PROBLEMS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

Edi+ed by
FRED W. HOUSEHOLDER
and SOL SAPORTA

Published by

INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOUMINGTON

MOUTON
& Go.,T ~ HAOWE,
E
THENETHERLANDS

By Harold C. Canklin
Y a l e University
0,

htr oduc ti on

Many lexical, problems Tare of conrsidesable importance to 1331guirsts and ethnographers. W i t h the interaetar of bath groups in
mind, Z would like to discuss certain a ~ p e c t sof folk claersificatfan
which I. feel deserve more rigorous ~exfcogxapMcattention than
they have typically rsc eived,
An adequate 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. h this regard, accurate knowledge af both the grammar and Iexfcun of the
local spoken language con~titutasa minimum requbxament. When
the ethnographer works In an area for which adequate statementar
about the local language are unavailable in publf shed suurcee, his
first and often continuing task fa the?canertructfon of a s e t of valid
rules fur the hterpretation of the local language. In his phonaLogical and grammatical analysis of new speech forms, he may
find many helpful madeke in t h e dstrcriptive linguistic literature.
h attempting, however, to account f o x the obligatory semantic
relations inherent fn his lexical carpus, he may not be 610 fortunate, While extant dic tf 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
impreci~eand unsystematic manner [cf, Mewman 1954:86 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 er must also be accaptable and interpretable semantically. White an "appeal" to
meaning does not h p r a v a grammatical analysis, neither does an

intuitive appeal t o morphos p t a c tic farm yfeld the most appropriate

analy~isof meaning and reference (see 1.5, below). Zn fact, an
adequate grammar may generate ~sernanticallyunacceptable propainitiuxla [Chamsky 1955:149* 1957:103-41 cf, Landar 1960:352;
Frake 196f:f.13], Results ~f same recent atternpt~to develop nonintuitive 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 impaxtancs. 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 linguistic and ethnographic
field work among the Hanun60 in t h e Philippines, it became
abundantly evident that providing such segments as sah, tabikuq,
isarnparzmsiarknr- qaUstun, and lgda, balaynutl. tagraZxlarn, qfrunpiidiq each with the same gloss ' ( d i s t h c t ) kind of plant' was--while
adequate for certain syntactic purposes--most unsatisfactory for
the taak of semantic analysis. H a d Inat modified this procedure,
I would have ended up with more than 2000 lexical iteme [including
~ a v e ~ hundred
al
referential synonyms) each labeled identfcaliy
While employing glosses Xfke 'teas and 'tobacco' (in the first two
cases above) proved useful in labeling familiar objects, the m a jority of these culturally ~dgnificzantHanuncia designations referred
to entities which to m e were quite unfamiliar, In t h i s type of
ethnographic context'ans finds 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 ,the
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, Problems af amlyzing and presenting such structures fn a succinct
faahfon may be of interest even to lexicographers who work only
h rehtfvfaly familiar cultural surroundings.

1.

Folk classltffcatfon

In the lexicographic treztbent af folk classification, we are

concerned primarily with ( 1 ) the identification of relevant erynb c t f c oagments, ( 2 ) the identification of fundamental semantic
dtar fn ~pecificcontexts, (3) the dslhaatian of aigrzificant aste of
semantic d t s in particular domains, and (4) the translation (and
markrfng) of these unfta so that important semantic relationships
wdl1 not be obecured, h discusering different system8 of claseif y h g xssgmsntrs of the natural and social environment, the neutral

Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies

121

term segregate [Canlclin 19541 serves as a label for any terrninolag f cally-distjslgui ~skbedf 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, in a atrict sense, to the analysis of the system of
classrification itself$ I,e., to the aernantic Btructure [CanMh
19573, Labels and categoriaa can change independently and there-

fore must be analyzed separately, O n the other hand* a knowledge

of the linguistic structure invalved is e s ~ e n t f a for
l
understanding
the principles of folk nannsnclatur e; and In working out this atructure, clues for isolating folk segregate labels and far eliciting
information about such segregatebit may be found,
1,2. Lexical u n i t s and coartexta, A full lexical statement (f.e,,
an adequate dictionary) should provide a emantic explanation,
as well as phonological and grammatical identffication* for every
meaningful farm whom signification cannot be inferred from a
knowledge of anything elee fn the language, I t f s convenient to
refer to these elementary lexical u d t a as lexemes [cf. Swadesh
19461 Newman 1954; Jorden 1955; Goodenough 19563, although
other terms have been suggested (e, g,, idiom [Mockett 1 9 5 6 ; cf.
Householder 1959:508-24; Weinreich 1960:337]). So far as Iexernfc
~ h t is
~ concerned,
8
the marphusyntactic or aserurned etymological
relations of a particular linguistic form are incidental; what is
essential is that i t 8 meaning cannot be deduced from its grammatical structure. Single morphemes are necessarily lexemes,
but f o r palymorphemf c canetructiuns the dsciaion depends on
meaning and use (Implying an analysis of the constraint8 imposed
by the semantic structure, and the specuication of relevant hmediate contexts),
Formal segments such as black bird (VB. blackbird) or in the
old house (vs. in the do~house)can be excluded from the lexical
statement because they are 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 construetiaras which are never semantically exocantric may be classed as
nonlexemic forms (e. g., sunburned face, long pink strand), ProbIems do arise* however, in degrees of lexemalc exocentricit).
[ N i d a f958:286] and, again, if caution is not exercised in distinguishing clearly between grammatical, and semantic criteria. The
compounds firewater and silverff ah, for example, are endoc entric
morphosyntactical3y f either on an attribute-plus- head basis or on

