Colby 1966 Ethnographic Semantics

8/10/2019 Colby 1966 Ethnographic Semantics

1/31

Ethnographic Semantics: A Preliminary Survey [and Comments and Replies]Author(s): B. N. Colby, Olga Akhmanova, Ethel M. Albert, E. Pendleton Banks, Wallace L.

Chafe, Harold C. Conklin, J. L. Fischer, Willem A. Grootaers, Dell Hymes, Paul Kay, Roger M.Keesing, Edward A. Kennard, J. Knobloch, F. G. Lounsbury, Louise E. Sweet, G. L. Trager,Francis Lee Utley, Roger W. WescottReviewed work(s):Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Feb., 1966), pp. 3-32Published by: The University of Chicago Presson behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740228.

Accessed: 10/11/2011 12:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Pressand Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Researchare collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2740228?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2740228?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/31

Ethnographicemantics:-

Preliminaryurvey

by

B.

N. Colby

DURING THE

LAST FEW

YEARS semantics

as

figured

prominentlyn arguments

etween

nthropologistsho

stress

igorous

escriptive

thnographynd

anthropol-

ogists-who

mphasize

omparativetudies.

thnograph-

ers seekbetterwaysto handlethe semantics f the

cultures

hey re

describinghile

thnologists

ook for

a

cross-culturallanguage" n

which

emantics

s

the

major

onsideration.

In

this

eview shall

imitmost fthe

iscussiono

developments

n the

semantic

spects

f

descriptive

ethnography.he

term

ethnographicemantics"

ill

refer

o the

emanticsf a

particularulture

nder

study.t

contrastsith

ethnologic

emantics"hich

refers

othe

heoretical

ocabularyf

ethnology

sed

in

comparativetudies.2

ogether he

2 constitute

anthropological

emantics.

"Ethnographicemantics"

an be defined

ore pe-

cificallys the tudyfthosespects fmeaningnalanguage hat reculturallyevealing.t is directed

toward

ordss a

meansather

han nend. he-

lti-

mate

oal

san

understandingf

the valuations,

mo-

tions,

ndbeliefshat

iebehind

ord sage.

Ethnographicemantics

as ttracted

nthropologists

recently

hrough

developmentsn he

ubfieldsfkin-

ship nd folk

cience:

ontrast-leveltudy,

omponen-

tial analysis,

rogrammed

pecifications,nd

various

uses f

semantic

ules. he

attentioniven o

minute

detailsof meaning nd meaning elationships arks

a

new

phase

in

descriptive

thnography.

he

techniquesre popularbecause hey

how promise f

solving heproblem f ethnographicelectivity;hat s,

theymay ead to psychologicallyeaningfullements

of a culturewhich re analogous

o psychologically

meaningfullementsf a language e.g.,phonemes).

Anthropologistswith sophistication

n modern in-

guistics ave emphasizedhe inner

iew" n terms

f

phonemic nalogy

with ome

urgency

n recent ears.

Butexcept or omponentialnalysis

Lounsbury

956:

191-92; 1962; Goodenough 956), the few analogies

actually ttemptedall short f themark. heydepart

from he strict otion f clearly efined,meaningful

units

nterrelatedn a structure

f the culture ather

than

f

the heorist.' evertheless,nthropologistsress

on toward loser nalogies,nd analyticalechniquesn

ethnographicemantics ncourage he exciting ope

that breakthroughoward n nner

iew

s

near.

Now

that

American

sychology

nd

philosophy

ave

rebounded rom earlier behavioristic iases against

cognitiontudies,ocial

cientists

how

morc nterestn

semantics. heir renewed

concernwith "man

the

thinker" xtends

eyond

raditional

emantics o the

structuref

meaningnd

the

rinciples

y

whichmean-

ing

s

organizedLounsbury

956: 162; Frake

962:

74;

Wallace

1962). Structure ay

meaneither n

overall

cognitive ystemwith an encyclopedic orld view

behind he

inguisticnd semantic lements person

carries n his head, or a semantic

tructurehat is

independentf such cognitiveystem.

.

N. COLBY

is

Associate

Curator

t

the

Laboratory

f

Anthro-

pology

(ResearchDivision) of the Museum of New Mexico inSanta Fe; and

Director of the

Field

Institute

n

Ethnology,

supported

by

the

National

Science

Foundation.

Previously

he

was

Research

Associate at

the

Laboratory f

Social

Relations,

Harvard

(1960-1962)

and

Instructor

n

Social

Anthropology

t

the

Departmentof

Social

Relations, Harvard

(1961-1962).

He

studied at

Princeton

B.A.

1953) and

Har-

vard

(Ph.D.

1960)

and

has

done

fieldwork n

Mexico,

Guate-

mala,

and

New

Mexico.

His

main

interest s

in

values

and

world

view.

He is

currently

oing

content

nalyses

of

folktales

and

myths.

The

present

article,

submitted to CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

16

iv

64,

was

sent for

CA*

treatmento

49

scholars of

whomthe

following

responded

with

written

omments:

Olga

Akhmanova,

Ethel

M.

Albert,

E.

Pendleton

Banks,

Wallace L.

Chafe, J.

L.

Fischer,

WilIem A.

Grootaers,

Dell

Hymes,

Paul

Kay,

Edward

A.

Kennard,

Roger

M.

Keesing,

J.

Knoblock, F.

H.

Lounsbury,

Louise E. Sweet,G. L. Trager,FrancisLee Utley, nd RogerW.

Wescott.

The

comments

written

or

publication

are

printed

n

full

afterthe

author's

text

and

are

followed

by a

reply

from

the

author.

Vol. 7

.

No. 1

.

February

1966

1

I am

indebted to Dell

Hymes,

Paul

Kay,

and

Roger

Keesing

for their

riticisms f a

1962

draft f this

preliminaryurvey.

am

indebted

o Hymes,

lso, for many deas

from

his

lectures

n

ethno-

linguistics.

Margaret Currier

and

Alexandria Weinstein of

the

Harvard

Peabody

Museum

Library

of

Anthropology gave me

valuable

bibliographic ssistance.

2

I use the

term

"ethnology"

as

synonymous

with social

anthro-

pology, not in the

restricted

ense

used

by British

anthropologists

to

denote conjectural

history.

3

Some

regard a study to

have

emic

status

if

it

only

claims

to

have described

he inner or

psychological

eality hared

by

members

of a

culture. But

careful use of

the emic

analogy would

require

confirmation

rom natives

of the

culture described.

However,

as

with

otherwords in

the

anthropological ocabulary,

he new

term

emic has

conversational

onvenience nd is

used quite

loosely. We

should not be much concerned bout this; an argument ver the

precision of

an

analogy assumes

a perhaps

spurious accuracy

of

the

original

theory nd

may

impose

unrealistically ustere

restric-

tions.

3


3/31

I shall

speak mostly f the

broader onception

f

structure-that hich

ncludes oth semantic

ystem

and an

organized orld iew.

uch structures

usually

seento

consist f organized

memoryraces f

those

aspects

f

previous xperience

hichnableman o

cope

more

fficientlyith

futurevents. art

of the ystem

is built

from

what one

learns rom he

experience

f

others.With

achnew

observationnd nstruction,

he

systems

revised ndexpanded

nto mental mage f

theworld Humboldt 836) thatencompassesll im-

portantspects f he

ndividual'surroundings,

nimal,

vegetable,

r mineral.This

mental ystem as

been

conceptualizedn

different ays and

givendifferent

names,

o 2

with he

amedefinition.

mong hem re:

cognitive

map (Tolman

1948), cognitive tructure

(Bruner, oodnow,

nd Austin 956), mage

Boulding

1956; Lynch1960),

Umwelt Uexkull

1957),

eidos

(Bateson

1958), model

(Whorf 1956; Roberts and

Sutton-Smith962),mazeway

Wallace 1961c), and

infra-structure

Levi-Strauss951). Some

f these on-

ceptsrefer o

individual

hought-structure,thers

o

thought-structuresharedin

whole r npart)by ever-

al

individuals.

WORDS,

MEANINGS, AND

CONCEPTS

Thought

nd

meaning

re not

somorphic,

et hey

re

often

reated

s such.Meaning

ndword orm renot

n

1-to-1

elationship,et they

lso areoften reated

s

such.We express

urprise hen meanings f a

word

impinge

ponour onsciousness

ndwonder bout

heir

"continuous" r "discontinuous"

elationshipo

each

other.

