Variation in folk knowledge of biological kinds among members of a single ethno-linguistic community has long been a focus of ethnobiological attention and interest. Concentrating on variable local understandings of animal names, this paper discusses three forms of binary names applied to animal categories among the Nage of Flores Island, eastern Indonesia. It is shown that while some people, the “lumpers,” regard such names as unproductive binomials designating terminal taxa (folk-generics or folk-specifics), others, the “splitters,” construe the same names as composite terms comprising separate names of two distinct subtaxa. In two of the three cases evidence from the animal nomenclatures of related languages supports the splitters. Also discussed are factors possibly accounting for this variation, including age, gender, and variable familiarity with local fauna bound up with ecological change.
ArkaI Wayan2007. A Rongga-English dictionary with an English-Rongga finderlist. Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.
2.
ArndtP.1933. Li'onesisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Arnoldus-Druckerei, Ende, Flores, Indonesia.
3.
ArndtP.1961. Wörterbuch der Ngadhasprache. Studia Instituti Anthropos 15. Anthropos-Institut, Posieux, Fribourg.
4.
AtranS. and MedinD.L.. 2008. The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature. MIT Press, Cambridge and London.
5.
BellW.J.RothL.M. and NalepaC.A.. 2007. Cockroaches: Ecology, Behavior, and Natural History. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
6.
BerlinB.1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
7.
BerlinB.BosterJ.S. and O'NeillJ.P.. 1981. The Perceptual Bases of Ethnobiological Classification: Evidence From Aguaruna Jivaro Ornithology. Journal of Ethnobiology1:95–108.
8.
BlustR.2002. The History Of Faunal Terms in Austronesian Languages. Oceanic Linguistics41:89–139.
9.
BlustR.2008. Is there a Bima-Sumba subgroup? Oceanic Linguistics47: 45–113.
10.
BosterJ.S. and JohnsonJ.C.. 1989. Form or Function: A Comparison of Expert and Novice Judgments of Similarity Among Fish. American Anthropologist91:866–888.
11.
BrewerD.1995. Cognitive Indicators of Knowledge in Semantic Domains. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology5:129–147.
12.
BulmerR.N.H. and TylerM.J.. 1968. Karam Classification of Frogs. The Journal of the Polynesian Society77:333–385.
13.
ColeyJ.D.MedinD.L.ProffittJ.B.LynchE. and AtranS.. 1999. Inductive Reasoning in Folkbiological Thought. In Folkbiology, edited byMedinD.L. and AtranS., pp. 205–232. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London.
14.
ConklinH.1962. Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies. In Problems in Lexicography, edited byHouseholderF.W. and SaportaS., pp. 119–141. Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Bloomington.
15.
DammermanK.W.1926. Soembaneesche dieren- en plantennamen. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde66:205–39.
16.
EllenR.1993a. The Cultural Relations of Classification: An Analysis of Animal Categories from Central Seram. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17.
EllenR.1993b. Nuaulu Ethnozoology: A Systematic Inventory. Centre for Social Anthropology and Computing Monograph 6. CSAC in co-operation with the Centre for South-East Asian Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury.
18.
EsserS. J.1938. Talen. InAtlas van tropisch Nederland. Het Koninklijk Aardrijkskundig Genootschap in Samenwerking met den Topografischen Dienst in Nederlandsch Indië. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
19.
ForthG.1995. Ethnozoological Classification and Classificatory Language Among The Nage of Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology15: 45–69.
20.
ForthG.2004. The Category of ‘Animal’ in Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology24:51–73.
21.
ForthG.2011. Nage Lizard Classification: Free-Listing and Other Evidence for a Covert Life-Form. Anthropological Linguistics53:343–64.
22.
ForthG.2012. Of Mice and Rats: The Place of Murids in Nage Animal Classification and Symbolism. Journal of Ethnobiology32:50–72.
23.
ForthG.2013. Symbolic Lizards: An Exploration of Forms of Special Purpose Classification of Animals Among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. Anthrozoös26:357–372.
24.
HunnE.S.1999. Size as Limiting the Recognition of Biodiversity in Folkbiological Classifications: One of Four Factors Governing the Cultural Recognition of Biological Taxa. In Folkbiology, edited byMedinD.L. and AtranS., pp. 47–69. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London.
25.
HunnE.S. and BrownC. H.. 2011. Linguistic Ethnobiology. In Ethnobiology, edited byAndersonE.N.PearsallD.HunnE. and TurnerN., pp. 319–333. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.
26.
KapitaOemboe Hina1982. Kamus Sumba/Kambera-Indonesia. Panitia Penerbit Naskah-Naskah Kebudayaan Daerah Sumba Dewan Penata Layanan Gereja Kristen Sumba, Waingapu, Sumba, Indonesia.
27.
MonkK.de FretesY. and Reksodiharjo-LilleyG.. 1997. The Ecology of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku. The Ecology of Indonesia Series Volume V. Periplus Editions, Hong Kong.
28.
NolanJ. M.2001. Pursuing the Fruits of Knowledge: Cognitive Ethnobotany in Missouri's Little Dixie. Journal of Ethnobiology21:29–51.
29.
OnvleeL.1984. Kamberaas (Oost-Soembaas)-Nederlands woordenbook. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
30.
VerheijenJ.A.J.1967. Kamus Manggarai I: Manggarai-Indonesia. Martinus Nijhoff, ‘s-Gravenhage.
31.
VerheijenJ.A.J.1977. Bahasa Rembong di Flores Barat. I: Kamus Rembong Indonesia. Regio S.V.D. (Mimeographed), Ruteng, Flores, Indonesia.
32.
VerheijenJ.A.J.1990. Dictionary of Plant Names in the Lesser Sunda Islands. Pacific Linguistics Series D, 83. Department of Linguistics, The Australian National University, Canberra.
33.
WurmStefan A., and ShiroHattori, eds. 1983. Language Atlas of the Pacific Area. Part 2. Australian Academy of the Humanities, Canberra.
