27.10.2014 Views

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

534 Chapter 18<br />

is over. The model postdicted (accounted for) 89% of the treatments that the<br />

17 mothers had reported.<br />

Next, Ryan and Martínez tested their model. They <strong>in</strong>terviewed 20 more<br />

mothers, but this time they asked each woman every question <strong>in</strong> the model. In<br />

other words, they asked each woman: ‘‘In your child’s last episode of diarrhea,<br />

did the stools have blood <strong>in</strong> them? Did the child have swollen glands? What<br />

caused the diarrhea?’’ and so on. The IF-THEN model <strong>in</strong> figure 18.4<br />

accounted for 84% of the second group’s treatment decisions.<br />

Folk Taxonomies<br />

There are about 6,000 languages spoken <strong>in</strong> the world today. Speakers of all<br />

those languages name th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> the natural world. In 1914, Henderson and<br />

Harr<strong>in</strong>gton published a monograph on the ethnozoology of the Tewa Indians<br />

of New Mexico. Scholars ever s<strong>in</strong>ce have been <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> understand<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

variety of ways <strong>in</strong> which people organize their knowledge of the natural world.<br />

In the 1950s, anthropologists began systematically produc<strong>in</strong>g folk taxonomies—that<br />

is, hierarchical, taxonomic graphs to represent how people organize<br />

their knowledge of plants and animals. These ethnobotanical and ethnozoological<br />

taxonomies don’t necessarily mirror scientific taxonomies, but<br />

then, the whole po<strong>in</strong>t of what became known as ethnoscience is to understand<br />

cultural knowledge on its own terms.<br />

Scientific taxonomies for plants and animals recognize six primary levels<br />

of dist<strong>in</strong>ction (phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species) and lots of <strong>in</strong>between<br />

levels, as well (<strong>in</strong>fraorder, superorder, subclass, etc., etc.), but folk<br />

taxonomies of plants and animals across the world are generally limited to five<br />

or, at most, six levels. Figure 18.5 (from D’Andrade 1995) shows part of the<br />

folk taxonomy of creatures for native speakers of English.<br />

Covert Categories<br />

There are six culturally appropriate levels of hierarchical dist<strong>in</strong>ction identified<br />

<strong>in</strong> figure 18.5: (1) First, there is the unique beg<strong>in</strong>ner, a s<strong>in</strong>gle label that<br />

identifies the cultural doma<strong>in</strong>. (2) Next comes a relatively small set of life<br />

forms (animals, fish, <strong>in</strong>sects, etc.). (3) Then there is an <strong>in</strong>termediate level,<br />

which <strong>in</strong>cludes covert categories, if any exist <strong>in</strong> a particular taxonomy. Folk<br />

genera (level 4), folk species (level 5), and folk varieties (level 6) round out<br />

the picture.<br />

There is a covert, unnamed category <strong>in</strong> figure 18.5 compris<strong>in</strong>g wolves,<br />

foxes, dogs, coyotes, and some other th<strong>in</strong>gs (the dashed l<strong>in</strong>e extend<strong>in</strong>g down

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!