Without alid

etymologicalnformationor

un-

written

anguages,

e

neverthelessreoccupy urselves

with

problems f

homonymynd

polysemyt theex-

pense fmore

nthropologicallymportant

nquiryun-

lesswe are developing semanticheory, taskfor

linguistics

ather han

ethnology). pause to reflect

uponwords,

meanings,ndconcepts ay

hus eprofit-

able,before

iscussingpecific

tudies nd

approaches.

THE WORD FORM

The

spoken

r written

ord,

which

s

simply physical

stimulus,

as

most ften een

alled

at

different

evels

of

nclusion) linguistic

orm,

n unbound

morpheme,

or

a

wordform.

t has also

beencalled

a

sign

r

sign

vehicle

Morris

955),signifiantSaussure

915),

free

form

Bloomfield

933:

181),

ndname

Ullmann

957;

1962).

ThoughLounsbury1956:

190) rightly

tates

that inguisticorms re essentiallyrrelevantorse-

mantic

nalysis,

hey

are

usefulfor

classifying

nd

arranging

he

data

prior

o

analysis.

THE LEXICAL

UNIT

Whenwordforms

re

considered

ccording

o

a

partic-

ular

meaning

ometimes

ignified y

them,Nida's

"lexicalunit"

1964: 95)

is the

most

onvenientabel:

units annot e describedn terms f ts parts,

ut must

e

treated s a whole.

Nida's

lexical

unit

is

semantically

exocentric;

the

meaning f thewhole

s not deducible rom hemeanings

of the parts. Exocentric

forms re contrasted o endo-

centric nes,

n

which

the constituent arts do summate

to

provide the total

meaning Nida 1958: 286). The

distinction as been made by others e.g.,

Seguy's pri-

mary and secondary formations, 953),

but the exo-

centric-endocentricxpression has gained the widest

acceptance. Context is sometimes ritical

n such dis-

tinctions, s Nida illustrates

with the example he is in

the

doghouse,which

can be endocentricnmeaning f t

applies

to one's

pet

dog but exocentric f it applies

to a

man who is in troublewith his wife 1964).

Exocentric

expressions

or lexical units have been

labelled as idioms (Hockett 1958: 171)

and lexemes

(Conklin 1962; Goodenough 1956; Swadesh

1946).4

Exocentric

expressions

f more than 1 morpheme re

called idioms

by Weinreich

1963: 145-46), who sug-

gests hat statistics n

the distributionmong anguages

of the morpheme-to-lexeme atio (index

of idioma-

ticity)would be theoretically seful.Determination f

exocentric xpressions

depends in part on one's con-

ception of polysemy

p. 146) and "dead metaphor",

which gain s problematic nd usually treated

rbitrar-

ily (i.e., without ulturally

based validation) by lingu-

ists.

PERCEIVED AND CONCEPTUALIZED REALITY

Perceivedreality,

he

uniqueness f the

moment, s use-

fully distinguished

from

conceptualized

reality,

the

memory

of

reality after perception of it

has ceased.

Units

of

the

2nd kind of reality have been

imaginal

representation Ranken 1963), engram (Ogden

and

Richards 1923: 53; Lashley 1950), conceptual unit

(Swadesh 1960),

trace Quine 1960), or simply oncept.

DESIGNATED REALITY

Designated reality s usually called the referent

Quine

1953; Ogden and Richards

1923; and manyothers), ut

unlike

some usages of referentt will here

be restricted

to

the unique event spoken about.

CONCEPTUALIZED

DESIGNATED

REALITY

The

greatestproliferation

f

terms

eems

to exist

for

what is

usually

treated s

"meaning proper,"

the

con-

ceptualized designated eality.5 he following ist s far

from

omplete:

eme

or

sememe

Bloomfield 933;

Nida

1951; 'Wonderly 952;

and

Goodenough

1956),

ethno-

sememe,

macrosememe

Greenberg 954),

engram Ull-

mann

1957),

reference

Ogden

and

Richards

1923),

signifiSaussure 1915),

sense

(Ullmann

1957),

indi-

cation

Russell 1940), designatumMorris

1955;

Wein-

reich

1963),

nominal

representationRanken

1963),

and

semantic

regularity Ziff 1960).

Thought

which

ubsumes

onceptualized

eality)

nd

uch

expressionsfor

which the

meaning

cannot

be deter-

mined on the

basis

of

the

constituent

arts

constitute exical

units,

whether

theyare

single

morphemes r

combinations

of

morphemes, ither

so-called words

(e.g.

pineapple- nd

jack-in-the-pulpit)r

phrases

e.g. bees

n

the

bonnet nd

bats in the belfry). These lexical units must be treated

essentially as

units,

even as

the name

implies,

and a

semantic

nalysismust

deal

also with

them

as

with a single

word;

for

the

semantically

relevant

distribution f these

4

4

Lexeme is not to be

confused with Hockett's usage, which

defines a lexeme as a grammatical orm

1958:169).

Conklin speaks of lexemes

as unitary simple (pine); unitary

complex where the word

(pineapple) is exocentric; composite

where 2 words (pitchpine) refer to a single species; and finally

non-lexemicwhere the

phrase

(cheap pine), s entirely ndocentric.

r

See Ogden and Richards

(1923: chap. 9) for many different

meaningsof "meaning."

CURRENT

ANTHROPOILOGY


4/31

meaningconceptualized

esignated

eality)

re notby

any

means he ame Penfield

961:

15).

The

Russians,

Vygotsky

1926)

and

Zvegincev1957).

have

empha-

sized

thedifference,

s

have

many

American

hinkers.

Whorf

1956)

mentions

he

"sublinguistic"

ase

of

thinking;

elly (1955: 16)

the

"subverbal

attern

f

representation

nd

construction."ynch

1960)

supplies

labels

for unconscious

ategories

f conceptualizing

space

n

English.

rown

nd

Lenneberg1954),

Lenne-

berg ndRoberts1956), nd Vande Geer 1960)speak

of "codability"

r the

ease with

which

oncepts

re

named

n a language

which

srelated

othe

availabil-

ity"

fconcepts).

oodenough1956:

210) suggests

hat

"while

he

vocabulary

f a

language

annot e expected

to deal

readily

with

oncepts

hich o notexist

or

ts

speakers,

t

may

also

be

unable

to

be

precise

bout

concepts

hich

ery

learly o

exist."

Whiting1939)

and

French1956)

discuss nnamed onceptual

ate-

gories

ctually

sed n

a culture. piker

1956),

Weir

and Stevenson

1959),

and

Carroll

and Casagrande

(1958)

deal

with

ways n

which

onceptual

ategories

and

their inguistic

epresentation

nterrelate.

athiot

(1962) explores axonomic lassifications,erceptual

criteria,nd form

lasses

n thePapago

anguage.

erlin

(1962)

has made

a trenchant

tudy

fconceptual

ate-

gories

n

thenumerical

lassifiers

f Tzeltal.

The

relationship

etween eality,

hought,

nd

mean-

ing

has

broughthilosophers

nto emantictudy

o an

increasing

xtent.

Among

he nfluential

hilosophers

whohaveworked

with

emantic

roblems

re:

Austin

(1946),

Carnap

1956),

Goodman

1963),

Naess

1957),

Putnam 1960;

1962),

Quine

(1953; 1957;

1959;

1960),

Russell

1940;

1948),Ryle

1953),

Tarski

1944),

Witt-

genstein

1953),

nd

Ziff1960).

Their

views ary

with

their

urposes.

uine's

s to develop

notation

or, nd

increase larity n, certain raditional roblems f

philosophy,

uchas

reality

nd analyticity.

hile he

indicates

n interest

n "odd

syntactic

orms"

n lan-

guage,

e

usually

onsiders

nly

usesof language

hat

involve

"observation,"

nd

"theoretical"

entences

which anbe

considereds either

rue

r false

ndcan

prompt

ssent

r dissent

rom n informant.

e ignores

expressive

tatements,

ommands,

uestions,

nd

many

otherypes

futterances

hich

ave nterested

hiloso-

phers

f

theOxford

chool,

specially

ustin.

ecause

their urpose

s entirely

ifferent,

hese

philosophers

treat rdinaryanguage

omewhat

acrosanctly

nd

do

not

make

llowance or anguage

hange

Quine

1960:

3). Katz and Fodor (1963), exposed o problems fmachine ranslationt M.I.T., offer morerealistic

and

potentially

orkable emantic

heory

with

much

wider application

han

previous

hilosophical

ork.

