1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
  4. Volume 48, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 48, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

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.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.23023.si
2025-04-17
2026-07-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ltba.23023.si
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ltba.23023.si.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.23023.si&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Amith, Jonathan
    2020 Endangered language documentation: The challenges of interdisciplinary research in ethnobiology. InSusan Penfield (ed.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language documentation, language documentation & conservation special publication No.211, 72–112. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Atran, Scott
    1985 The nature of folk-botanical life forms. American Anthropologist871.298–315. 10.1525/aa.1985.87.2.02a00040
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1985.87.2.02a00040 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1999 Itzaj Maya folkbiological taxonomy: cognitive universals and cultural particulars. InDouglas Medin & Scott Atran (eds.), Folkbiology, 119–203. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3042.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3042.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Badenoch, Nathan
    2019 The ethnopoetics of Sida animal names. InHayashi (ed.), Topics in middle Mekong linguistics, 39–73. Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020 Fishing the uplands: a linguistic perspective on the ethno-ichthyology of Northern Laos. InHayashi (ed.), Topics in middle Mekong linguisticsVol21, 37–64. Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berlin, Brent
    1992 Ethnobiological classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400862597
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400862597 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berlin, Brent, Dennis Breedlove & Peter Raven
    1973 General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist751.214–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bradley, David
    1980 Phonological convergence between languages in contact: Mon-Khmer structural borrowing in Burmese. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society61.259–267.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2006 Southern Lisu dictionary. Berkeley: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, Cecil
    1977 Folk botanical life-forms: their universality and growth. American Anthropologist791.317–342. 10.1525/aa.1977.79.2.02a00080
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1977.79.2.02a00080 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1979 Folk zoological life-forms: their universality and growth. American Anthropologist811.791–817. 10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00030
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1984 Language and living things. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 10.36019/9781978815711
     https://doi.org/10.36019/9781978815711 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1985 Mode of subsistence and folk biological taxonomy. Current Anthropology261.43–64. 10.1086/203224
     https://doi.org/10.1086/203224 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1986 The growth of ethnobiological nomenclature. Current Anthropology271.1–19. 10.1086/203375
     https://doi.org/10.1086/203375 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bulmer, Ralph
    1974 Folk biology in the New Guinea highlands. Social Science Information13(4–5).9–28. 10.1177/053901847401300402
     https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300402 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chamberlain, James
    1977 An introduction to Proto-Tai zoology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PhD dissertation.
  17. 1992 Biolinguistic systematics and marking. InThe Third International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics: Pan-Asiatic Linguistics, Vol.III1, 1279–1293. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2021 Non-taxonomic cognition: classificatory linkages between semantic domains in Tai Languages. The Journal of Lao Languages31.1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dodaro, L.
    2022 Intergenerational environmental knowledge transmission as a source of empowerment in a multiethnic indigenous Amazonian community. New Orleans: Tulane University PhD dissertation.
  20. Dwyer, Peter
    2005 Ethnoclassification, ethnobiology and the imagination. Journal de la Société des Océanistes120–1211.12–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellen, Roy
    2008 Ethnomycology among the Nuaulu of the Moluccas: putting Berlin’s “General Principles” of ethnobiological classification to the test. Economic Botany621.483–496. 10.1007/s12231‑008‑9036‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-008-9036-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2020 The Nuaulu world of plants: ethnobotanical cognition, knowledge and practice among a people of Seram, eastern Indonesia. Canon Pyon: Sean Kingston.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 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 Ethnobiology431208–218. 10.1177/02780771231194153
     https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231194153 [Google Scholar]
  24. Enfield, Nicholas
    2005 Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology341.181–206. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120406
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120406 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fabricius, Johann
    1972 Tamil and English Dictionary (4th ed.). Tranquebar: Evangelical Lutheran Mission Pub. House.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Forth, Gregory
    2000 Eastern Sumbanese bird classification. Journal of Ethnobiology201.161–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2003 Nage Birds. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 Why the porcupine is not a bird: explorations in the folk zoology of an eastern Indonesian People. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781487510053
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487510053 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hays, Terence
    1979 Plant classification and nomenclature in Ndumba, Papua New Guinea Highlands. Ethnology181.253–270. 10.2307/3773377
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3773377 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heimbach, Ernest
    1969 White Hmong-English dictionary. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hiepko, Paul
    2006 Eipo plant nomenclature and classification compared with other folk taxonomic systems. Willdenowia361.447–453. 10.3372/wi.36.36142
     https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.36.36142 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hunn, Eugene
    1975 A measure of the degree of correspondence of folk to scientific biological classification. American ethnologist21.309–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 1982 The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist41.830–847. 10.1525/aa.1982.84.4.02a00070
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1982.84.4.02a00070 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1998 Mixtepec Zapotec ethnobiological classification: a preliminary sketch and theoretical commentary. Anthropologica401.35–48. 10.2307/25605871
     https://doi.org/10.2307/25605871 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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. 10.2307/j.ctv1mgmckc
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1mgmckc [Google Scholar]
  36. Hunn, Eugene, Yuliana Ramírez & Marco Dávila
    2015 Where do fungi fit? The fungal domain in Mixtepec Zapotec. Journal of Ethnobiology351.286–313. 10.2993/etbi‑35‑02‑286‑313.1
     https://doi.org/10.2993/etbi-35-02-286-313.1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jenny, Mathias
    2015 Foreign influence in the Burmese language. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Burma/Myanmar Studies ‘Burma/Myanmar in Transition: Connectivity, Changes and Challenges’, Chiangmai, Thailand, 24–25 July, 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jenny, Mathias & San San Hnin Tun
    2016 Burmese: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Judson, Adoniram
    1893 Burmese English Dictionary. Rangoon: Government Printing Burma.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kurabe, Keita
    2020 The phonology, morphology, and semantics of Burmese zoonyms. Journal of Research Institute611.65–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ludwig, David
    2018 Revamping the metaphysics of ethnobiological classification. Current Anthropology591.415–438. 10.1086/698958
     https://doi.org/10.1086/698958 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mandaville, James
    2004 Bedouin ethnobotany: plant concepts and plant use in a desert pastoral world. Tuscon: University of Arizona PhD dissertation.