--

--

--

--

Problemer in Lexicography

A&&

the perhaps stranger grounds of formal selection rules [Lees

1960:128, 1S8J), but ssmaxxUcaUy they are as exocentric a s vodka
and moth*
h the study of bsegrsgate Iabels in folk classification, and
despite some of the difficultfes of technical definition noted, I find
it ttusefd to distinguish by explkft semantic criteria h o kinds of

lexsmic unitst unitary laxemas (no segmenta of which may designate 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]designate the ieama categorfesr a8 those designated by the forms
in quastfun [abbreviation], or [b 1 designate catsgarie s supesordfnate
to thaae designated by the farme in question [generalimatfan], see
2 . - 2 . 2 . ) Unitary Iexemes may be either s i m p l e (unsegmentablef
or coxnplm (segmentable), These distfnc tions are exemplified
below:

Unitary e3imple

Uxrita xy c omplex

Composite

oak

dandelf on

paiaun oak
pfxlsapple
grandson
darts [a game)
jack-in-the-pulpit
black- eyed Susan

caterpillar (larva)

cat*a- eye

white oak
pitch pine
son- in- law
Baldwin apple
Port-orford cedar
black-crwvned
night heron
caterpillar tractor

pine
B O ~

dart (an artifact)

Jack

For contrast, consider a few similar but nanlexemic forms: cheap

pine, pine and oak, black-eyed Joe, dart8 (plural of dart [Wockett
1956t229X). 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-st impsction, the fallowing partially- identical ~ a n u n 6 aforms [ConMin 19541 might appear to belong to a
simple paradigm (they could all be recorded durislg a conversation
about ric a cultivation and weeding problems):

-1
-2
-3

--

paray:parap
paray. miyah
pZray' qigkantufi

atta tail'
'immature wild pZdaq (plant)'
'kind of wild sedge'

Lexfcagraphical Treatment of Folk Taxonarnias

'kind of rice'
* P ~ O one
~ Q ( e b e ) ' rice'
~
'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 I h v e indicated by the use of dots, Loo~e-joining, phonemically,
is repreeented by a single raised period. E3xcept for the closelyjoined doubling in item number 1, the f a m a in this ~ e provide
t
no
obligatory intonational ar junctural contra tsts J?urthermore, each
form occurs in many identical frames such a e filmy &f
ti
-8
is fare) certainly dffferant,' Thurs* for most of the semantically d i a d n c t types of joining eruggeatsd by the glos~les,there are
no phaaalagical c l u s ~and few, if any, immediate, formal indications, ( A f u l l syntactic tittatemant covering the structure of cornpounds would separate out aome of these forms an grammatical grounds [cf. Lees I96OJ.) Given the necesaaxy semantic
Infarmation, however, these distinctions can be noted carvily for
lexicagraphical purpoBes by rewriting the former ars follows:

paramray
pgray-rn5yalr
p i ray-qi~kantuh.
~ i x a vbfhud
.

Thie procedure clearly mark^ 1, 2 , and 3 semantically exocentxic ,

unitary lexernes; 4 as a composite lexerne; and 5 and 6 as nonlexemic , rsemanticolly andacentric canstructltan-rr the Wtial Zexerns
of which is rsupsrordhatsly related to 4 , Minimally, forms X1 2,
3, 4, Sa, and 6a could be labeled 'kinhof plant,' but by not attending 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 implied--but not
covered--by the specific growth sta;e
term number 21 :3 :5a or
ba), and the poeaible total inclusion of eubordinate categories (4
by 5a/6a; but not 1, 2, or 3 by Salba). Statements about such Felations, hinted at in soma i l o s se s and definitions, may be damanstrated only by systematic pairing in minimal, and relatively