POLYSEMY

ANDHOMONYMY

Ullmann

1962:

69)

hassaidthat ...

the exicographer

has to

distinguish

ore or

less arbitrarily

etween

differenthades

of the

samemeaning

nd

different

meanings

f

the ameword...

." Wells 195

:662)and

Ziff

1960)

attempt

o set

up criteria

or ecisions

bout

polysemy.

einreich

1963:142-44)

ses

hedisjunctive

sign

n

a

notation

or

he

variousmeanings

f

a word

form, utwith he exceptionf Stefflre1963),who

has detailedexperimental

methods

ordealingwith

am-

biguity

and polysemy

which

are more in line

with

anthropological

equirements,

ll the other

methods

re

Vol.

7.

No. 1

.February

1966

Colby:

ETHNOGRAPHIC

SEMANTICS

(without

written

istorical

ecordsfor deciding

n

homonymy)

f

no anthropological

alue.

Treating

hink nd

worry s continuouseferents

or

a single

wordformnd blue

nd green s

discontinuous

referents

or

another

word

form s arbitrary

ithout

testingnformants

bout he

usageof these

words.

The

question

f entrality

Grundbedeutung)-which

meaningf a word ormsprimary-is variant f the

same problem.

Bloomfield

1933), Pike

(1954), and

Nida

(1949)

prefer

o

callprimary

hemeaning

child

learns st.

requency

fusagemight

e a more

bjective

criterion,

ore ccessible

odiscovery

ndprobably

ess

variable rom ndividual

o

individual.

azacu (1956)

has used ests

o find

basic ore

f meaning; nudsen

and Sommerfelt

1958)

propose ther

riteria.

As in

determiningolysemy

or word

form,uch

considerationsre of

moreuse in

machineranslation

(Delavenay

1960;

Edmundson

961; Locke

and Booth

1955; Ceccato

1960; Oettinger

960;

Simmons 962;

Hays 1962)

than in

ethnology,

here criteria

or

establishingescriptivealiditymust ederivedn some

way

from he

culture. roblems

f multiple

meaning

become

much

more omplex

when ffective

onnota-

tions re

ncluded.

DEFINITIONS

There

re2

types

f

definition:

enotation

rextension-

al definition-simply representation

f designated

reality

ra listing

ftokens

i.e., ndividual

members)

ofthe lass nd

signification

r ntensional

efinition-

the clusters

f components,

roperties,

ttributes,

r

distinctiveeatureshat

onstitute

particular

efini-

tion

Morris

1955;

Lounsbury956).

Carnap

(1956:

233) describeshem s follows:

The theory

f

the relations

etween

language-either

a natural

anguage

r

languageystem-and

hat

anguage

is about,may

be

divided

nto wo

parts

which

callthe

theory

f extensiontand

he

theory

f

intension,espec-

tively.

he

first

eals

with

oncepts

ike

denoting,

aming,

extension,

ruth

nd

related

nes.

For

example,

heword

'blau'

n

German,

nd

ikewise

he

predicate

B' in

sym-

bolic

anguage

ystem

f

a rule

assigns

o t the same

meaning,

enote

ny bject

hat s

blue;

ts

xtension

s

the

class

f ll

blue

bjects;

der

Mond'

s

a name

fthe

moon;

the entence

derMond

st

blau'

s

true

f and

only

f the

moon s blue.)

The

theory

f

intension

eals

with

on-

cepts

ike intension,

ynonymy,

nalyticity,

nd related

ones; or urpresentiscussionetus call themintension

concepts."

I

use

intension'

s

a technical

erm or

he

meaning

f an

expression,

r

more

pecifically,

or

ts

designative

eaning

omponent;

ee below. or

example,

the ntension

f

blau'

n German

s

the

roperty

f

being

blue;

two

predicates

re

synonymous

f and

only

f

they

have

he amentension;

sentence

s

analytic

f

t s

true

by

virtue f

the

ntensions

f

the

xpressions

ccurring

n

it.)

The use

of these definition

ypes

s a

controversial

subject

n

philosophy,

specially

n the

writings

f

Carnap

and

Quine.6

Nida

(1964),

briefly,

nd

White

6

Much of Quine's book (1960)

is

an

attack

on

Carnap's theory

of intension.Wittgenstein 1953) and Ziff are also on opposite

sides

of the fence:

"One cannot differentiateetween

he

purported

extension

and the actual or correct xtension

of a term) except

on the basis

of the intension f

the term"

Ziff 1960:70).

See also

5


5/31


6/31


7/31

characteristic

ay

be least

frequent

n

native ermin-

ologies

Frake 962), hough

his ometimes

epends n

how

highone

goes

n

the

system. t

higher

ontrast

levels he terms

suallybecome ewer

n

number,

ut

notalways.

ometimes higherevelmay

be

more

x-

haustive nd

may

nvolve

more erms han the evel

immediatelyelow Nida 1964).12

Much can be

learned rom

he

analysis

f

various

types f

synecdochic,r

part-whole, elationships

n

folk classifications.t is theoreticallynteresting

(whether

ne

s

dealing

with

bjects, elations,

r

space

or time

nits) odistinguishlass

nclusion r"kind

f"

relationshipsrom part

of"

or

"part-whole"

elations

(Conklin

962: 129).

Contrast-leveltudies

how

that

languages

differ

more

t

each

higher

evel

f

contrast.

ords

t the ower

levels

usually dhere o the"perceptually

istinguish-

able

objects,"while

higherontrastevels eflect

con-

ceptually

ased classifications"

Nida 1964). Inves-

tigators

sually aveworked t

the owerevels ndhave

not

appreciated

he

ethnologicalnsights

hat can be

gained

from n

understanding

f the

way

words on-

trast t higher evels, s suggested y Hockett 1954:113,118-19).

Of

special

nterests the ccurrencef

the ame erms

at different

ierarchicalevels.

At 1 level nEnglish

he

term

nimal ubstitutes

or

uch erms s

wolf, heep,

dog, at,

tc., ut t

a

higherevel

nimal

an

substitute

for

man,fish,bird,and insect

Nida

1964). Frake,

studying

isease lassificationn

the ubanun anguage,

discovered

hat he erm uka,

meaningkin ruption,

existed

t

more han1

contrast-level1961). An erup-

tion f this

ypemay

healwithout

omplication,ut t

may

also

go

on to

develop nto

1

of

23

more

erious

diseases.

herefore uka is used

for botha terminal

disease

ategory nd

a developmentaltage

forother

diseases,s both general nd a specific erm.What

differentiates

his ype f stage

rom ther tages, uch

as

a stage

n plantgrowth,s the

futurendeterminacy.

The

progressions

stochastic, ithvarious

lternative

possibilities

t each disease tage.

uch a classification

does

not

pecifyucceedingtages; t merely

imits nd

structures.t is both

descriptionnd

prediction.

Another haracteristic

f

taxonomies

mportant

n

the

nalysis

f

contrast-levels

as

underlined

y Nida

(1964):

terms

t the

ame

evel

often

verlap t many

points;

he ame

designated

eality

an be

dentified

y

2

different

erms.

ida

offers

he

example

f

ship

n

English,

hich an occur

with ithert or she

s

a

sub-

stitute, epending pon the context.Nida mentions

other

haracteristicsevealed

n

chain

nalysis.

olors

and

numbersan be

broughtogether

n

inear elation-

ships y

this

echnique

o show

overlapping

reas and

indistinct

nd

shifting

oundaries

1964: 69).

See

also

Conklin

1962).

COMPONENTIAL

ANALYSIS

The

mapping

f a domain n which the

conceptual

segmentation

nd hierarchical

evels

are

indicated y

lexical units s a

preliminary

tep

for

another,more

detailed, nalysis

n

which

he

relevant

i.e.,

domain-

related) ignification

f

each unit

on a

given evel s

analyzed intocomponents r distinctive eatures.

This type

f'

nalysis

ad tsAmerican eginnings

n

thework fMorgan 1871) and

Kroeber 1909),

where

kinship erminology

ystems erediscussedn

termsf

a limitednumber f discriminations

r components.

