Animals as Metaphors in Rotuman Sayings 137

5. This may be a direct translation from English.6. The total for the individual animals adds up to more than 117 since several idioms contain reference to more than

one animal.7. Elephants do not inhabit Rotuma and are known only from books, motion pictures and visits to zoos abroad.8. Monkeys are not present on Rotuma, although in the past there is at least one instance in which a Rotuman

sailor brought back a monkey as a pet. Monkeys are ambiguous in their means of locomotion and not readily classified within the Rotuman schema.

9. Adoption, particularly of grandchildren, is quite common in Rotuma and we do not believe this proverb carries the implication that it is unwise to adopt children. Rather it seems to aim at chastising someone who has failed to reciprocate properly for the care his adopted parents have given him.

10. We acknowledge that there is a methodological problem created by the different time periods covered by the collection of idioms in the three cultures, so our results should be interpreted with caution. Ideally idioms should be collected during the same time period. Nevertheless, comparisons can still be valid if it is acknowledged that one is contrasting Rotuma of 1980 with Samoa of 1910, provided the ethnographic data used is confined to a period contemporaneous with the idioms. The Hawaiian case is more problematic since the collection took place over a 50 year period. Our assumption, based on the history of Hawaiian culture, is that most of the idioms reported by Pukui were current in the earlier years of her collection. We therefore take them to be indicative of Hawaiian culture during the early part of the 20th century.

11. While turtles are captured in deep water, Rotumans dive for them in inshore waters, between the main island and offshore islets.

12. The game involves singling out one of a group by following a chant ending in “Juli, juli, don't talk!” That person then is supposed to keep silent. This game is referred to by someone entering a group where no one is talking. It’s a way of jokingly asking why everyone present is so quiet.

13. There are no Samoan sayings about the plover (tuli) in the collection we examined.14. This is not to deny that the same may be true of plant metaphors or metaphors of any kind. However, we

believe that animals provide special metaphoric opportunities for human beings because they share such a wide range of characteristics with their human counterparts.

REFERENCES

BRANDES, Stanley, 1983. Animal Metaphors and Social Control in Tzintzuntzan. Ethnology, 22:207-15.CHURCHWARD, C. Maxwell, 1940. Rotuman Grammar and Dictionary. Sydney, Australasian Medical Publishing

Co.CROCKER, J.C., 1977. My Brother the Parrot, in J. D. Sapir and J.C. Crocker (eds), The Social Use of Metaphor:

Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.164-92.INIA, Elsapeti, n.d. Haihi’ag ne ’Ea’Ea Fak Rotuma [List of Rotuma Sayings!. MS.HALVERSON, J., 1976. Animal Categories and Terms of Abuse. Man, 11:505-16.HOWARD, Alan, 1970. Learning to Be Rotuman. New York, Columbia Teachers College Press.HOWARD, Alan, and Irwin HOWARD, 1964. Pre-marital Sex and Social Control among the Rotumans. American

Anthropologist, 66:266-83.LEACH, Edmund, 1964. Anthropological Aspects of Language: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse, in E. Lenneberg

(ed.), New Directions in the Study of Language. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 23-63.LÊVI-STRAUSS, Claude, 1963. Totemism. Boston, Beacon Press.PARKE, Aubrey L., 1971. Rotuman Idioms: Fâeag,'es Fuaga. Auckland, Te Reo Monographs.PUKUI, Mary Kawena, 1983. ’olelo N o’eau: Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Honolulu, Bishop Museum.SCHULTZ, E., 1953. Proverbial Expressions of the Samoans (translated into English by Brother Herman). Auckland,

The Polynesian Society.TAMBIAH, Stanley, 1969. Animals are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit. Ethnology, 8:423-59.

SAHAPTIN BIRD CLASSIFICATION

Eugene S. Hunn University of Washington

Ralph Bulmer set the standard for modem ethnozoological investigation much as Harold Conklin did for ethnobotany. Bulmer’s investigations of Kalam ethnozoology and his penetrating reflections on the broader implications of that work are characterised by a rigorous respect both for the knowledge of his native collabor­ators and for the highest standards of Western science. Bulmer was able to appreciate at the same time the

138 Eugene S. Hunn

common foundation on which scientific and folk biologies are built and the subtle nuances of difference that grant to each culture a unique perspective on nature. It is this tension between the particular and the general that defines the anthropological stance among the sciences of humanity, and Bulmer’s work is a powerful reminder of the necessity of balancing meticulous description against theoretical simplification. This brief summary1 of the ethnoomithology of a Pacific Northwest Native American culture owes much to Bulmer’s inspiration.