-- -

---

---

--

controlledJ linguistic and semantic contatcs,

1,3. Lexical sats and domains. In many ways it can be said
that the more discrete the phenomena referred to, the simpler the
task of treating the aed~ocfatedterminology 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 e 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
Xexamea defines the domain of the laical set, The initial e s t a b f i ~ h e n of
t domain boundaries, while
wfdsiy recogniz;ed aa an ideal goal, is often a very difficult task
[cf, Voegelin and V 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~of their Intracdtural realfty, axr e subject 8 not often
d i ~ c u ~ s eind the Linguistic or ethnological literature. Some of the
essentfak factors involved in t h i ~type of analysis are treated
briefly below under "levels" ( 2 . ) and "dimensions" (3. ) of contrast. In general, the number and complexity of boundary problems
increaaea as one moves from the investigation of lexfcal domains
within a particular language to an attempt to umatchnthe domains
of different languages [ ~ h m a n1 9 5 3 ; cf. Quine 1960~26-791. This
doe^ not. however, pr ecluda rigorous contrastive analysis.
1 - 4 . Translation and semantic structure. W i t h f sw exceptfons, the lexical items employed 3n ay~temaof folk classification
alwaya comprise a segment of the everyday vocabulary of the
particular language [Gonklin X 9573, The rules governing the abUgatoxy semantic relations among the categories in such lexical
sets are thus to be determined, evaluated, and described far each
language, Such rules camat be prescribed merely on the baisis
of familiarity S1 another system with the "concrete" dsnotata of
the sets fnvulved, In the case of folk botany, fox example, this
meaas that a local system of plant cfasslffcation cannot be described accurately by attempting to obtain only vernacular
* agufvalsnta " for botanically r ecognf zed s p e das, Translati~n
labela (glasere~)are frequently necessary, but they ghould be considered neither as defbitfons nor as exact equivalanta [Launsbury
1956:163; POT an attempt to use acsonyms as a partial mnemonic
solution to such translatian problems, see Landar et al, 1960:
37 1 3 , This well- es tablished and perhaps obvious semantic prfnciple is sumethss forgotten where the aasumed absolute nature

--

--

Lexic ographical T r eatsrnent of Fofk Taxonomies

125

fba cross-lhguistic s e n ~ e )
of "scientific" names or of other long-

established traditional dlstbctionsl fn certain Western languages

is h v o i v e d 16brxlaxz 1953; cf, Simpsan l961:11].
1.5. Syntactic vs, semantic structure. Implicit h the preceding 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 fltounsbury 1956: 1891. If this assumption is taken seriouslyr a full dictionary should state explicitly t h e necessarl and sufficient conditions far the unambiguous structural interpretation of each included lexerne in the context of the total 'lexicon a s well as in that
of the grammar. While such coverage h
e
r rarely been achieved,
even for relatively small lexical domains, J feel that recognition
of this goal ha8 considerable relevance for this df 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 a more familiar
language, or where they a r e treated only partially (as in the derivation of definitianaX statements from tranpilatioml labels).
C ~ a s i dre the following situation (which, with minor differences,
I have encountered on a n u m b e r of occasions): a, woman, whose
brother (x) and husband {y) are both named Juan, has a 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 the Juans (x, y, or 2;) has 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
~ctraightforwardstatement cornpf e t h g the sentence P' s
Juan
died would seem to do the trick; and, depending on the circumstances, one of two unitary lexemas (grandfather, uncle) might be
used to fill the blank:

---

1 Pedro's Grandfather Juan died.

2 Pedro's Uncle Juan died.

However, if A uses Grandfather, F may a s k Which grandfather ?;

if F uses Uncle, A may ask Which
uncle? indicating a kind of two-way ambiguity which can only be resolved by recognizing that despite
their unque 8 t ionabf e grammatic alfty and rnorphosyntactic identity,

\
Figure 1. A genealogical illustration of contrasting s y ~ t e m ~
of kinsfiip classfficatfon,

Lexicagraphical Treatment sf Folk Taxonomies

f 27

A's sentences 1 and 2 and F's sentences 1 and 2 differ asman-

ticallyz
Sentemc e

Kintermused

Grandfather

A1

Fl

Uncle

A2

F2

it

KZn~pafa~,~clmdad(Px=partnt's)

(PrFa)

x and y
x and e

(PrFa, PrPrBx)
(PrBr, PrPrBr)

2;

(PrBr)

This, of course, reflectls only a small part of a very fundamental

strut tural W
ferencs in Central Philippine and North American
systems of k l n ~ h i pclassification: universal termhologfcal recognition of generation in the f oxmer v s uxllivar aal terminological
recognition of degree of collaterality in the latter (these t w o 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 spsctive3y), Although any careful investigator might learn
this systematic distinction after a few days of field work, the
principle goes unaccounted far in the relevant and extant bilingual
dictionaries, The restrictions Involved in this il1ustration axe just
as obligatory and ins scapable within the re epective semantic systems 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 within single-level contrastive sets. There may also be ~lubcategosic,
or componential, intersection (see 3. below). In studying semantic
relationships, as among folk categories, it has often been demonstrated that likenes s 1ogically and edgnlffcantly h p l ies dfffarence [Kelly l955:303-51, It Pe also pertinent, however to note
that total. c antrast f complete complementary erxcLusion)--whfc h
logically relates such segregates a a ant
- and ship or cough and
pebble- is less important than re strictad contra st within the
range of a particular semantic subset (compare the r elatioan within and b a t w e ~ nthe partial sets robin wren sparrow; spaniel
Whenwe speakofthe category
terrier poodle: and bird 3).
dime being included in the category coin w e imply that every dims
l a also a (kind of) coin--but not necessarily the reverse, Furthermore, when we state ( a ) that the category dime contrasts with
that of auartar and (bl that the catetrorv coin contrasts w i t h that of