Taking he erminologiesf 12 North

American

ribes,

Kroeber istinguished

componentservingo define

termsn some

r all of the12terminologies:

eneration;

marriage; egree f collaterality;

exof relative; exof

speaker; elativege n generation;

nd vitalcondition

ofconnectingelative.

Later, apir

made componentialnalysis

f

English

totalizers1930).A "totalizer"

s any term xpressing

a quantitative

udgment . . . whose function

t is to

emphasizehe act hat nthe

iven ontexthe uantifi-

able s

not

to be thoughtf as capable

of ncrease,.g.,

all,

the

whole

lock." sing

16 categoriesf totalizers,

Sapirmade a classificationased

on

the

following

component imensions:

eneral abstract)-specialized

(concrete);direct-calculated;

on-evaluative

pure)-

evaluated;and simple-modified.

apir derived

the

notion f totalityrom kinds

fpsychologicalxperi-

ence:

1) the eelingf rest r nabilityo proceedfter count,

formal r informal,as been

madeof a set or series r

aggregationfobjects; ) the

feelingf inabilityr un-

willingness

o

break

up

an object nto smaller bjects.

These

eelings,

hich

maybe

schematicallyeferredo as

the all' and thewhole' eeling

espectively,re correla-

tive o each other. hey rise

naturallyrom xperience

with

bjects1930:7).

This

paper

nd Sapir's Grading: study

n seman-

tics"

(1951b) are important

andmarks n semantic

theory hat

deservemore attention.See

Weinreich

1963: 128-29 for a recent inguistic iscussion

f

quantifiers,

nd

Quine 1959)

for logical reatment.)

Though linguists Jakobson

1936; Harris 1948;

Wonderly952) and othersLounsbury956:161-62)

analyzed ronouns

nd affixes omponentially,

he1st

anthropologists

o

publish igorous

omponentialnal-

ysesof meaning, ollowing roeber

nd Sapir,were

Goodenough

1951; 1956) andLounsbury1956).

Their

papers,which

ppeared n the ame ssue f

Language,

arenow

theworksmost ftenited n reference

ocom-

ponentialnalysis.

Beyond

etter

emantic

pecification,

he

purpose

f

componentialnalysis

s

to

find

onceptual

nits

Good-

enough

956:

196, 198)

or

".

. . to

reveal

he tructure

of

the

ogical

alculus

which

s

employed

n the

given

taxonomy

ssociated

with

the terms"

Wallace

1962:

353).AnotherbjectivementionedyLounsburys to

discover

he

tructure

f

non-linguistic

ehavior:

The

system f

discriminatoryinguistic

ehavior

s then e-

lated

o the

ystem

f

discriminatoryon-linguistic

e-

havior"

(Lounsbury

956:

189). Goodenough

nd

Wallace

emphasize sychological

orrelates

n com-

ponential nalysis

while

Lounsbury peaks

more

of

sociological

orrelates.13

An additional

ossibility

n

componential

nalysis

s

to

go beyond

he

onceptual

istinctionsmbodied

n

a

set

of lexical tems o

concepts

hat

re

not

exically

12

See

also

Simpson's

(1961:13-15) distinction

between a

hier-

archy

nd a

key in

whichthe

idea of

priority s

important.

8

13

Of course

there s a trivial sense

in which

language relates to

behavior, n that all terms denotingsome type of behavior are"related" to behavior. Though Goodenough uses this trivial sense

in his example of

behavioral criteriafor the meaning of football

hero, this

is

not what he and Lounsburymean

by sociological or

psychological

orrelates.

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY


8/31

objectivized Goodenough 1956: 210). By

knowing

the

semantic omponents

f

a lexical domain

it

is

possible

to

study

atent

possibilities ot expressed n

the

vocabu-

lary. This would be useful especially

in

studying

e-

mantic changes indicating

the

presence of

cognitive

orientationsor

a

"cognitive style" (Hymes

1961b:

40-41).

Anthropologists how great enthusiasm or the

se-

mantic nalysesof Goodenough nd

Lounsbury. ome,

however,have been disappointed y therelativelymall

numberof published componential nalysesfollowing

the

1956

papers

or

by the somewhat rbitrary ature

of

the method n the absence of eliciting nd

testing ro-

cedures Burling 1964)."4 Part

of

the disappointment

may

stemfrom

veremphasis

n

componential nalysis

as

an indicatorof basic principles f

non-linguistic

e-

havior or of

cognitive tructure.t seems o

me that the

greatest ignificance f componential analysis is lin-

guistic

rather han

anthropological-in its

delineation

and clarification f semanticproblems

rather han in

its revelation of psychological reality

(Wallace and

Atkins 1960).

Some American xponents fdescriptivethnography

have

seized upon componential nalysis as an

example

of

the

rigor

nd

depth of analysis that can be achieved

in the

careful

study

of

a single culture.Such analysis

excludescross-cultural ork,which they

consider o be

synonymouswith superficiality nd "softness."How-

ever, the componential analyses of Lounsbury and

Goodenough rely very much on cross-cultural tudies

of kinship.The discoveryof culturally

relevant com-

ponents requires ome advance knowledgeof what to

look

for. Knowledge of the possibilitiesof variation

(corresponding, .g., to knowledge of possible speech

sounds,

a

prerequisite or phonemic analysis) derives

from

cross-cultural tudy. The greater the range of

behavior studied,the more new discriminations orce

themselves n the analyst.Once cognitive nertia n the

perceptual process is overcome,

discriminations re

possible ven where hecharacteristicsxist n

attenuated

form. Hidden or little-emphasizedmeaningful om-

ponents n 1 culture mightbe overlooked f the same

componentswere not more patent n other

ultures.

The value

of

cross-cultural

emantic

analysis

was

demonstrated

t a conference n the

Mayan

languages

of Guatemala

and southernMexico

(Nida 1958).

Mem-

bers

of

theconference

made

a

cross-cultural

tudy

f

the

single

broad

concept baman, listing

ll

Mayan

words

that

approximated

ts

meaning.

When the more

precise

definitionsf thesewords werediagrammed, he result

was a more detailed

and

wider

grouping

of

concepts

than the one

originally

conceived.

This

procedure

s

very

useful

n field

eliciting.

t

helps

the

analyst

to

clarify he meanings

f the words

used and

provides

a

cross-cultural ramework

or

eliciting

ther

words and

shades

of

meaning reviously

verlooked.

uch

a

process

is

similar

to

Lazarsfeld's "substruction

f

property

spaces" (1961).

Colby: ETHNOGRAPHIC

SEMANTICS

Attempts t

componential

nalysis in a

single an-

guage

outside the

domain of kin

terms r

grammatical

paradigms have been

unsuccessful,f we

define com-

ponential

analysis with

austerity.A

parsimonious et

of

components

or any

large

vocabulary domain must

be

abstract nd

general

and would

identify erms

nly

if

an inventory

,f he

domain is

available. If a

term's

membershipn a contrast et s known, hen he distinc-

tive

features perating

within hat et

aresufficient.15

Components

have been

classifiedby

Burling s

pri-

mary,

"significant

ver the

entire set of

terms;" and

secondary,

significant or less than

the total

number

of

items

f the set. .

."

(1964:

21). Wallace and

Atkins

(1960) made a

similar

distinctionn their

discussion

f

orthogonal nd

non-orthogonalomponential

nalyses.

In an

orthogonal

nalysis, each term s

defined

by

1

value from

each

dimension,

nd

all possible combin-

ations of

values

are represented. n

a

non-orthogonal

analysis,

not all

possible combinations re

used,

so

that

in a

paradigmatic scheme

there are

gaps or

empty

spaces. Wallace and Atkins divide non-orthogonal

spaces

into 2 types:

... in the

first ype,

ll the

dimensionspan the

same set

of

referents , but

at least two

values from

different

dimensions

re

mutually

ontrary... in the

second ype,

each

dimension

verlaps t least

one other

imension,nd

all

dimensions

an be

arranged n an

interlocking

hain,

but

at least two

dimensionspan

differentets

ofreferents

(Ai and

A2), and hence

t leastonevalue

on one

dimension

is

mutually ontrary

ith ach of

then values

on another

dimension

..

(1960:71).

