Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification

Breedlove, Dennis E.; Raven, Peter H.

doi:10.1126/science.154.3746.273

Cited by 192 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the view that these are universal features of folk biology, humans throughout the world are able to categorize the flora and fauna in their local ecologies (Atran, 1998;Berlin, Breedlove, & Raven, 1966;Carey & Spelke, 1994). In fact, humans living in natural environments develop very elaborate and complex classification systems of the flora and fauna in the local ecology and develop mental models of the behavior (e.g., growth patterns) of these plants and animals (for examples, see Medin & Atran, 1999a).…”

Section: Biological Systemsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind.

Geary¹,

Huffman²

2002

Psychological Bulletin

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetic and neurobiological research is reviewed as related to controversy over the extent to which neocortical organization and associated cognitive functions are genetically constrained or emerge through patterns of developmental experience. An evolutionary framework that accommodates genetic constraint and experiential modification of brain organization and cognitive function is then proposed. The authors argue that 4 forms of modularity and 3 forms of neural and cognitive plasticity define the relation between genetic constraint and the influence of developmental experience. For humans, the result is the ontogenetic emergence of functional modules in the domains of folk psychology, folk biology, and folk physics. The authors present a taxonomy of these modules and review associated research relating to brain and cognitive plasticity in these domains.For several millennia, scholars have debated whether human traits largely result from our biological nature or are a reflection of nurture, specifically our developmental experiences. The debate continues to this day and has recently pervaded the cognitive neurosciences, at least with respect to theoretical models of brain and cognitive evolution (Elman et al

show abstract

Section: Biological Systemsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind.

Geary¹,

Huffman²

2002

Psychological Bulletin

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, it makes explicit the association with other bodies of 'folk' knowledge that are studied within anthropology or geography (e.g. folk medicine, folk biology) (Berlin et al, 1966). It usefully encapsulates an 'everyday' opposition to the formally structured languages of science or philosophy, largely because this knowledge works as lived metaphor rather than simply as literal statements (Bellon & Taylor, 1993).…”

Section: 'Folk Ecology': Knowledge As Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening ‘folk ecology’: community-based learning for integrated soil fertility management, western Kenya

Ramisch

Misiko

Ekise³

et al. 2006

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers and researchers in western Kenya have used community-based learning approaches to jointly develop a 'dynamic expertise' of integrated soil fertility management (ISFM). This transformative learning approach builds on farmers' 'folk ecology' and outsiders' knowledge, taking action research on natural resource management beyond methods that are descriptive (ethnopedology) or curriculumdriven (farmer field schools). The paper presents insights from a project's experience of applying the strengthening 'folk ecology' approach in western Kenya, with emphasis on the community-based learning process, collective and individual experimentation, the power dynamics of farmer research groups, and learning from the farmer -researcher interface. Farmer groups have been empowered by this approach but diversification into non-soil activities highlights the limitations of experimentation and the challenges of scaling up participatory action research.

show abstract

“…Such one-toone correspondence is rather rarely the case (Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven 1966). The English and Latin glosses for the Tzeltal names are approximations only and apply specifically to the forms of these exceedingly variable species most familiar to Tzeltal speakers.…”

Section: And Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These unnamed subsets would then have a high information content with considerable psychological rele~ance.~ They would proceed directly from the specialpurpose, highly specific taxonomy of our informants. (Our use of "general purpose" vs. "special purpose" taxonomy is outlined more fully in Berlin, Breedlove and Raven, 1966: 275.) TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS I n general, we set out to determine the existence of culturally significant subgroupings by employing several field procedures.…”

Section: Tzeltal Plant Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of the most productive work in ethnoscience de ends, in fact, on the use of literate informants b e Metzger and Williams 1963a, 1963bBerlin in press;Berlin, Kay, Metzger and Williams n.d., and many other unpublished manuscripts of the work in progress in Chiapas growing out of the Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford projects in that area over the last ten years). Clearly, considerable effort on the part of the ethnographer is required in develo ing a practical phonemic orthography, training inirmants to use it, and making certain that many quasi-experimental tasks are understood.…”

Section: And Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Covert Categories and Folk Taxonomies

Raven

1968

American Anthropologist

Self Cite

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the recent work i n ethnoscience has been concerned with the nature of folk taxonomies, an often stated definition of which repires that &folk taxa be monolexemically labeled. This paper offers evidence that unlabeled categories may also be of crucial taxonomic significance, and we feel that it is inappropriate to treat such categories apart from the named taxonomic entities of the system. More importanUy, evidence presented indicates that by recognizing unnamed taxa one may gain an understanding of the structure of a particular semantic domain that is actually obscured if one focuses solely on lexically labeled units.of the productive work in ethno-MUCH science today derives from collaborative research in certain areas of ethnobiology (see Colby 1966, Sturtevant 1964 for a survey of these materials). It is often found that the semantic structures uncovered by such research are hierarchic in their formal characteristics. Thus they resemble the classificatory structures conventionally employed in the biological sciences and have generally been termed (jolk) taxonomies (Conklin

show abstract

Folk Taxonomies and Biological Classification

Cited by 192 publications

References 2 publications

Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind.

Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind.

Strengthening ‘folk ecology’: community-based learning for integrated soil fertility management, western Kenya

Covert Categories and Folk Taxonomies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About