  43. Martin, Gary
    2004 Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781849775854
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775854 [Google Scholar]
  44. Matisoff, James
    2006 English-Lahu lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 Areal and universal issues in plant and animal nomenclature. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology351.655–679.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2019 Preface. InAlice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.), The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. Berlin: de Gruyter/Mouton. 10.1515/9783110401981‑202
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110401981-202 [Google Scholar]
  47. McClatchey, Will
    2011 Ethnobiology: Basic methods for documenting biological knowledge represented in languages. InNicholas Thieberger (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, 281–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Myanmar Language Commission
    Myanmar Language Commission 1993 Myanmar-English Dictionary. Yangon: Myanmar Language Commission.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Randall, Robert & Eugene Hunn
    1984 Do life-forms evolve or do uses for life? Some doubts about Brown’s universals hypotheses. American Ethnologist111.329–349. 10.1525/ae.1984.11.2.02a00070
     https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1984.11.2.02a00070 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rattanapitak, Ampika
    2009 Palaung wordlist. Journal of Language and Culture281.77–122.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. InRafael Lira, Alejandro Cajas & Jose Blancas (eds.), Ethnobotany of Mexico: Interactions of People and Plants in Mesoamerica, 457–473. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑6669‑7_19
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6669-7_19 [Google Scholar]
  52. Scott, Gerald
    2000 A traditional Lakota zoological folk taxonomy. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University PhD dissertation.
  53. SEAlang
    SEAlang 2007a SEAlang library Khmer dictionary. https://sealang.net/khmer/dictionary.htm (Accessed01-11-2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  54. SEAlang
    SEAlang 2007b SEAlang library Lao dictionary. https://sealang.net/lao/dictionary.htm (Accessed01-11-2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  55. SEAlang
    SEAlang 2009a SEAlang library Mon dictionary. https://sealang.net/mon/dictionary.htm (Accessed01-11-2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. SEAlang
    SEAlang 2009b SEAlang library Vietnamese dictionary. https://sealang.net/vietnamese/dictionary.htm (Accessed01-11-2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sellers, Holly
    2015 A linguistic approach to plant name classification in Lisu. Melbourne: LaTrobe University PhD dissertation.
  58. Si, Aung
    2014 Danau. InMathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages, 1104–1141. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004283572_025
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004283572_025 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2016 The traditional ecological knowledge of the Solega: a linguistic perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24681‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24681-9 [Google Scholar]
  60. Si, Aung & Aung Kyawphyo
    2023 Patterns in fish naming ability in two fishing communities of Myanmar. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine191.34. 10.1186/s13002‑023‑00610‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00610-7 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sillitoe, Paul
    2002 Contested knowledge, contingent classification: animals in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. American Anthropologist1041.1162–1171. 10.1525/aa.2002.104.4.1162
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.4.1162 [Google Scholar]
  62. Singnoi, Unchalee
    2011 A reflection of Thai culture in Thai plant names. Manusya: Journal of Humanities141.79–97. 10.1163/26659077‑01401005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-01401005 [Google Scholar]
  63. Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Kàm Raw, Kristina Lindell and Håkan Lundström
    2014 Dictionary of Kammu Yùan language and culture. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Valenzuela, Pilar
    2000 Major categories in Shipibo ethnobiological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics421.1–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Vidal, Jules
    1959 Noms vernaculaires de plantes (lao, mèo, kha) en usage au Laos. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient491.435–608. 10.3406/befeo.1959.1493
     https://doi.org/10.3406/befeo.1959.1493 [Google Scholar]
  66. 1963 Systématique, nomenclature et phytonymie botanique populaire au Laos. Journal d’Agriculture Tropicale et de Botanique Appliquée101.438–448. 10.3406/jatba.1963.2726
     https://doi.org/10.3406/jatba.1963.2726 [Google Scholar]
  67. Vittrant, Alice and Justin Watkins
    2019 Introduction: Languages of the mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area — grammatical sketches. InAlice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.) The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. Berlin: de Gruyter/Mouton. 10.1515/9783110401981‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110401981-001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Watkins, J.
    2013 Dictionary of Wa, with translations into English, Burmese and Chinese. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004260580
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004260580 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1984 “Apples” are not a “kind of fruit”. American Ethnologist111, 313–328. 10.1525/ae.1984.11.2.02a00060
     https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1984.11.2.02a00060 [Google Scholar]
  70. 1992 What is a life form? Conceptual issues in ethnobiology. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology21.3–29. 10.1525/jlin.1992.2.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1992.2.1.3 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.23023.si
Loading
The question of universals in ethnobiological nomenclature
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 48, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.23023.si
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.23023.si
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.23023.si
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Austroasiatic; Brent Berlin; ethnoclassification; Kra-Dai; life form; Tibeto-Burman

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error