As

Wallace states n

a later

paper:

Ethnologists

houldnot, and

in fact do

not any

longer,

expectthe shape and other haracteristicsf the logical

space on

which

folk

taxonomys

mapped

to

be

neces-

sarily

he

simple

nd

convenient

rthogonal

lass-product

space

so familiar

n textbook

xpositions

f social

science

methodology

1962:353).

Orthogonal

or

non-orthogonal

type

I)

analyses

are

virtually

mpossible

for

a

vocabulary

list

exhaustive

of a

domainother

han

kinship

r

grammatical lements.

A

non-orthogonal

type II) componential

nalysis

can

be

quite

arbitrary; legance

and

symmetry,

ometimes

used as a

validitycriteria,

re

lacking;

here

the

problem

of

descriptive

alidity

s

critical.These

difficulties

ere

recognized

yLounsbury 1956:

194):

In some areas of lexicon, emantic tructure ay be so

complex

hat t is

impossible r

unprofitable

o

approach

it

in

this

manner,with Aristotelian

lass logic

and

the

"same

or different"

ragmatic

est

s

the

principal

ools.

It

may

become

necessary

o

abandon the

Aristotelian

dichotomy

f

A

vs.

not-A;

and the

clear distinction

between

essential" nd

"accidental"

eatures.

ontinuous

scales

may

be

introducedn

place

of

these

harp

dichot-

omies; egrees f

"criteriality"

aybe

measured or

various

semantic

eatures;

nd

tests

ther han the

simple

same

or

different"

ay have to be

devised.

An

example

of

what

might

e

called "limited"

com

ponential

analysis

s

Conklin's

classification

f

Hanu-

noo

terms elating

o, ime

and space measurement.

e

classifies hem nto "span' versus"point." These are

14

Among

the

authors of

componential

nalyses

all of

kin term

domains)

since

the

1956

papers

are:

Grimes and

Grimes

(1962),

Conant

(1961),

Romney and

Epling

(1958),

Epling (1961), and

Burling

1963).

Wallace and

Atkins

1960) is a

good review

and

discussion of the method; so is Nida (1964). For an interesting

cross-cultural

tudy see Edmonson

(1957).

Unpublished

papers

emphasizing the

methodology

of

componential-

nalysis are

Kay

(1964) and

Romney

1964). For a

historical

reatment

ee

Friedrich

(1964).

Vol. 7

. No.

1 .

February

1966

15

See

Frake's

description

f

3 high-level

plant

lexemes

according

to

woodiness and

rigidity

f stem

1926:83).

9


9/31

broken own nto proximate"

ersus

non-proximate"

and n some ases

furthernto

known" ersus

vague"

(lecture,

Harvard University,

962). It

is difficult

o

determinehow

much of such

classification s

native,

learned by the

ethnographer,nd

how much s imposed

by

a

pre-existing art

of the analyst's hought-structure.

This is,

of

course, he

most fundamental

thnographic

problem.

Conklin

spent enough time

speaking

the

language

in the culture

to

have

learned some

of its

psychologicallysignificant spects. But whetherthe

aspects f time

nd space measurement

epresent

rypto-

types (Whorf

1956) of the native or

of the ethno-

grapher's

language must be

specified by

the

ethno-

grapher.

Approximation

o implicitnative

categories

f

time nd space,may not

be necessary f the

thnographer

can generate

entences bout time

and space which

are

understandable o the

natives,but then

the problem

s

to determine

hen a

native "understands."

If

objects

were named exclusively

ccording o

phys-

ical

properties, heir

componential nalysis

would not

be

such

a

problem.

But

if

objects

are recognized

lso

by

function,

nalysisbecomes

nfinitely

more

complex

and

more culturally evealing. f we are trying o findthe

particular attributes

mportant

n the perception

of

coins, we may

concentrate n type of

metal, condition

of edges, and

size. This is not

likely to be culturally

revealing.

ut if we add

a fewfunctional

r experimen-

tal

attributes-the

ound

of a coin when

droppedor the

desired

response

rom slot

machine-we

move into

a

less

scrutable ut more

nterestingrea

of investigation.

Silver

dollars

signify ood luck

to childrenand

may

recall

Las Vegas

for adults. This is

still trivial but

approaches

what mightbe classed

as a culturally

m-

portant

bit ofAmericana.

The indeterminacy

f definition y attribute

s much

increasedfor

entitiesmore abstract

han coins.

Studies

of child behaviorsuggest hatsize, shape,and colorare

not

properties

by which objects

are 1st identified

(Church

1961:

5). Perceptual

attributes

f color and

form

tabilize

n the child's

identificational

pparatus

at later

developmental

tages-at

least as

a

basis

for

concept formation Church

1961:

11).

The

most

im-

portant

determinant

f

criterial ttributes

s undoubted-

ly

the

particularpurpose

behind

the

symbolizations

f

a situation.

he

learning rocess

may

nvolve the

build-

ing

of

a series

f

theories

oncerning

he

world of

refer-

ence and thewords

which

symbolize

ts

many

aspects.

We

categorize

vents nd

objects

and

pick

ready-made

words

from he

anguage

for hem.The

learning

riteria

for suchcategories re probablydifferent oreach in-

dividual.

A

baby

earns

hat rattle

makes noise when

shaken,

and

that a cat scratcheswhen squeezed.

He

learns

other

things

bout rattles

nd

cats;

but

does

he

use noise

and

scratching

s

criterial

ttributes

or

the

rest

f

his ife?

Meaningmay

be

learned n the

ame

way

large

buildings

re

constructed. scaffold

s

necessary

at the

beginning,

ut

on

completion

f

thebuilding

he

scaffold

s

removed and forgotten. ow

then can we

analyze

meaning ntirely n the

basis of attribute

caf-

folds?

Clearly, learning

bout

objects

for

the 1st time

and

identifying

hem

subsequently

nvolve different

attributes.

Word

meanings

develop; they

are not im-

mutable Vygotsky1962: 121).

In determining

he components f a

conceptualized

designated eality, nother

problem hat s particularly

serious for the non-native peaker

s the "dead meta-

10

phor."

t

is

difficult

o avoid

treating

sendocentriche

meaning

or lexicalunit hat

s

psychologically

xo-

centric

where hemeaning iffers

rom he um f the

meanings f theword

parts), utmayonce

have

been

endocentric.ockett

1954: 111) exemplifies

he

dead

metaphor

roblem

with

the

Chinese erm

for

train,

hw6che.

Hw6 "fire"and che "cart" were combined

whenthefire-spitting

team ocomotive

as

first n-

troduced

nto China. But hwoche

no longerhas this

endocentriceaning,s s demonstratedythe erm or

electric

rain,

yanlt-hwoche,

n

which

yanlt

ignifies

"electric ower."

The same

process ndoubtedly

ccurred

n Wisse-

mann's

tudy 1958;

see

Ullmann

962:

52)

and

is the

chief hortcomingfWhorf's1956)

demonstration

f

linguisticelativityhrough

iteral ranslation.

he

same

error ccurs n Ullmann's1962:

122) attempto dem-

onstrate hatFrenchs more

abstract" hanEnglish

or German n

that uchwords s ashtray

nd

Aschen-

becher,

eapot nd Teekanne,re

composite ord orms

whileFrench endrier

nd the'ierere

not.

SEMANTIC RULES

Transformationodels Levi-Strauss963b)

and gen-

erativegrammarsChomsky

957; 1961)

offer

new

possibilitiesn ethnographic

emantics,s well as in

general emantic heory.

asicto these

new develop-

ments

s

the dea of rules,

n many espects

imilar

o

Wittgenstein's

reatment1953).

The most ecent nd

complex

work

on semantics

s

based

n semanticules:

Katz and Fodor

1963)present

a

semantic

metatheory

escribingonstituents,bjec-

tives, nd constraints

f a workable

emanticheory.

According

o the

authors,

semantic heory ccounts,

without

ecourseo the ontexteitheringuistic

rnon-

linguistic),or he peaker'sbility o interpretsen-

tence

f his anguage. theory

hich ccounts

or on-

textual

nfluencesnthe nterpretation

fan utterance

would

haveto

represent

ll the

peaker's

nowledge

f

the

world, requirement

hich he uthors

onsider

n-

realistic.