THE ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXTThe Sahaptin language is a complex of 15 mutually intelligible dialects spoken at first Euro-American

contact by an estimated 20,000 people then resident along the middle Columbia River between The Dalles, Oregon, and Priest Rapids, Washington, and along its major tributaries (Rigsby 1965). Sahaptin today remains the first language of several hundred Native American people resident on or near the Yakima, Warm Springs, and Umatilla reservations within the aboriginal range.

The following account is based primarily on discussions with elders of the Umatilla and John Day dialects. These elders were raised during the first three decades of this century in families practising a modified but still largely traditional subsistence round. These contemporary data were compared with data previously recorded in these and other Sahaptin dialects by explorers, missionaries, ethnographers, and linguists. It is noteworthy that very few bird names were recorded earlier that I was unable to elicit from contemporary elders. This suggests that acculturative loss in bird nomenclature is limited.

Sahaptin-speakers subsisted by gathering, fishing, and hunting. They occupied home base villages from October through March at low elevations along the major rivers, then dispersed to a series of camps strategically located for exploiting resources in season. They moved on foot prior to the introduction of the horse - believed by scholars to have been first acquired by groups on the southeastern periphery of the Columbia Plateau about 1730 AD (Haines 1938). By the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition (1805-6) horses were a common and integral feature of Plateau Indian life. By then also two epidemics of smallpox are known to have swept across the Plateau, killing perhaps 45% of the native population (Boyd 1985). In subsequent historical periods successive epidemics, missionary activities, Euro-American settlement, military conquest, and partial reservation confinement further altered traditional subsistence practices. Yet many families continued to rely primarily upon traditional foods procured and processed by traditional means and harvested at traditional sites through the 1930s. (For a general ethnographic account see Hunn 1990.) The ethnobiological data available today has come from individuals who learned about their natural environment in such a modified traditional setting.

My data were recorded in a bilingual interview context in response to requests for lists of names of animals, for the names of animals illustrated in books or recorded on tape, and whenever possible in the context of direct observation. The denotative range and focus of terms was determined by questions as to the morphology, behaviour, vocalisations, taxonomic and ecological relations, natural history and cultural utility of each category o f animal named. Names attributed to birds in previously recorded texts or ethnographic accounts were presented to key consultants for verification of phonological shapes, referential meanings, and cultural roles.

SAHAPTIN FOLK BIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION: AN OVERVIEWEthnoscientific research has significantly advanced anthropological knowledge of semantic universals and

lexical evolution, most notably in the domain of basic color terminology (e.g., Kay and McDaniel 1978). The comparative analysis of folk biological classification systems has likewise demonstrated a striking pattern of cross-linguistic uniformity in the recognition of basic folk biological taxa (cf. Rosch’s “basic object level”,1978). Approximately equivalent analytical concepts have been designated variously as speciemes (Bulmer 1970) and as folk generic taxa (Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven 1973). This basic core of folk biological classification has been shown to correspond closely to scientific taxa most often at the scientific species or monotypic genus level (Hunn 1977:80-2). A simple index of the degree of this correspondence is the percentage of basic folk taxa in one-to-one denotative relationship with some scientific taxon (cf. Hunn 1975). By this standard, approximately 89% of Sahaptin folk generic animal taxa (194 o f 215) and 90% of folk generic plant taxa (199 of 220) so correspond. These correspondences are even more impressive than had been recorded for the Tzeltal Mayan case (viz., 74% of animal generics and ca. 80% for plants). Majnep and Bulmer’s Kalam data (1977:47) indicate 70% correspondence for all flying bird and bat taxa, though if species subdivisions are excluded (for which there is no Sahaptin analog) the rate of correspondence rises to 89%.

The Sahaptin classification of plant species of the genus Lomatium provides an excellent case in point. This “taxonomically difficult” genus (Hitchcock et al. 1961:541) of some 30 Plateau area species is differentiated in Sahaptin into 14 folk generic taxa, with knowledgeable individual informants capable of discriminating as many as 11 (Hunn and French 1981). These folk taxa correspond to scientifically

Sahaptin Bird Classification 139

recognised species or varieties in virtually every case. Species of this genus that are not recognised are almost all rare and local. The Sahaptin classification of fishes likewise exhibits a close correspondence to the Western scientific classification (Hunn 1980).