--

-- --

Problems in Lexicography

bill we are speaking of two instances of relevant mutual exclusion

at two different levels of c e n t r a ~ t[Canklin 1 9 5 5 , 1951; Frake
19611. Such alignments of folk categories are common to all Tanguages, though systematic indicatione o f t h e s e relationships are
rare even iss. the more detailed monolingual dictionaries.
2,1, Hierarchic structure. Where the articulation between
succes~ivelevela, each consisting of a s e t of contrastive lexical
u n i t s , ie ordered vertically by inclusion such that each monolexemic 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 axes of such a structure involve t h e horizontal differentiation
of contrastive but coordinate categories and the vertical increase
of generafi zation OX spe~ificationxesulthg from ascent to superordhate (including) or descent to subordhate (Included) levels,
raspectiveiy [Gregg 1954; G o n k l i n 1957; Beckner 1 9 5 9 ; 5 5 - 8 0 ;
Frake 1961?117], These axes ass fixed and camat be merged or
interchanged, not can the succession of levels be modified. Dime
irs not contrasted with coin, but at the same level wit?i nickel,
quarter, 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,
and 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 Begrcgate ultimately bcludPng hawk, hor sa , 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
folk segregates related-by hierarchic inclusion is a folk taxonomy;,
segregates included fn tsuch a class$ficat%on
are known as folk taxa
[ C a a M h 1957; cf, Lawrence 1 9 5 1 ~ 5 3 ;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 throughout the systern; ( 3 ) each taxon belongs t o only one level; (4) there
is no overlap ti. e,, taxa at the same level are always mutually
exclusive), Fa& systems vary widely w i t h respect to these more
specific *requirements,* but the presence of hierarchically ard
ranged though less @regularw
folk taxonomies is probably universal.
Mast af t h e examples given here are taken from folk botany, but
similar iUustratiuras could be taken from other domainr~f Thomas

--

Lexicagraphical Treatment of F a k Taxonomies

129

1957; Frake 19611.

Several important differences distinguish folk taxa from t h e
taxonomic groups of biological syrstematics [Canklfn 19571 Simpson 196 1 ]* The farmer usually relate only to Xacakly relevant or
directly obse~vablephanomeata, They a r e defined by criteria
which may differ greatly from culture to culture. The number
and position of levels of contrast may change from one sector of
a folk system t o another. There are no formal rules for the
aarnancfatural recognition a x rejection of tgxa [cf. Lawrence 1951:
213-51, though new groupings may be added productively with considerable ease, 1In respect to any particular local 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 r u n 6 oclassify 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 problems
encountered in the analysis of folk taxonomies include:
(1) Multiple and interlacking Mar archie s. Unlike scientific
taxa, folk segregates may belong shultaneoutilly t o sevexal di#tinct hierarchic structures. The same segregates may be cXas rsed
as terminal categories In a taxonomy baaed an form and appearance and also as terminal or nonterrninaf categories in another
taxonomy based on cultural treament ( e , g , , marphologica1ly diatinpished a d s of floral 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 t h e potentiality of
partial inclus fan ax domain overlap.
( 2 ) Fxtrahferarchic relations. Not all folk categories are
directly related by class inclusion a x contrast within the range of
a particular superordinate category. For example, numerous
difficulities may arise if lexemes designating separate ontogenetic
stages or parts of member~lof particular segregate8 (see 1.2.
above) are not distinguished from hierarchically arranged folk taxa
[Chao 1 9 5 3 : 3 8 7 - 9 ; Conklin 1954, 1957; Frake 1961I. Part-of
(part-whole) relations are often complicated by ambiguities [Magel
1961:381-3J nut encountered in the analysis of khd-of (class inclusion) relations (e. g., the eegregates plant, stemt sap are not
related taxonomically like plant, tree, elm).