Katz

and

Fodor tate hat semantic

heory

hould

account

or

entence

nterpretation

hrough1)

deter-

mining

he differenteadings

ossible, 2) detecting

semanticnomalies,nd (3)

deciding n paraphrase

relations

etween entences. his, together

with a

grammaticalescription

phonology,honemics,

or-

phology,

nd syntax) onstitutes

completeinguistic

description.

Their

heory

as

2

basic

omponents:1)

a

dictionary

which

uppliesvery ossible

meaning

f

a

lexical

tem

in

any

entencend

2) projection

uleswhich elect he

appropriate

eaning

f each

exical

tem n each

gram-

matical tructure

f

that entence

y

taking

ccount

f

the emanticelationsetween orphemesnd he nter-

action etween

meaningnd syntactic

tructure.

Lexicaldefinitionsn thedictionaryave

2 parts: 1)

2

types

of componential arkers:

rammaticale.g.,

noun,

verb)

and semantic

e.g.,

human-animal,ale-

female)

nd (2) distinguishers

hich re specific efi-

nitions

e.g.,

distinguisheror

1 meaningf bachelor

is "who has nevermarried"; or nother,who has the

1stor owest

cademic degree").Thus thevariousmean-

ings of each lexical item re subjected o a limited

orn-

ponential analysis plus more specific

definitions. he

CURRENT ANTHROPO LOG Y


10/31

meaning

omain

s determined

y

the common

mor-

pheme

hared

y

thevarious

meanings.

rojection

ules

combine ith

ictionary

ntrieso

eliminate

nomalous

combinations

fmeanings

n a

given

entence.

The method

maynothave

mmediateractical

sefor

anthropologists

ut

s

mportant

s a serious ttemptn

semanticheory

hich enefits

rom

he

ophistication

of

theoriesbout enerative

rammars.

Recently,

ounsbury1961)

has

developed

new

formalmethodor escribingelationshipsmong row

and Omahakinship erminologies,

sing ewrite

ules

o

bring

ut equivalences

f different

ermswithin

he

system.

.g., Mother's

rother

s

a connecting

ermn

a

compound

in

type

s to be rewritten

s brother"nd

so on, until ll

the terms re reduced

o

a

focal type.

Lounsburyuggests

ses

or

hese

quivalences

ypoint-

ingout

parallel equences

f statusnheritance

n

socio-

logicaldata.

n

a

similar eduction

nalysis f

Ramko-

kamekra

interms, eesing1962)

finds parallel

be-

tween ewrite

ules

nd

transmissionf nherited

ames.

The method ffers

number

fdistinct

dvantages

ver

componential

nalysis

n the particular

ase

of

Crow

and Omaha terminologiese.g.,reductiono a focal

type),

utmuchmore

work s needed

mong

ther

o-

cieties

beforereduction

nalysiscan be

adequately

assessed.

Another ew development

n semantics

imilar

o

reduction

nalysis nd

some spects f the

transform-

ational

approach

s

Nida's theory

f

translation.

is

procedure

s to reducemeanings

r semes

o

4

funda-

mental omponents

n the emantic

tructuref symbol

combinations:bject,

vent, ttribute,nd relational.

Many

words

have semes elongingo

more han

1 of

these classes

(particularly

n highly

agglutinative

forms); .g., kin

terms pecify

oth an object and

a

relationship.

emantic omplexityf a word where

ts

semes elong o more han1 basicclass) s reduced,n

specific entences,

o "semantic

rimitives"arallel

n

many espects

o kernel entences

n generativeram-

mars.

his

method,

asedon a theoryf

theuniversal-

ity

f the seme ypes,

an be applied n

many nthro-

pological

nalysesnd

can be of great se

to ethnog-

raphers.

ELICITING

PROCEDURES

AND

PROGRAMMED

SPECIFICATION

Working

ith

nformants,ne

can learn

omething

f

the

boundariesnd dimensions

f synonyms

r related

wordsby distributionalrame-and-substitutionech-

niques Nida

1964; Stefflre 963).

These techniques,

though

ot new, are increasing

n use and should

be

helpful

ordetermininghe "rapport

etweenwords"

(Whorf

956:

67)

or fordiscovering

oncepts hat re

cognitivelyelated

n awaypeculiar

o the ulture eing

analyzed.

Another

liciting

echnique

s to

use

deliberaterror

in reference

o stimulus

bjects

o evoke

orrective

e-

plies,presumably

n

the

same

contrast evel

as the

erroneously

sed

exeme Frake

1962: 81-82).Landar

(1960)

has

used

matrix

ystem

or

liciting.ee Kelly

(1955:

59-60)

for

furtheriscussionf semantic

map-

ping nd Quine 1960: 30) fordiscussionf prompting

and eliciting

n

"cradical"~

ranslation

i.e., of a language

with ittleor no contactwith any

language already de-

scribed).

Vol. 7 . No. 1 .

February 966

Colby: ETHNOGRAPHIC

SEMANTICS

A method developed by

Metzger and Williams

(1 963a), modelled o someextent

n programmedearn-

ing techniques,

ims at reducing mbiguity nd

ethnog-

rapherbias by

forcing he ethnographerystematically

to learn correctword usage n

a specified omain of the

language.The

ethnographer's uestion eliciting

rame)

comes from

previously ecordednative textual

materi-

als, to insure that the phrasingis indigenous. The

process, n the form of verbatim

statements f both

ethnographer nd informant,

s presented s evidence

so that the reader

can judge for himself Metzger

and

Williams 1963a: 216):

The establishment

nd employmentf specifiable

liciting

frames, ormulated

n the informants'anguage

and in

terms "entertainable"

y informants, onstrains

heir

responsen some

greatdegree o a focus r foci

which re

in turndefined

n the informants'erms, ather

han by

the categories f the nvestigator.

As

an example,Metzger ites

n interviewwith a law

student n whichtheframe Does

the AttorneyGeneral

take cases to court?" licited negative nswer t 1 time

and

an affirmativenswer t

another lecture,Harvard

Center for Cognitive Studies,

1963). The investigator

reworked he

question nto 2 revised frames

no longer

ambiguous to the informant:

"Does the Attorney

Generalpress itigation?" nformant's

esponse: Yes."

"Does the

AttorneyGeneral try cases?" Informant's

response: "No."

The investigator ontinues

to inter-

view until

all

his frame-response ets are

stabilized.

These

are entered

n the terminal thnographic

escrip-

tion.

The

most

detailed and

complete specification

f a

variety

of

ethnographic opics

in

the

native

language

of a culture lien to theanthropologist as recorded4

centuries

go

by Sahaguin.Though

it

will

probably

be

many

more

years

before

hevolumeof his data is match-

ed

(beyond

texts f

folklore

r

myth),

we at last have a

significant

methodological mprovement

ver

Sahaguin's

techniques

n the

programmedpecification

f

Metzger

and

Williams,

n which

the

exact

questionsput

to

the

informant

re

added

to the record f his answers.

VALIDITY

Descriptive

validity

s

best attained

through

uch

pro-

cedures s

programmed

pecification.

ut once

the data

have been recordedand arrangedfor analysis,other

kinds

of validity

assume

mportance.

Much

of

the

lit-

erature

hese

days

s concernedwiththe

emic

problem"

or

psychological

or cultural

reality.'6

Are

the compo-

nents

n

a

componential nalysis really

indigenous

o

thepeopleusing

he

word forms,

r are

they

imply

on-

venient onstructs

f the

analyst?

Are

we

searching

or

something

hat

really exists,

for

"God's

truth,"

r

are

we

simply

earranginghings

t will

for

purely

ractical

ends?

.

.

.

the

God's

truthman doesn'tbelieve

he'll ever

find

God's

truth,

ut

he does

believe t

exists,

nd

that

by trying

nd

working

he can

gradually approach

it

asymptotically" Householder

1952:

261). During

the

last

decade,

emphasis

has

been

on the "God's truth"

position, hough henew nterestn generative rammars

16

Much of

thishas been stimulatedy Pike 1954),, hough he

basicpaper s

Sapir 1951a, originallyublishedn 1925).

11


11/31

as a modelfor anthropologicalnalysismay bring

shift oward he hocus ocus"or pragmatic irection.

The new

emphasis

s

on informantesponses

o

pro-

ductions r behaviors hat re generated y a series f

rules r calculiwhich hemselvesrenot ested.

