Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Development Team
Sarika Negi
Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi
Module Name/Title Cognitive Anthropology, Ethno Science, Etic Emic, New Ethnography
Module Id 17
1. Introduction
3. Cognitive anthropology
Summary
Learning Objectives
Cognitive anthropology focuses on the cultural understanding, which is encased in words, narrative
and material culture, and is grasped and shared with others. Cognitive anthropology is the study of the
relation between society and human thought (Andrade). The scholars of cognitive anthropology studies
social groups’ cognition about the objects and phenomena which built their world, ranging from
physical to abstract things.
In the beginning of mid 1950’s scholars constructed a new methodology ‘Cognitive’ or ‘Ethnoscience’
or ‘New ethnography’, which emerged as a critic to the then existing traditional ethnography,
questioning basically the methods of it. These scholars argued on the basis that there is no one method
which is followed by anthropologists and every one studied and wrote in his or her own way. As a
result ethnographies varied in their information and could not be compared. In order to make it more
scientific and the descriptions in these ethnographies more accurate they argued for some new
methodology, which is outlined with emic perspective. However, its intellectual roots go back to
enlightment period, where foundation of human studies was led down. The enlightment thinkers
contributing in the makeup of this intellectual interest were Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke, focusing on
the interaction of society and mind. Among these Locke, put forth an important point where he argued
that, humans at birth unwritten sheet, and with cultural exposure and experience a person gets a shape.
He took forwards this idea in empiricism and propounded conceived knowledge shaping person, as
conceived because of sensory experiences, experienced throughout life. Cognition of individuals rests
on sensation and experience, in contrast his empiricism rationalist orientation emerged arguing role of
mind alone in achieving knowledge. Some other whose work were dealt with human studies, society
and mind were Turgot, Condorcet and Auguste Comte, put forth a philosophy of positivism, arguing
evolvement of intellectual complexity and a need to move towards empirical observation to achieve an
understanding of it.
Post the modern phase in anthropological research i.e. of Geertz, Turner and Schenider, a move from
finding a more scientific form of inquiry in anthropological research anthropologists turned for
inspiration to Linguistic theory. Linguistics was in a stage of shift from Bloomfieldian and structural
linguistics to transformational generative linguistics. In 1954, a major breakthrough happened when,
Kenneth L. Pike published an essay, Language in relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of
Human Behaviour. He acquired idea from relation between sounds (phonetic) and meaningful units of
sound (phenomic). Phenotics is the study of sounds that humans can produce while phenomics
(phonology) focuses on the sounds differentiated on the basis of contrasts with other sounds. Through
4
After his work anthropologist tried to built the concepts of emic and ‘etic’. The emic which was
subjected to a long debate was seen factually as informant’s expression by Marvin Harris. In 1960’s,
scholars of Cognitive anthropology thought of Benjamin L. Whorf’s perspective, which emerged in
1930’s, on the link between modern, western science, and worldviews of natives’. Along with Whorf,
Edward Sapir was also interested in the relation of language and human thoughts, they both formulated
the Sapir-Whorf’ hypotheses in which they explained that, language is not just way of communicating
but also fabricated people’s thinking of the world. This link between language and perception was
borrowed to connection between culture and language. Later Ward Goodenough and Charles Frake
explained the methods to conduct fieldwork and analyzing the data. A highly structured interview,
aiming at the understanding of indigenous conceptual categories, called as Domain by Ethnoscientists
was proposed. Later, methodology, componential analysis emerged, to understanding definitive
chararcteristics through which artefacts and ideas were sorted in each domain by the natives. These
scholars believed that, components of the domains when organized under one of the several logical
possibilities, covering pattern or model, classification, the collection and the type-token can make the
study more accurate and systematic. The data collection following this way could be more systematic
and replicable claiming the more scientific study which could conceptualize native categories. Some
ethnoscience argued that, this will permit ethnographers to think like indigenous members.
This move towards Cognitive anthropological study remained an active field of research. By mid
1970’s, advances in anthropology, psychology and field of artificial intelligence underlined the human
cognition being more complex than frames derived from indigenous understandings derived from
cognitive methodology. An elemental conception of ethnoscience and early cognitive anthropology
was that, the categorised objects in their world by looking at the mental list of essential characters
which was later developed that, people categorise by referring common mental prototypes which were
called Schemas or Schemata, resulted from the prior experiences with a particular kind of phenomena
which is not identical but similar to that phenomena. Mandler, in schema theory gives an example of a
child identifies something that has characteristics green, round and is without stem as an apple only
because it induces apple-ish schema, rather than because it matches a list of characters. In contrast to
Tyler’s view, it is now understood that intellect is non-linguistic and is not governed by language. Now
a days, cognitive anthropologists and psychologists have chosen the idea of Connectionism, where
intellect is connected, nexus built and distributed by elements such as neurons involved in processing
and through these information can be collected and analysed.