--

particular folk taxonomy, a rsfngle taxon may be labeled by phoaernically distinct forms, a s fn the case of minor dialect variants
or abbreviated terme [see 1,2.], we may apeak.uf referential syno n p s (or synonymouer lexemes); e. g*r fb,
M , five* fiver,
-f five-spot, five-dollar bill, In many such cases, it may be difficult t o demonstrate taxonomic identity and the absence of
catsgaric overlap. Alternative s u btructurfng of the subhierarchy
may be involved. Phonemically identical (homonymous) Xexemes
may dersignata separate taxa of different ranges of genera1ia;atian
at successive levels. Such situatione (e.g,, animal and man in
I
the following partial contrastive set.: animal. vs. plant, a n h a p
vs. mad, mad vs. woman [cf. ~rake'1961:11?-91)are not uncommon 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 [ W 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 aubsetsl are related by simple, bhary, segregate opposition. Many
larger s e t s and same dyadic ones jnvalve important types a aemarttic contxast other than antanymy fcf. Lyons 1960:622 3, Structurally, bar example, taxa may be contra~tedin a e r i a l , campletmentary , or disc antinuous arrays. (For aubcategoric attribute
relations, eee 3. below.)
2.4. Folk vs botanical taxonomy. Ideally* &athe study of
interrelated l a i c a l setla in folk taxonomiao, priaxity and preference should be given t o uxlaahously-agreed-upan, obligatory
dlstinctians in epecffied contexts. When terated by meaaa of what
are es~entiallycruchl 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~ertionerof membership and inclusion in any of the implied
b x a a re 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.
W 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 Hanun60 folk botany may serve as a partial
amwer.

- -

--

Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomf as

131

In a fjtituation where one Haaunoa farmer wishes to draw another's attention to a particular fndividual pepper bush Q, he may,
of courme, attempt t o describe some of Q's unique attributes without naming the plant. Much mare often, however, even fn the
caurae of a "unique" descrfptian, he wffl resort t o the use of one
ox more of at least sight Lexical u n i t 8 each of which might complete
'Hey, take a look at this
the frame rnSluq* g h d a pag
I1
but at different levels of contrast (allowing for different degrees
of deb~iredor required specificity):

kuwaq

'entity' (i. e., something

that can be named)

Ur

kgyuh

'plant' (not a rock, etc.)

IV

gilamnun

'herbacsou~plant' (not
a woody plant, etc ,)

ladaq

'pepper (plant)' (not

a rice plant, etc. )

Xgda- balapun

'hous &yard pepper (plant)'

V
VI

(not a wild pepper

plat)

VU

lZda.baiayaun,
maGrat

'hauseyardchilipepper
(plant) ' (not a
hou~eyardgreen
pepper plant)

VU3

lzda. ba3apunmahGrat.
qiitfn- kutiq

' Ucat-penis" houseyard

chfli pepper (plant)'
(not a member of any
of five other terminal
houseyard chili pepper
taxa such as fgda.
balaynun, ma& rat,
tghud-manuk. the
U ~ ~s-spurn
~ k ' variety).

W i t h i n the damafn of EXanm6o plant taxonomyl from ldvel W:

down, and specifically within the range of izdaq, from level V down,
conversations recorded during many taixnfJar sdtuatfone would

ultimately provide t h e lexicographer with fifteen unitary and camposfta lexsrnss (including a terminal s e t of eleven 'pepper plant'
names) arranged at four levels in the form of a discrete subhierarchy f Fig, 2). Specification below the level of the termbal taxa
noted in the diagram (Fig,2:l-11), and hence outside tMs system
of cia e s3licwtiun, may be pr avldsd only by semantically endoc antr ic
constructiona de sc ribing individual plant variations, on which um n h a u s accord i e rare and unpredictable. In 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 not only the hierarchic separation of these varied, Xowerlevel, folk taxat 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 all 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 aubhierarchy, the relations obtaining among three or more coordinate
t-ae
may invalve varying dirnensioax~,or kinds of subcategory contrast. The conjunction of t h e s e dimension^, ax more precisely, of
the values (or spsclfic attributes fcf. Bruner at al, l956:26-30 J)
along t?ie several dimensions, define the categories fIlv~lvedwithin
an ss sentially paradigmatic (i. e., n ~ n h i e r a x ~ hsubsystem
i~)
[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 contrasts do not imply, and M e e d do not allow, the ordering of the
resultant categories by hierarchic fnclurion. These features sf
nunhierarchic semantic structures, while not always sharply a s thguished from 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~ughf 951:BZ- 11O I 1 9 5 6 ; Lounsbury 1956;

Figure 2.

A segment of Hanun60 plant taxonomy. All folk taxa included in the taxon lidaq, are indicated.

5kake 1960; Wallace and Atkfns 1960], color [CanMin 1955; cf.
Lemaberg and Roberts 1956; Landar e t al, 19601, orientation [ m u gen 19571, disearaa [Frake 1961 1, and, beglarnhg with Jakobsan'a
pioneering effffarta, Sn sruch partly rnodulatianal [Jaoe X 958 t7QX paradigms a8 case and pronoun arystems [Jakobson 1936; Sabeok 1946;
Harris 1948; Latz 1949; Wandesly 19521 Auaterlitz 19591, The
folkawing -mpie
of multidimensional contraat fn a regular paradigmatic ~tructurewill illustrate some of these pointer.
3,2, Significant claasificatian vs, catafagufng, Xf, omitting
the high- level, wide- ranging h w a g F e e 2.4)# w e list all t h e
&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 qclur~ivelexical s i t cannrieting of juat efght d t s (in
each cage xepreaenting a single morpheme), Arranged in the
l e a ~ meaningful
t
type of catalogue, an alphabetical index (as in a
dictionary), these lexical units are:

--

dah
kuh
mih
muh
tah

'they'

yah

'he, shef
'you all*

tam
YE!?

'I'
*we8
'youY

'we WQ'
'we all'

The @hapee provide little that i a ~trructurally~ u g g e a t i v abut

~
the gloestes do indicate that an orderbng in terms of efght Utraditfonal" distinctions along three q u a i - semantf c dheaeaiuns

(1) first person : nscund psraon : third person

( 2 ) singular
: dual
: plural
(3) axclu~live : inclusive
might be attempted, But the re~ultingapplied structure is hardly
elegant, ac onamfcal, ox convincing:

kuh 1s
muh 263
--*

.yah

3s

tab ld
mfh lpe
tarn Ipi
--yuh 2p
dah 3p
M

- w -

U a close examination is made of the disttinctive contrasts involved, nut in terms of labels but in terms of actual, minimal,

obligatory differences, a mare satisfactory, economical, and

135

Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies

semantically verifiable solution is reached. The neces sary a d

sufficient conditions for defining each of the eight categories depend on the regular intersection of sfx components which comprise
three simple oppositions :

(Ma)

minimal membership : aonmfnimal membership

inclusion of speaker : e x c ~ u ~ f uafa speaker
(S : $1
inclusion of hearer
: excluaian of hearer
(H:f.r)

mFi
Ki SH

doh

yuh

M SH

mih
f urn

SH
M SA
MSH

yoh
muh
kuh
fah

MSR
MSH

Figure 3.

Paradigmatic structure of a ~ a n u x 1 6 o p r o n o m ~ ~

e st.

These relations can be represented in l i d t or diagrammatic form

( F i g . 3). Even witbout hrther elaboration, the basic semantic
atsucture of this lexical s e t should now be clear, fhpassing, it
may be noted that pronoun systems h Tagalog, nocano [Thomas
19551, Maranao [Mclcmughan 1959]$ and B o r n e other Philippine languagea exhibit very airnilar, if not identical, obligatory aemantic
r elationahips )
This example also flluatratesl a vary important, though perhaps
less obvious, character1stic of paradigmatic relation8 at one level
in a taxonomic subhierarchy In contrast to the nancommutat;Ive relations of class inclusion governing the larger taxonomic sysltem.
Within such a contrastive lexical s e t {ast in Fig, 31, ordered by

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~tscall a k e y [Mayr et a1, 1953: 162-8; Simpson
1961313-61, es~entfaflyanother k h d of cataXogue or finding l i a t
ordered by succes siva- -but not necessarily taxonomically signHicant--dfcHatamous exclusion* or (b) to be baaed on same other artific ially imposed, and hence semantically nonsignfficant, clas aificatfan.

--

4,

Lexicagraphic treatment

The ways in which t h e problem~lmentioned in t h h paper may

be treated in bilingual dictioaarie 8 , e spec idly ethnographic dictionaries, a r e practically unlimited. That very few of the possibflitiera have bean explored to date fdjl df sappofnting, but not discouraging* There have been a number of new attempts at expanding
the analytfc procedures of deexcriptive linguistic a to include a more
rigorous, thorough, and theoretically rewardfng analysist of B e mantic structure [e, g., Goodenough 1956; Launabury 1956; Nida
1958; Frake 196 b J. Despite these more encouraging signs, 3:
realize that mast dictionaries will continue t o be organized prisnariiy as alphabetical indices. Suggestions regarding the ways in
which structural. sernantic information (especially with reference
to folk taxonomies) might be mare adequately covered in such dictionaries would include, wherever pasaible: (1) consis tent marking
of each entry as to its status as a lexical unit and taxon, its immediately subordinate taxa and oupsrordhate taxon, and all caardfpate taxa included with it in this next higher taxon (simple diacritics and 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 attributes 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 all units involved
in categaric overlap; and ( 5 ) frequent use of structural charts and
diagrams, Where only limited oppo~tunitiesare 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 to involve semantic relations of an everyday*
obligatory nature. Zn number of segregates, paradigmatic complexity, and hierarchic depth, certain lexical domains are likely

137

LexicographicaX Treatment of Folk Taxanomf est

to be mare highly structured than others [Brown 1956:307; Mi&

1958:283-4; Worth 1960:277; Frake 1961: 121- 21. For the student
of folk 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 slevance

5, References cited
~ u s t e r 1 i t z ,Robert, 1959. Usemantic components of pronoun aysterns: Gilyak,* Word 15,1:102-f09. New Yark.