While the basic role of the folk generic core of folk biological classification systems is clearly evident in the Sahaptin case, the existence of a well defined hierarchy of folk taxa involving 3-6 folk taxonomic ranks, as detailed by Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven (1973; see also Berlin 1976), is scarcely evident in the Sahaptin system. Folk biological taxa of specific rank, marked by the systematic use of binomial nomenclature in naming members of specific contrast sets, are rare. Binomial nomenclature (i.e., Berlin’s “secondary lexemes”) is applied within no more than 2% of Sahaptin generic taxa. By contrast, other well described systems exhibit in the neighbourhood of 15% polytypy among generic taxa (Hunn and French 1984). For example, 19% of “secondary” Kalam ‘bird’ taxa are polytypic, including among them 46 binomially named subdivisions (Majnep and Bulmer 1977:47).

Brown (1984) has argued that life-form taxa of both plants and animals exhibit an “evolutionary” sequence entirely comparable to that now well documented for basic color terms. The Sahaptin case raises key theoretical and methodological issues in this context (Randall and Hunn 1984). Life-forms in the strict sense of Berlin and Brown, i.e., supra-generic folk taxa defined in morphological-behavioural terms and labelled monolexemically, are limited in Sahaptin to ‘bird’ and, with some misgivings, ‘tree’. (A lexeme is a word or phrase the meaning of which cannot be inferred from the meanings of its constituent parts and of the syntactic relations among them.) Thus Sahaptin exhibits a minimalist taxonomic hierarchy with just one life-form in each of the folk biological domains and but a handful of specific taxa in each. The fact that Sahaptin-speakers were hunter-gatherers while the languages with higher percentages of polytypic folk generic taxa and a larger number of life-forms are spoken by agriculturalists (cf. Brown 1985) lends support to Berlin’s (1972) hypothetical evolutionary sequence for the development of folk biological classification systems. Sahaptin may approximate the one-level taxonomic hierarchy composed entirely of basic taxa that Berlin has proposed as the initial phase of an evolutionary elaboration of taxonomic nomenclatural systems. Yet the Sahaptin folk biological classification is not without structure, as a closer examination of the life-form ‘bird’ will demonstrate.

SAHAPTIN CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDSKâkya2 in its most common sense denotes ‘bird’ in general inclusive of all known species of birds as well

as bats. Kâkya also means ‘pet’ and, for some speakers, is used in an extended sense to refer to animals in general. Approximately 260 bird species3 and 15 of bats are of regular occurrence in the region that encompasses the traditional life range of Sahaptin-speaking peoples, an area of approximately 30,000 square miles. Approximately 165 of these bird species are included within the ranges of one of 71 basic level (i.e., generic) taxa included in the life-form. Bats are “lumped” in one additional basic level taxon. Sahaptin ‘bird’ classification is selective. Fifty-nine basic taxa refer in their core senses to single scientific species. Thirteen other basic taxa include more than one scientific species in their core ranges. (These 13 collectively indicate some 50 species, including the 15 bats.) Eleven of these 13 heterogeneous basic taxa correspond precisely to some higher order scientific taxon, such as a genus, tribe, subfamily, family, suborder, or order. Thus 70 Sahaptin basic ‘bird’ categories (97%) correspond to scientifically recognised taxa.

The core ranges o f 12 basic taxa may be extended to label 80 additional species. Examples include xâtxat ‘mallard’ (Anas platyrhynchos). When an elder is asked to describe xâtxat it is apparent that the mallard is the prototype on which their descriptions are based. However, the term may be applied in an extended sense to most if not all ducks encountered (some 20 species) as well as to the six species of grebes (Podicipediformes) that occur in the region. Likewise, tut, focally ‘killdeer’ (Charadrius vociferus), may be extended to refer to any of some 20 additional species of otherwise unnamed and (mostly) migratory shorebirds. By means of such extensions from a prototypical referent, approximately 175 species (67%) of the local bird fauna are named. The residual “dickeybird” (i.e., “any small bird”, The American Heritage Dictionary o f the American Language, 1981) category cikwacikwa may cover another 60 or so species of birds not otherwise named (20 species have been positively attested for it). By recourse to these various naming devices so far described some 90% of local bird species are recognised as a distinctive “kind o f ’ bird. The remainder are “just birds”. Some of these unrecognised species are not uncommon and seemingly conspicuous, such as the shrikes (Lanius spp.), which I have observed closely several times in the company of consultants with no indication that they recognise it as other than “just a bird”.