Several other studies pointed out the problems in the methods of modern system, where, different areas
of inquiry were given relevance with the focus on reliability on these. The various problems in the
areas of cultural thoughts, value system and beliefs studies were highlighted in the cognitive research.
3. Cognitive anthropology
This field of anthropology details with the culture and human perceptions. It aims to understand how
people understand their surrounding artefacts and environment. Although Ethnoscientists focused more
on the making ethnographies more scientific and replicable, but the natives’ point of view was not a
new addition to approach. In the anthropological studies, Bronislaw Malinowski, in the introduction of
Argonauts of the Western Pacific, called it being the final aim of ethnographers, which was published
in the 1920’s. Boasian historical particularism pointing towards uniqueness of each culture, ‘cultural
relativism’ somehow pointed towards what Ethnoscientists argued to follow. Although the extreme
cultural relativism followed by Ethnoscientists made cross cultural comparisons unattainable.
The four major phases observed in cognitive anthropology were focusing on various arenas. The first,
where aims of cognitive anthropology were set involving studies on symbolism which were combined
with the linguistic understanding leading into Ward Goodenough’s work. The second, was inititated by
an indepth study of cultural wisdom by utilising methods that have been already in existence. The
componential analysis for kinship terminology was utilised by Lonsbury and Goodenough, where
language was taken as central idea. Later, techniques were borrowed from psychology which kept
adding in the methods utilized in cognitive anthropology. There were studies which focused on
psychological theorizing, Wallace did work on the link between the shortcomings of short term
memory and the size terminologies used in kinship system. This period extended from the late 1950’s
6
The third phase started with the beginning of the mid 1970’s developed by Eleanor Rosch, the link
between language based units and of prototypes which were pure psychological units was formulated.
By early 1980’s a shift from prototype theory to schema theory was observed and by mid it is
relevance was realised through connectionist nexus. With a divorced strong hold on semantic ways of
analysis an enhanced interest in metaphor and meaning became the focus. The fourth phase which is
comparatively new, have centrality of schema in connection with the actions. Emotion, socialization
and concerns on cognitive structure with physical construct.
Harold C. Conklin, is an anthropologist who worked in the area of ethnoecology and linguistics. He
worked on Hanunoo folkbotany, where he soon after one year of fieldwork became familiar with the
problem in native system of colour classification. The identification of flora relies majorly on colour
differentiation in the look of flowers or other structures- both in classification botany and in the
popular systems of categorisation. In his account, he initiated with some biological adjectives of
Colour in botanical classification and added that in lab environment, colour distinction being same for
all humans groups probably. He says that, irrespective of linguistic difference, the way in which
languages do classification of millions of colours, which every normal person can distinguish differ
from one to another.
‘Domains’ remain the point of departure for the cognition and cognitive categorisation of objects in a
culture, eg. bed, tables and chairs fall under the domain of furniture. Conklin’s work in the area of
ethnobotany is one of the perfect studies to reflect on the ideas of Cognitive Anthropology. He
hypothesized that, colour classification influencing the perception of colour where he showed cultural
based terms by which the Hanunoo categorised colour and the need of it may vary considerably from
one to another culture. The classification of colour names in English account more than 3000
categories. It showed some other possibilities too where, some non-categorised units for colour
classification can be found. The terms used in cultural vocabulary for colours can help in analysis
within the culture of word bank and unit can help in their understanding and array of application.
Conklin explored colour classification among Hanunoo where he included answers in linguistic form
after showing some of the painted cards and other coloured materials through other sources natural
environment some more was explored. All this resulted in cognition of native in terms of colour
categories where large number of overlappings was found which could not be remedified with control
7
The Level 1 terms which Conklin identified basing the classification of colours among Hanunoo were
(ma) biru, linked to the relatively darker shade of colour i.e. blackness.
Black
Blue Red
Dark green
Dark violet
(ma) latuy
Light brown
Green
Yellow
Based on this level some outside environment related aspects were delineated by Conklin which are
not based on colour categorization. Some of these were simple contrast, like broader colour category
set in the community and is explained previously, the light and the dark, while the other contrast was
Kinship terminology which has been studied by various anthropologist in kinship studies was studied
by Lounsbury and Goodenough where they put forth a method to locate ‘idea units’ and analysing the
formation or structure of these units. Although their method was drawn from the ideas borrowed from
1920’s linguistic scholars like Roman Jakobson and N. Trubetzkoy, who offered Thèse introducing the
concept of ‘structure’. The studies conducted in the non literate societies were found to be having a
different kinship system and terminologies than the modern societies in west. The parent-child relation
and marriage were found in all societies studied but the various categories in kinship system were
found to be different from the other, where kin terms also differed.