B 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. 24731 2 (Appendix) in A Study of Thinking, by Jerome; S. Bruner
e t al. New Yorkr John wiley and Sons.

--

Brunerl Jerome S,, Jacquaber 3. Goadnow, and George A, Auatin.

1956. A Study af Thinking (with an Appendix on Language by
Roger
Brown). xii, 330 pp. New Yarkt John W h y and
Sans.

W.

Chao, Yuan Ren. 1 9 5 3 , "Popular Chhsae plant wards, a descriptive lexico-gsarnmaticzaX study," Language 29,3:379-414.
Baltfmor a.

Chomsky, A. Noam, 1955, "Semantic cone3ideratians in grammar,"

Georgetown U
l
J Monograph Serierr an Languages and
Linguistics No. 8, pp. 141-150. wasfig=,
D. C .

1957. Syntactic Structures,

Gsavenhage: Mouton,

Chomsky, No-.

X 16 pp, 's-

Corzklirt, Harold C . 1954. "The relattan of Hanu60 culture to the

plant world.* Unpublished Ph. D. dig sertatfon in anthropaXogy,
Yale University, New Haven.

."

1955 "Hanun60 color categories

Southwestern
Journal of Anthxopaloq f 1 :3 3 9 - 344, Albuquerque.

1957. ~Ethnobotanicalproblems in the campar ative

study af folk taxonomy. " 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 ~Ninth
s,
Pacific Science Congress, 19 57, 4:299 3 0 1 , Bangkok, 1962.1

FraEce, Charles 0. 1960. "The Eastern Subanun of Mindanaa. "

pp. 5 1 -64 in Social Structure in Southeast Asia, ed. George
Peter M u r d ~ c k . Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
P

1961. "The dfagno~iaof disease among the Subanuxl

of b b n t t a , " American. h t h r o p o l o g i ~ 63,1:113-132.

t
Garvh, P a d L. 1960. *On structurallat
Georgetown
Univer~ityMonograph Series an. Language# and Linguistice
D.C.
No. 11, pp. 145-148. washin&,

--

Gaadenaugh* Ward EL 1951, Property, Kin, and Community on

Truk. Yale Univar sity Publications in Anthropology. ~ 0 . 4 6 ,
190 pp, New Haven,

1956, "CemponentJsrL analysis and the study of

meaning." Language 32.2: 195- 216. 13altimars.
,

1957, YCulturalant&opalogy and bgufarticr~.."

Georgetown University Monograph Serieti an Language8 and
Linguistics No. 9, p p ~ 167-173. washing&,
D. C.

Greenberg, JasrephH, 1957, *The nature anduet8 of li~guir~tic

typalogf e e," International Journal of
- American Lingui~tics
2 3 . 2 ~ 6 8 - 1 7 . BaLtfmora,

--

Gregg, John R, 1954. The Language crf Taxonomy: an application

of symbolic logic t o the study of cl&sificatory syateme. xi.,
5 pp. New Yorkt Columbia ~TiversityPress.
Harria, Zellig, 1948, "Componential amiysia of a Hebrew paradigm," Language 24.X:87-9i. BaLthars.
Haugatn, E h r , L 951, " The a emantit s of Ic slandic orianta tion,"
Ward 13, ?:a?-459, New Yark,

~ o c k h t t ,Charlea F. i956, "Idiom formation," p

For Roman Jakobsan, The Haguer Mouton,

222-229 frz

Muusshulder, Fred W,, 3r, 1959. Review of: A course in modern

linguistics, by Charles F, Hockatt, Language 35,3:503-527,
Brtlthor a.
Jakobr~an, Roman, 1936, "Beitrag zur allgemeinen KaauaLehre,"
Travawx du Cercls Linguistiqut dt
Prague.
- Prague 6 ~ 2 4 0 288.

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.

1 95 8. USemolagy: a lhguf stfc theory of meanhg."

Studies i
n L3nguiatics 13,3-433-70,
Buffalo.

<

LexicographicaP Treatment of Folk Taxonomies

139

Jorden, Eleanor Wars, 1 9 5 5 , YThe a p t a x of Modern Colloquial

~ a p n e e e , "Language 3 f , l (part 3): i-vf, 1-135, Baltimore.

The Psychology of Personal Canrstructe,

Val. l., A Theory of Personality. xzii, 566 pp. New York:
W. W, ~oGton.

Kellyr George A.

