Cover not available
Article In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 48:1 (2025) ► pp.1–43

The question of universals in ethnobiological nomenclature

Re-examination with southeast asian linguistic data

 | Universals in ethnobiological nomenclature
 | Universals in ethnobiological nomenclature
The classification and naming of plants and animals is said to follow a number of “universal” constraints cross-linguistically. While these constraints are generally accepted in the literature, few have been rigorously tested with a large language sample. In particular, the languages of mainland southeast Asia appear to have been neglected in such endeavours, even though it is common knowledge that some key constraints are violated in this region. Here, we investigate the construction of “Generic” plant and animal names in 22 languages of mainland southeast Asia, and show that the vast majority of these — especially among plant and fish ethnotaxa — are two-part “secondary names”, in contrast to a major constraint that predicts that such names should be one-part “primary names”. This appears to be a widespread areal feature, and has implications for the validity of other nomenclatural “universals”, which remain to be similarly tested.
Keywords: Austroasiatic, Kra-Dai, Tibeto-Burman, ethnoclassification, Brent Berlin, life form
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language data
    • 2.1Burmese
      • 2.1.1Fish
      • 2.1.2Plants
      • 2.1.3Birds
      • 2.1.4Terrestrial invertebrates
      • 2.1.5A note on primary and secondary names
    • 2.2Thanau
      • 2.2.1Plants
      • 2.2.2Birds, fish and invertebrates
    • 2.3Bit
      • 2.3.1Plants
      • 2.3.2Birds
      • 2.3.3Fish and other creatures
    • 2.4Lao
      • 2.4.1Plants
      • 2.4.2Animals
    • 2.5Other languages
  • 3.Discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (70)
References
Amith, Jonathan. 2020. Endangered language documentation: The challenges of interdisciplinary research in ethnobiology. In Susan Penfield (ed.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language documentation, language documentation & conservation special publication No. 21 1, 72–112. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Atran, Scott. 1985. The nature of folk-botanical life forms. American Anthropologist 871.298–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Itzaj Maya folkbiological taxonomy: cognitive universals and cultural particulars. In Douglas Medin and Scott Atran (eds.), Folkbiology, 119–203. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badenoch, Nathan. 2020. Fishing the uplands: a linguistic perspective on the ethno-ichthyology of Northern Laos. In Hayashi (ed.) Topics in middle Mekong linguistics Vol 21, Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
. 2021. The ethnopoetics of Sida animal names. In Hayashi (ed.) Topics in middle Mekong linguistics. Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1973. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 41.259–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. The concept of rank in ethnobiological classification: some evidence from Aguaruna folk botany. American Ethnologist 31.381–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Ethnobiological classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David. 1980. Phonological convergence between languages in contact: Mon-Khmer structural borrowing in Burmese. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 61.259–267.Google Scholar
. 2006. Southern Lisu Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil. 1977. Folk botanical life-forms: their universality and growth. American Anthropologist 791.317–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. Folk zoological life-forms: their universality and growth. American Anthropologist 811.791–817. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Language and living things. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Mode of subsistence and folk biological taxonomy. Current Anthropology 261.43–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. The growth of ethnobiological nomenclature. Current Anthropology 271.1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, Ralph. 1974. Folk biology in the New Guinea highlands. Social Science Information 131.9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, James. 1977. An introduction to Proto-Tai zoology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PhD dissertation.
. 1992. Biolinguistic systematics and marking. In The Third International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics: Pan-Asiatic Linguistics, Vol. III1. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
. 2021. Non-taxonomic cognition: classificatory linkages between semantic domains in Tai Languages. The Journal of Lao Languages 31.1–10.Google Scholar
Dodaro, L. 2022. Intergenerational environmental knowledge transmission as a source of empowerment in a multiethnic indigenous Amazonian community. New Orleans: Tulane University PhD dissertation.
Dwyer, Peter. 2005. Ethnoclassification, ethnobiology and the imagination. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 120–1211.12–25.Google Scholar
Ellen, Roy. 2008. Ethnomycology among the Nuaulu of the Moluccas: putting Berlin’s “General Principles” of ethnobiological classification to the test. Economic Botany 621.483–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The Nuaulu world of plants: ethnobotanical cognition, knowledge and practice among a people of Seram, eastern Indonesia. Canon Pyon: Sean Kingston.Google Scholar
. 2023. Identifying plants as a process of cultural cognition: comparing knowledge production and communities of practice in modern botanical science and Nuaulu ethnobotany. Journal of Ethnobiology 431. 208–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas. 2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 341.181–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, Johann. 1972. Tamil and English Dictionary (4th ed.) Tranquebar: Evangelical Lutheran Mission Pub. House.Google Scholar
Forth, Gregory. 2000. Eastern Sumbanese bird classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 201.161–192.Google Scholar
