Book contents
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- 1 Hunter-Gatherer Anthropology and Language
- 2 Genetic Landscape of Present-Day Hunter-Gatherer Groups
- 3 Linguistic Typology and Hunter-Gatherer Languages
- 4 Ethnobiology and the Hunter-Gatherer/Food Producer Divide
- Part II Africa
- Part III Tropical Asia
- Part IV New Guinea and Australia
- Part V Northeastern Eurasia
- Part VI North America
- Part VII South America
- Appendix A Preliminary Worldwide Survey of Forager Languages
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
4 - Ethnobiology and the Hunter-Gatherer/Food Producer Divide
from Part I - Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2020
Book contents
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- 1 Hunter-Gatherer Anthropology and Language
- 2 Genetic Landscape of Present-Day Hunter-Gatherer Groups
- 3 Linguistic Typology and Hunter-Gatherer Languages
- 4 Ethnobiology and the Hunter-Gatherer/Food Producer Divide
- Part II Africa
- Part III Tropical Asia
- Part IV New Guinea and Australia
- Part V Northeastern Eurasia
- Part VI North America
- Part VII South America
- Appendix A Preliminary Worldwide Survey of Forager Languages
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
All humans linguistically classify biological organisms. Hunter-gatherers and traditional farmers typically differ with regard to strategies used to do so.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers , pp. 76 - 88Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Anderson, Eugene N. Jr. (1991). Chinese folk classification of food plants. Crossroads 1: 51–67.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent. (1972). Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. Language in Society 1: 51–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent (1976). The concept of rank in ethnobiological classification: Some evidence from Aguaruna folk botany. American Ethnologist 3: 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent (1992) Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E., and Raven, Peter H.. (1973). General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75: 214–242.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E., and Raven, Peter H. (1974). Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil H. (1985). Mode of subsistence and folk biological taxonomy. Current Anthropology 26: 43–64.Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil H. (1990a). A survey of category types in natural language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge, 17–47.Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil H. (1990b). Ethnozoological nomenclature and animal salience. In Posey, Darrell A. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress of Ethnobiology (Belém, 1988). Belém, Brazil: Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, 81–87.Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil H. (2001). Linguistic ethnobiology: Amerindian oak nomenclature. In Ford, Richard I. (ed.), Ethnobiology at the millennium: Past promise and future prospects. Ann Arbor, MI: Museum of Anthropology, 111–147.Google Scholar
Ellen, Roy. (1999). Models of subsistence and ethnobiological knowledge: Between extraction and cultivation in Southeast Asia. In Medin, Douglas L. and Atran, Scott (eds.), Folkbiology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 91–117.Google Scholar
Hunn, Eugene S., and French, David H.. (1984). Alternatives to taxonomic hierarchy: The Sahaptin case. Journal of Ethnobiology 4: 73–92.Google Scholar
Mandaville, James P. (2011). Bedouin ethnobotany: Plant concepts and uses in a desert pastoral world. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by