1955,

Landar, Herbert 3. 1960, "A note on accepted and rejected arrangements of Navaho wards." XnternatianaX Journal of
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, 823 pp. New Yarkt MacrnilXan,

Zaaarsfeld, Paul F. 1961, uThe algebra of dichatomous systems,"

pp. X 1 1- 15 7 in Shxdiara i
n Item Analysi~and Prediction,
-ed. Herbert Solomon. Stanford: Stanford Univer aity

Lees* Robert B. 1960, "The grammar of English naminaXfzatione,"

hternatiunal Journal of American Lhguinrtic a 2 6 , 3 (part XI):
i-xxvi, 1 205, (~ublication12 , Indiana University Research
Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Limguistics).
Baltimar e,

Lameberg, Eric H,,and J a h n M . Roberts. 1956, @Thelanguage

of experisnc e, a study in methodology," International
Journal of American Lingui~ticeMemoir No, 13, xi, 33 pp.
~altlmare,
Lota, John. 1949.

fn
5:185-191,

" The h~emantlcanalysia of the nominal base8

Travaux du C e x c l e Linguistique de Copenhagua

Capenhague,

Lousbury, F l o y d G , 1956. 'A semantic analysis of the Pawnee

kinahip usage." Language 32:158- 194. Baltimore.
, 1960. "Similarity and contiguity relations in language
and culture." Georgetown University Monograph Series an
Languages and
- Linguistics No. 12, pp. l23ci28. ~ a s h t ~ o n ,

Lyons, J, 1960, Review of: Language change and linguistic reconstruction, by Henry M, Haanigswald. Bulletin of the
London.
School of Oriental and African Studies 27, J:62X-622,

--

Maclay* Howard, and Mary D, Sleator. 1960. "Responses to language: judgments of grammaticalnes a. " International Journal
of
- American Linguistics 26.4: 275- 2 8 2 . Baltimore.

Mayr, Ernet, E.Gorton Lfnslsy, and Robert It(. Ubsingsr. 1953.

Methodo and Principles of Systematic Zoology, xl 328 pp.
New Pork: ~ c ~ r a Hiw
ll: -

McKaughan Howard, 1959. "Semantic components of pronoun

ayetems: Maranaa." Word 15.1:101- 102. Mew York.

Morris, Charles W. 1946. Signs, Language, and Behavior.

pp. New Yark: Prentice-Hall.

365

--

Nagel, Ernest. 1961, The Structure of Science: problem8 in the

Xu*
of ~ c i m t i f i cexplanation. x v - 618 pp. New York and
Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Newman, Stanley, 1954. "Semantic problems In grammatical

ayatems and Xexernes: a search far method." pp. 82-93 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- 292.
Baltimore.

ohman, Suzanne.
9 . 2 : 123- 134.

YTheories of the 'Linguistic Field."'

New York,
1953.

Word

Quine, Willard Van Qrman. 1960. Word and Object, xvi, 294 pp.
Cambridge Maes., and New York and London: The Technology
Pre a s of M.3. T., and John Wdley $t Son8 , Inc,
Sebeak, Thomas A, 1946. "Finnish and Hungarian c a s e systems:
their farm and function." Acta Instituti 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. 31 2- 336 in Linguistic

Structures of Native North America, by Harry Haijer, e t al.
New York: Tiking Fund.

--

Lsxic ographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomic a

141

Thomas, David. 1955. "Three analyses of the nocano pronoun

aystexn." W o r d 11.2:204- 208. N e w York,

, 1957. "An introduction to Manaaka lexicography." 6

typsscript pp. N a suli, Philippine s: 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, 82 pp.
~altimor;.
W a l l a c e , Anthony F.C.* andJohn Atkine. 1960. &Themeaning of
kinship
American Anthropologist 62.1:58-80.
Menash.

Wsfnreich, U r i e l . 1960. 'Mid-century linguistics: a t t a h m a n t ~

andfrustxations." Romance Phikolagy 8,3r32Q-341. Berkeley,

W e l l s , Rulon, 1958.
a srtructural treatment of meaning
possible?" Proceedings of the Eighth biternational Congress
of L i n g u i s t ~Oslo,
~
1 9 5 1 , pp. 654-666. O d a ,

--

Wonderly, William L. 1952. YSemanticcomponents in Kechua

persanmorphemsa." Language 28,3:366-376.
Baltimore.

Woadger, 3 . M. 1 9 5 2 . Biology and Lan~uage:an intraduction to

the methodology of the biological ac isnc es Gluding medicge.
x?,;
364 pp. Cambridge: The University Press.

--

Worth, D. S. 1960, Review of: Leksikologbja axxglijskogo jazyka,

by A, I, Smirnickfj. Word 16.2: 277- 284, New Y ark.

NOTES

The work an which most of this paper is based has been

supported by the National Science Foundation, A n u m b e r of
students and other friends have offered constractive 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,H,
Gaodenough, 3. H. Greenberg, E b r Haugen, P,F, Lazarsfeld,
F.G. Launsbury, and Valney Steifire,
1.