Burling1964) has attacked omponentialnalysis y

showing hevirtuallynfinite umber f ways

lexical

set can be componentiallyivided, f there s no

way

of checking hich omponentsepresent

God's

truth"

and whichare constructsf the analyst.Answering

Burling's ttack,Hymes 1964) stresses meansof

validatingomponentsn theprocess f approximating

"God's truth": liciting rocedures, se of context,

and

prediction.t is perhaps ignificanthat,with he

exception f eliciting roceduresn Conklin 1962)

and Frake 1962),none f these asreceivedubstantial

treatmentn either he lassic 956papers fLounsbury

and Goodenoughr aterworks.

The

primary

eans f

establishingescriptive

alid-

ity s simplynformantesponse. ymes 1964) refers

o

the "question ependent"spect f semanticnalysis.

Proper licitingechniques

n thefield

rovide

means

of eliminatinglargenumberf alternativeomponen-

tial analysesn the ttempt

o

arrive

t what

s

assumed

to represent

he

ognitiverocesses

fthe

natives.

When

Hymes peaks

of

prediction,

e means

mainly

n

af-

firmative

nformant

esponse

o thecorrect

aming

f

objects

n the

environment,howing

hat he

meaning

has

been ttained

y

the

nvestigator.7

Thedrawbacko

such

criterion

s

that

hevarious

semantic rinciplesnd componentsppliedby

the n-

vestigator

hen

he decideswhether

n

object s

desig-

nated

y

a

specific

exical

unit

may

not

lways

be con-

scious

o

him.

Chomsky's emarks1962: 528-29)

on

the

unconsciousontributionsreadermakes

o

a tra-

ditional

rammar

hile

earning foreignanguage

an

beapplied qually othe nvestigatorhenhepredicts

and testsword

usage

n an alien

anguage. ven f

the

investigators fully onsciousf ll-he emanticriteria

he

uses n testing ordusage, n affirmativenformant

response

oesnot

necessarily

ean he

riteriare

those

used

by

native

peakers."8

Prediction

f

correctword

usage

s different

rom

prediction

f

future vents r

data

characteristicsn-

accessible

o

the

nvestigator

t

the

ime

f

prediction.

Lounsbury'sociological

orrelates

alidate omponents

throughrediction

f

this

atter ype. t is probably

he

promise

f

this

ype

of

validation hat

has

attracted

many anthropologists

o

componentialnalysis.Un-

fortunately,t spreciselynthis rea hat omponential

analysis

nd

contrast-level

nalysis ave

been

most is-

appointing. rake 1961) briefly

ints t

social

contexts

that relate to

skin

disease and

its

terminology

ut does

not specify

hem n the

rigorous etail

needed o

validate

the arrangement f his lexical units. More relevant s

Fenton's description 1940) of

the classification of

medicinalplants nto a hierarchy f form imilar o the

sequentialpattern

n

prayers

o the

spirit

forces.Both

are based on

the

principle

of relative stature.

Though

Fenton omits detail, he indicatesthat such

a

principle

also seems to underlie the Iroquois conceptionof the

treeof life."9

CONTEXT

In Hjelnmslev's iew, meaningdoes not exist part from

context 1961:

45).2?

Many linguists, nthropologists,

and humanists

hare this

emphasis

on context

rather

thanwords n isolationor n paradigms.The contextual

viewpoint emphasizes (1) the influence

of

adjacent

words, sentences, nd paragraphs on the meaning

of

specific exical units-textual or linguistic ontext

nd

(2) the actual situation n whichthe speecheventoccurs

-non-linguisticor behavioral context.2"

The

non-linguistic

ontext

n

which

hearer

s

situat-

ed already imitshis expectancy.He becomesmobilized

(Church 1961: 28) or "set" to make certain nterpre-

tations rather than others n a continual process

of

Ccthematizingxperience." In a particular sphere

of

activityhe expects o encounter onceptsdirectly

elat-

ed to

that activitymore than he expects

to

encounter

concepts lien to t. Non-linguistic ontext husprovides

a

kind of semanticredundancy pp. 57-58, 97).

Bateson

(1960) outlines sequence of

contexts

n an

open and possibly nfinite eries.

One

contextmay com-

pletely reverse the meaning of a message normally

given in another context. To indicate the message-

clarifying unctionof context Bateson uses the term,

meta-message.22

Here we are dealing with what Vy-

gotsky nd Paulhan call

the

sense.23

"A word in a

contextmeans

both

more

and less than

17

See

Hoijer

(1958)

and,

again, Sapir

(1951a).

Predictive

validity concerns

representativeness

r

replicability.

If

data have

been

elicited

from

a

single

informant nd

analyzed,

what

are

the chances that

another

nformant ill

produce

the

same

results?

Obviously the

answer

depends

upon

the

nature

of

the

data

and

the

inferencesmade.

Most

linguisticwork is

done

with

a

handful

of

informants.

ther

types of

work require

a much

larger

sample

before the

data

"stabilize."

We have

very

little

systematic

nformation

n

the degree of

semantic

sharing

(see

Quine

1960:8, 13,

272).

18

Hymes

(1964:117)

refers to

this as

the

sorting

problem.

Replication

of

semantic

components

s the

goal of

many

anthro-

pologists

but

usually not

the

concern f

those who

use a

generativegrammar s a model. Katz and Fodor, e.g., are interested nly in

economical

and

correct

interpretation,with

the

emphasis

that

semantic

markers

components)or

projection

rules be

judged not

alone

but

in

combination

n

specific

pplications.

12

19

Principles

of classification

nvolvingreligious

beliefs

are cer-

tainly

among

the more

interesting

nd

revealing

relationships

n

a

culture.

An

example

worth

further

tudy

s the

possible

relation-

ship between

Hindu

dietary

oncern nd

classification

f

birds

by

the way

they

handle food.

20

See

also Chao's "principle

of total

accountability"

1953:379).

To

discover the extent o

which

relatively

autonomous"

words

are

independent f

context

or their

meaning

requires

n

ambitious

program

f

experimental emantics

see Stefflre

963).

21

The division of context nto

linguistic

nd

non-linguisticspects

follows Morris' division into pragmatics nd semantics-syntactics

(1955).

Wittgenstein

1953:5) includes both contexts s

essential:

"I

shall also call

the

whole, consisting

f

language

and

the actions

into which

it is

woven, the

"language game."

Greenberg 1954:15)

uses

linguiseme

for

meaning

derived

from

linguisticcontext and ethnosemefor

meaning derived from non-

linguistic ontext.

22

Humor

(Burke

1957), irony (Knox

1961),

metaphor Burke

1957; Asch

1955), and

euphemisms, ll

dependentupon

linguistic

and

non-linguistic ontexts

of

situations,have yet

to receive sub-

stantive

reatment

n

this

connection y

anthropologists.

23

Ortega

y Gasset speaks

of the need

for "a

theory f the par-

ticular

silences

observed

by different

eoples. The

Englishman

leaves

unsaid countless things

that

Spaniards normally

ay. And

vice versa "

(1957:246).

Such silences

can be

categorized nto

the

silent

message conveyed

visually

(proxemic

behavior, Hall

1963);

the

shared

contextual nformation ever sent by any means; andintonations, auses, etc., in speech (paralinguisticmeaning,

Trager

1958; 1960;

1961; and dictive

meaning,

Empson 1952).

Recently

Hymes

(1962) has

detailed

many of these

aspects of context n

a

paper on

the

ethnography f speech.

CURRENT

ANTHROPO

LOGY


12/31

the

ameword

n solation:more, ecause

t

acquires

ew

context;

ess,

ecause

tsneaning s imitednd

narrow-

ed bycontext"

Vygotsky

962:146).

This

ddition

nd

subtraction

f meaningmay

ead eventually

o

better

understanding

f the

complex

nterrelation

etween

thoughtnd

meaning.

inguists

ave

been nterested

n

context

nalysisprimarily

or delimiting

olysemy.

Weinreich1963)

has used notation orhandling

on-

text omponents.

Componentsf linguisticontext, owever,re of

minor

ethnographic

ignificance

hen

compared

o

components

f non-linguistic

ontext.

Bloomfield

(1933:

139)

once aid:

In

order o give

a

scientifically

accurate efinition

f meaning

or every

form

f

a

language,

e should

aveto

havea

scientifically

ccu-

rateknowledge

f everything

n

the speaker's

world.