. 2003. Nage Birds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2016. Why the porcupine is not a bird: explorations in the folk zoology of an eastern Indonesian People. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hays, Terence. 1979. Plant classification and nomenclature in Ndumba, Papua New Guinea Highlands. Ethnology 181.253–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heimbach, Ernest. 1969. White Hmong-English dictionary. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hiepko, Paul. 2006. Eipo plant nomenclature and classification compared with other folk taxonomic systems. Willdenowia 361.447–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunn, Eugene. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 41.830–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Mixtepec Zapotec ethnobiological classification: a preliminary sketch and theoretical commentary. Anthropologica 401.35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. A Zapotec natural history: trees, herbs, and flowers, birds, beasts, and bugs in the life of San Juan Gbëë. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunn, Eugene, Yuliana Ramírez & Marco Dávila. 2015. Where do fungi fit? The fungal domain in Mixtepec Zapotec. Journal of Ethnobiology 351.286–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenny, Mathias. 2015. Foreign influence in the Burmese language. Paper presented at the International Conference on Burma/Myanmar Studies ‘Burma/Myanmar in Transition: Connectivity, Changes and Challenges’, Chiangmai, Thailand, 24–25 July, 2015.
Jenny, Mathias & San San Hnin Tun. 2016. Burmese: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Judson, Adoniram. 1893. Burmese English Dictionary. Rangoon: Government Printing Burma.Google Scholar
Kurabe, Keita. 2020. The phonology, morphology, and semantics of Burmese zoonyms. Journal of Research Institute 611.65–84.Google Scholar
Ludwig, David. 2018. Revamping the metaphysics of ethnobiological classification. Current Anthropology 591.415–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandaville, James. 2004. Bedouin ethnobotany: plant concepts and plant use in a desert pastoral world. Tuscon: University of Arizona PhD dissertation.
Martin, Gary. 2010. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James. 2006. English-Lahu lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Areal and universal issues in plant and animal nomenclature. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 351.655–679.Google Scholar
. 2019. Preface. In Alice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. Berlin: de Gruyter/Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClatchey, Will. 2011. Ethnobiology: Basic methods for documenting biological knowledge represented in languages. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myanmar Language Commission. 2013. Myanmar-English Dictionary. Yangon: Myanmar Language Commission.Google Scholar
Randall, Robert & Eugene Hunn. 1984. Do life-forms evolve or do uses for life? Some doubts about Brown’s universals hypotheses. American Ethnologist 111.329–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rattanapitak, Ampika. 2009. Palaung wordlist. Journal of Language and Culture 281.77–122.Google Scholar
Scott, Gerald. 2000. A traditional Lakota zoological folk taxonomy. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University PhD dissertation.
SEAlang. 2007a. SEAlang library Khmer dictionary. [URL] (Accessed 01-11-2023).
. 2007b. SEAlang library Lao dictionary. [URL] (Accessed 01-11-2023).
. 2009a. SEAlang library Mon dictionary. [URL] (Accessed 01-11-2023).
. 2009b. SEAlang library Vietnamese dictionary. [URL] (Accessed 01-11-2023).
Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo, Francisco Vergara-Silva, & Javier Caballero. 2016. An interdisciplinary perspective on the loss of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in the Tehuantepec Isthmus, Oaxaca. In Rafael Lira, Alejandro Cajas & Jose Blancas (eds.) Ethnobotany of Mexico: Interactions of People and Plants in Mesoamerica, 457–473. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sellers, Holly. 2015. A linguistic approach to plant name classification in Lisu. Melbourne: LaTrobe University PhD dissertation.
Si, Aung. 2014. Danau. In Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.) The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, 1104–1141. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The traditional ecological knowledge of the Solega: a linguistic perspective. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Si, Aung & Aung Kyawphyo. 2023. Patterns in fish naming ability in two fishing communities of Myanmar. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sillitoe, Paul. 2002. Contested knowledge, contingent classification: animals in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. American Anthropologist 1041.1162–1171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singnoi, Unchalee. 2011. A reflection of Thai culture in Thai plant names. Manusya: Journal of Humanities 141.79–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Kàm Raw, Kristina Lindell and Håkan Lundström. 2014. Dictionary of Kammu Yùan language and culture. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar. 2000. Major categories in Shipibo ethnobiological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics 421.1–36.Google Scholar
Vidal, Jules. 1959. Noms vernaculaires de plantes (lao, mèo, kha) en usage au Laos. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 491.435–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1963. Systématique, nomenclature et phytonymie botanique populaire au Laos. Journal d’Agriculture Tropicale et de Botanique Appliquée 101.438–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vittrant, Alice and Justin Watkins. 2019. Introduction: Languages of the mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area — grammatical sketches. In Alice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. Berlin: de Gruyter/Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. 2013. Dictionary of Wa, with translations into English, Burmese and Chinese. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1984. “Apples” are not a “kind of fruit”. American Ethnologist 111, 313–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. What is a life form? Conceptual issues in ethnobiology. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21.3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar