
construction,
by
Henry M
Haanigswald.
Bulletin of-
he
School
o
Oriental
and
African
Studies
27,
J:62X-622,
London.
-
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 23/24
Maclay* Howard, and Mary
D
Sleator. 1 9 6 0 . Responses to lan
guage: judgments of grammaticalnes
a .
International
Journal
of American
Linguistics
26 4: 275-
282
Baltimore.
Mayr, Ernet,
E.
Gorton
Lfnslsy,
and
Robert
It . Ubsingsr.
1953.
Methodo and
rinciples
of
Systematic Zoology, xl
3 2 8 pp.
New Pork: ~ c ~ r a w -
ill:
McKaughan Howard,
1 9 5 9 . Semantic
components
of pronoun
ayetems:
Maranaa.
Word
15.1:101-
102. Mew York.
orris,
Charles W. 1946. Signs, Language,
and
ehavior.
365
pp. New Yark: Prentice-Hall.
Nagel, Ernest.
1961
The
tructure of Science:-
roblem8
in he
Xu*
of c i m t i f i c xplanation. x v - 6 8 pp.
New
York
and
Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Newman, Stanley, 1954. Semantic problems
In
grammatical
ayatems
and
Xexernes: a
search
far method.
pp.
8 2 9 3 in
Language
fn
culture,
ed,
Harry
Hoijer.
Chicago: University
of
~ h i c a ~ o ~ r e s s .
Nidar Eugene A. 1951. 'A
system
for
the
description af semantic
elernenta. Ward 7 1:1-14. New Yark.
1958.
Analysis
of
meaning
and
dictionary making.
hternational
Journal
of American Linguistics 24.4:279- 2 9 2 .
Baltimore.
ohman, Suzanne. 1953. YTheoriesof the 'Linguistic Field. '
Word
2: 123-
134 New York,
Quine,
Willard
Van Qrman. 1960 Word
and
Object,
xvi,
294
pp.
Cambridge Maes.,
and
New
York
and London:
The Technology
Pre as of M.
T.
and
John Wdley $t
Son8 Inc,
Sebeak, Thomas A, 1946. Finnish and Hungarian
case
systems:
th ir farm
and function.
Acta nstituti Hungarici
Univeraitatia
Holmiensis Series B Linguistics 3. Stockholm,
Simpon, George Gaylord. 1961.
Principles
of Animal Taxonomy.
x i v , 247
pp.
New Yark:
Columbia University
Pres~s .
Swadeah, Morris. 1946
Chftimacha,
pp. 3 1
2
336 in Linguistic
Structures
of
Native North America,
by Harry Haijer,
e t
al.
New
York:
Tiking Fund.
7/21/2019 Conklin Folk Taxonomies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conklin-folk-taxonomies 24/24
Lsxic ographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomic
a
141
Thomas,
David.
1955. Three
analyses of the nocano
pronoun
aystexn.
Wo r d
11.2:204- 208. e w York,
1957.
An
introduction
to
Manaaka
lexicography.
6
typssc
ipt pp.
Na uli, Philippines: S3L.
Voagelin, Charles
F.
and Fiarexace
M.
1957. &pi domains, a
lexical
approach to the problem
of
selection.
International
Journal
of
American
Linguistics
Memoir No.
14,
8
pp.
~altimor;.
W a l l a c e
Anthony
F.C. ndJohn Atkine. 1960.
&Themeaning
of
kinship American Anthropologist
62.1:58-80.
Men a s h
Wsfnreich,
Urie l .
1960.
'Mid-century
linguistics
a t t a h m a n t ~
andfrustxations. Romance Phikolagy 8 3r32Q-341. Berkeley,
We l l s Rulon,
1 9 5 8 .
a srtructural treatment
of meaning
possible? Proceedings
of
the Eighth biternational
Congress
f inguist~~ slo, 1 9 5 1 pp. 654-666. Oda ,
Wonderly William
L.
1952
YSemantic
components in Kechua
persanmorphemsa. Language 28 3 :366-376 . Baltimore.
Woadger, 3 .
M.
1 9 5 2 .
Biology and
an~uage: n intraduction
to
the methodology
of
-
he biological
ac
isnc
es
Gluding
medicge.
x?
364
pp.
Cambridge:
The
niversity Press .
Worth, D.
S. 1960,
Review of: Leksikologbja
axxglijskogo jazyka
by A, I
Smirnickfj.
Word 6 .2 :
277-
284, New Y
rk
NOTES
1.
The
work an which
ost
of this paper s based has been
supported
by
the
National
Science
Foundation,
A
number
of
students and other friends have offered cons ractive
csitfciam
of
an earlier draft
of
this statement.
For
especially helpful and
more detailed comments 1 a m particularly indebted
to
Y.R. Chaa,
David Crabb, Arthur Danto,
C .
0
Frake
Paul
Friedrich,
W,
,
Gaodenough,
3.
H.
Greenberg,
E b r
Haugen P, , Lazarsfeld,
F.G. Launsbury
and
Valney Steifire,