Malinowski1923:

301)

wrote n

a

similar

ein:

Instead ftranslation,

f nserting

implyn

English

ord

for a native

ne,we are

facedby

a

long

nd not

al-

togetherimple

rocessf

describing

ide ields

fcustom,

of

socialpsychology

nd

of tribal rganizations

hich

correspond

o oneterm

r another.

Boas andSapirareamong hemany nthropologists

who

have

expressed

he ame

views.

The

idea

that semantic

heory

must

omehow

n-

compass

he total context

f the

ives of

the

speakers

of language

asbeen eferred

o

n nformal

iscussions

by Chormsky

s the

"encyclopedic

heory."

ecause

description

f the

otalnon-linguistic

ontext

f

speech

events s regarded

s

impossible,

any inguists

ither

renounce

n

interestn

semantics

r declare

hat

se-

mantic

heory an

be developed

without

onsidering

non-ling,uistic

ontext

Katz

and Fodor

1963).

If ethnographic

emantics

mustultimately

nvolve

non-linguistic

ontext,

he reat ttraction

fgenerative

grammarsor nthropologistss somethingf a para-

dox.

For

ommitmento a Chomskian

iew f

inguistics

entails ejection

f the

ncyclopedic

heory.

But there re

2

ways

of viewing

on-linguistic

on-

text.

The anthropological

iew s

quitedifferent

rom

the

inguistic

ne.

Actually,here

s no

reason o

assume

that

henon-linguistic

ontext f

speech, s conceptual-

ized by

the

peakers,

s

so unique

ndrooted

npartic-

ularity

ftime nd

setting

hat t cannot

e characteriz-

ed

relativelyarsimoniously.

he anthropological

aith

that

non-linguisticontext

eed

notbe

treated

ncyclo-

pedically-that

omehow

t can be

mademore

imple-

is

reflectedn frequent

eferences

o "cognitive

truc-

tures" ndrelated oncepts.

No

2

people,

ontextual

ituations,

r

specch

vents

are

exactly

he ame.Rather

han reoccupy

hemselves

with

whathardly

needs

demonstration,

hat

no

2

in-

dividuals

cognitively

hare" ll

elements,

ost thnol-

ogists

urn o

those spects

f culture

hat,

ikelan-

guage,

re

communicated

nd

understood

y a

signifi-

cantpartof society

ndthat

hopefully

anbe

reduced

to

components

r

elements

f

a reasonably

imple

structure.24

Colby:

ETHNOGRAPHIC

SEMANTICS

When one

attempts o describe he

context

f a

situation,ne

must ecidewhatparts o select

orde-

scriptionnd

where o segmenthe tream

f behavior.

Various ombinationsfthe

nits electedmust ccount

fornew situations

s grammaticalheory

ccounts or

newutterances.

Goodenough

1963) hasmade a contribution

n this

direction;o haveBarker ndWright1955)andBarker

and Barker 1961), though

he atter worksdelimit

behavioralettingsrbitrarily

ithout ulturally-based

validation.

ischer 1963) has analyzed

emantic o-

mains n personal

eferencemongpairs

of Japanese

familymembers.n his programmatic

aper,Stefflre

(1963) has treated

heformal pecification

f contexts

extensively.ther examples

re Brownand Gilman

(1960),Conklin1959),Geertz

1960),andKluckhohn

(1961: 902-3).25

Anotherpproach

o the haracterization

f context

would

be to compile

list

of

grammatical

ategories

frommany ifferentanguages.

nformation

hat s

part

of thecontextf1 languagemaybe recognizedn the

formal rammaticalategories

f

another.

.g.,

a

per-

son's ocialpositionnd sex

are often

evealed

y

tone

of voice, esturer

other

aralinguistic

eatures.

et in

some ultures

uch ituational

ifferencesre

expressed

as

part of

thegrammatical

tructure.anguages

xist

in which ifferent

orms f address

re

used

ccording

to

the

sex

of

the

speaker,

he hearer,

r

both.

Other

speaker-hearer

ifferencesometimes

ormalized

n

grammar

re

honorifics

nd obviatives.

n

European

languages,

he

familiarnd

polite

forms

f

address

re

formalizationsf behavioral

ituations Brown

and

Gilman

960). Thus

the

ame

nformation

an

be con-

veyed n syntax,exicon,ntonation,rnot t all. Lan-guages ary n utilization f thesenformationchan-

nels." t

can be

seen, hen,

hat he

distinctionetween

linguisticnd non-linguistic

ontext,while useful,

s

language-bound.

ee

Weinreich

1963:

123-27)

for

further iscussion

f deictic ndicators

nd

Hymes

(1961b)for he elation etween

rammaticalategories

and cognitive

tyles.

TRANSLATION

At

bottom,

ractically

ll

ethnographic

nalysis

ests

on translation:

24

Anthropological emphasis on shared patterns has

had

early

success in kinship studies. Recentlythere

has

been headway in

other areas. Roberts and his colleagues have used a conception

of

cultural models in a conflict-enculturationypothesis hathas far-

reachingpossibilities. t is beingvalidated

n an

increasing umber

of -studies Roberts, Arth, and Bush 1959; Roberts and Sutton-

Smith

1962;

Sutton-Smithnd Roberts

1964; Roberts, utton-Smith,

and Kendon 1963). Robertswrites of different ypes of

behaviors

Vol.

7 .

No.

1 .

February 1966

that model

or

represent

ehaviors

occurring

n

other

ettings.

The

model array

in

any one

culture

may

include

representations

n

such diverse

forms

s

graphic art, sculpture, rama, iterature,

oys,

maps, plans, folktales,games, and many more" (Roberts, Sutton-

Smith, nd

Kendon

1963).

The work

of

Roberts and his associates,with

Levi-Strauss' on-

ception of transformationules (1963:235, 333)

and

projections

of schemas

of

institutions 277, 132), represent departure

n

anthropology hat may eventually ie in with semanticmodels along

the lines

suggestedby

Saussure

ong ago.

These uses of models are not to be confused with the type of

model developed by Kay (1963). Kay's model, which has consider-

able power, relates to ethnologicrather than ethnographic eman-

tics; he calls it ethnographic ecause it organizes data from a

single society.Kay's paper merits extensivediscussion but is out-

side the scope

of

this survey.

25

If more attentionwere given to context e.g., Haugen 1957),

it

might be possible to speak of degrees Wells 1958:655), prob-

abilities, or contingencies but not in the artificial ystem f Mar-

tin's theory f subjective ntensions, 963).

13


13/31

The attitudesnd values, heexperience

nd tradition f a

people, nevitably ecome nvolved n thefreightf mean-

ing carried y a language. n effect,ne does not translate

languages,

one translates

ultures.

Ethnography ay, in

fact,be thought f as

a

form f translationCasagrande

1954:335-40).

Curiouslyenough,

while

anthropological

work is

in-

timately nvolved withtranslation, ewanthropologists

have

given

it

extensive attention n writing

with

the

exceptionof Casagrande (1954), Phillips (1959), and

Greenway 1964). Philosophershave been

much more

interested

n the

process lately, particularly Quine

(1960), who illustrates is principleof the indetermin-

acy

of

translationwith the anguage of a hypothetical

jungle

tribe never

before

contacted

by

Westerners.

A

reading of Quine should

be

useful

for

alerting

the

anthropologist o

the

many problemsof translation-

problems hat

he is

most ikely aware of but

that

have

never been made

explicit

n

a systematicway. By

far

the most

illuminating

nd exhaustive

work

on

trans-

lating, however,

has

just been published Nida 1964).

Nida

surveys

the

field, presents

his own

theory

of

translationsee the ection n semantic ules), nd delves

into

semanticproblemswith a refreshing larity.

The

bibliography lone containsover 2,000 entries.

The

description

f semanticdistinctions

f

an

alien

language

s

necessarily iven

n the

analyst's anguage.

But by controlling he context, he analystmay present

his definition o thatwords

n his own language

take

on

similar

semanticvalues to thosein the alien language

(Newman 1954).

To achieve

a specificgloss,

values in

the

analyst's anguage which approximate hose

Colby 1966 Ethnographic Semantics

Documents

Transcript of Colby 1966 Ethnographic Semantics