Bellah conducted a study on Chiricahua kin terms, were living in New and Northern Mexico, along
with Texas. Among them the centrality of local group as functional unit is cherished with a system of
band above it which acted as a unit in the warfare. Within the local unit, there are matrilocal kins with
their nuclear families, functioning as a primary unit in terms of economy where hunting and other
economic activities are organised by them. The kinship system which is presented through a
hypothetical geneaology drawn can help in understanding the method of componential analysis of
cognitive anthropology giving it a shade different from the modern’ methods.
F F F F F F F F F F I I I I I I I I
F F E H
K L L K L K Ego L L K L L K L
I I F F F F M N I I I I F F I I I I F F I I
F F I I I I
C C A A D D D D B B D D A A A A B B D D C C A A A A C C B B D D D D B B D D A A C C B B D D D D B B A A C C D D B B
These terms are that of term of reference and not that of term of address, where the term used for a
person can be his first name or may be a special term out of affection. In most of the anthropological
studies term of reference is given emphasis, which can vary and often does not remain unaffected from
the situation and concerned components. This problem was sorted by componential analysis
propounded by Lounsbury and Goodenough which is developed by A. K. Romney as well. Their
componential analysis involved steps where first covered commonalities in each term. The term
labelled as F, were looked for commonalities, for example gender of these persons, where Ego’s
father’s brother and his sister both were referred by the same term irrespective of Ego’s gender. Here
the gendered expressions are not making any difference and it is proposed as a rule by Romney as rule
of ‘minimum difference’. He coined another rule, rule of reciprocals in which X calls Z with a term F,
then Z calls X by the term F and which is common in this community in comparison to English society.
Later, a list of kin type in a particular kin term was separated to look at the commonalities coming out.
The features distinguishing F from I are the type of link between them, kin on first generation and of
generation above.
10
f f
f
In this figure where there is an additional link in genealogy, which are different but are not making any
difference, which is called as the ‘rule of sequence difference’. In it person’s calling each other by F
are the siblings of ego’s father, and also true for the persons where, one is the child of a man of ego’s
generation. Here it is important to note that, if F is replaced by I then the rule followed remain the same
but the only difference is that, ‘F’ is used consanguineal relation through male while ‘I’ through
female, separated by one generation in collateral manner.
In Chiricahua kinship terminology where a contrast between father’s line and of mother’s made
distinguished there no distinction in the same generation is non-existing even when gender is situated
12
With an attempt of Cognitive anthropologist to move beyond the modernist methods and to develop
something more scientific lead them to formulate certain methods and methodology. Certain criticisms
have come up for ethnoscience even from within of the tradition. Keesing, criticised the inability of
new ethnography or ethnoscience to move ahead their analysis of various domains. It has been unable
to describe the generative grammar of any culture along with a failure in discovering the internal
cultural workings that could be compared. In other words studies in new ethnography were not having
any scope for cross cultural analysis where there is no generalization is built for comparative analysis.
Cognitive science deals with very static and synchronic analysis as their cosmology do not change and
so is the case of cultural logic. So there is no scope for studying change through new ethnographic
works. This has been defended by the practitioners arguing by taking up the concept of change studies
through ecological, environmental and natural phenomena have a direct effect on the system of finding.
The new ethnography which was criticised for following a single logico-methodological model where,
plurality of these models argued to cover the culture studies while, it was suggested by ethno scientists
that, there is a possibility of emergence of alternate can emerge when an umbrella structure is studied
with the traditional logic.
The role of actor in the ethnographic studies was noted by Malinowski who said that, the actual
meaning of people’s behaviour can only be studied from the opinion and ideologies they hold and have
himself written a rich account. On this basis cognitive anthropologists were criticised to be not having
knowledge of past when any phenomena is studied.
In cognitive anthropology, the new trends were in response to the critique from within, that purely
descriptive accounts are not anymore logical in anthropology. A rigorous description is required to
reflect on theory talking about the reason and how the material studied came to be. So, one of the
modern trend which emerged in cognitive anthropology was to get away with the descriptive forms of
ethnographic works, where description was an end in itself. Later, a higher form of descriptive work
was done by Charles Frake who published an article on Subanun religious behaviour.
13
Later, works concerned with the study of Metaphors were done by anthropologists in Cognitive field
such as Basso, Lonunsbury, Kronenfeld on metaphors in Kinship systems while Quinn treated
metaphor as organizer of thinking among actors.
Summary
The traces of development in cognitive anthropology somewhere take us to the domains studied not
only by ethnoscientists but symbolic anthropology as well. Metaphor and Metonymy are the
converging points where both the subjects meet but, following their own traditions. Apart from all the
criticisms cognitive anthropology is an important attempt to move more closer to actual native world
and perceptions.
14