The cultural significance of birds is striking in mythology where 45 categories play some role (Jacobs 1931, 1937). Most owls are omens of death; the great homed owl (Bubo virginianus), raven (Corvus corax), and oriole (Icterus galbula) are ‘Indian doctors’; the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is a ‘chief’; several species serve as moral exemplars. Three species are used as gambling charms; three others are sources of spirit power. The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) have the power

140 Eugene S. Hunn

to cause disease if maltreated; mourning doves (Zenaida m acroura) and hummingbirds (Trochilidae) are ‘medicines’, eaten in order to incorporate the qualities judged characteristic of the birds. The dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) is so feared that it cannot be named in Sahaptin.

Economic values are less emphasised but are by no means insignificant. Seventeen basic bird categories are considered edible, though two of these are eaten only casually, three others are recently introduced game birds, while only the eggs of the magpie (Pica p ica ) are eaten. Of the remaining 11 edible bird taxa, nine are from two families, the waterfowl (Anatidae) and the chicken-like birds (Phasianidae), including the native grouse and quail.

Four species are specifically cited as useful for their decorative feathers; goose bones are used in preparing Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) twine; grouse tracks are a decorative motif in basketry. Eight species are useful as ecological indicators for locating foods; five are namesakes of geographical or temporal points important in the seasonal round of Sahaptin-speaking peoples; flowers are named for the long-billed curlew (Numenius am ericanus) and the hummingbird. The Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) and the oriole may destroy food supplies if offended. Finally, two species are used in play.

Most of the basic taxa within the life-form kdkya are perceived to fall into sets of similar or “related” birds. Most such groupings are unnamed or are referred to by descriptive phrases rather than by established monolexemic terms. The groups described below were substantiated by two Columbia River Sahaptin elders. They worked together, sorting cards with the names of basic taxa written on them into piles, then explaining their rationale for the groupings they had formed. Independent evidence suggests that some of these groupings or portions thereof receive wider cultural recognition, though none are named in the sense that no consistent monolexemic label is associated with the grouping. Many of these covert intermediate groupings correspond rather well with mid-level scientific taxa, suggesting that the recognition of overall morphological resemblances motivates groupings at this level.

Hawk-like b irds: The kinship of the hawk-like birds (approximately equivalent to the scientific order Falconiformes) is clearly attested. The set is described by the term qilâqilanuSnu, literally ‘bent noses’, an apt descriptor. Golden Eagle’s daughters in one Columbia River Sahaptin myth are so called. Eagle’s five daughters are introduced in apparent order of decreasing size, as follows: ‘osprey’ (Pandion haliaetus), ‘ferruginous hawk’ (Buteo regalis), ‘red-tailed hawk’ (B. jam aicensis), ‘prairie falcon’ (Faleo mexicanus), and ‘American kestrel’ (F. sparverius). (The identities of the first two named remains uncertain.) The bald eagle, k ’âmamul (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), is not considered to possess the chiefly qualities of the golden eagle, xwaama, literally ‘high above’, though the feathers of both are used interchangeably for dance regalia and funeral adornment. Eighteen species of the Falconiformes are known to occur or to have occurred regularly in the Sahaptin range; they map to nine Sahaptin basic taxa. The “superfluous” scientific species, as far as I have been able to determine, are grouped within the extended ranges o f two basic taxa, the large soaring hawks o f the genus B uteo are affiliated with the red-tailed hawk, the prototype of qiluS (an onomatopoetic rendering of that species’ typical call), while the smaller, quicker accipiters and falcons (with the exception of the American kestrel, well known as yityit) are allied with the prairie falcon, apparent prototype o f wapnyawaiâ literally ‘it comes out/down at you’. The Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) also falls within the prairie falcon’s extended range. The two species of New World vultures (suborder Cathartae) are of uncertain affiliation. The California condor (ōanahūu, Gymnogyps californianus) is very imperfectly known today and borders on the legendary, while the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) forms a link to the crow­like birds (see below) with which they share scavenging propensities. The ‘bent noses’ are linked as well with the nocturnal birds of prey which are recognised as having similar beaks.

Night b irds: Owls and other night “birds” form an unnamed group. The descriptive phrase, scatpamâ kâkya ‘bird o f darkness’, is applied to bats (class Mammalia, order Chiroptera) - which are known indiscriminately as C’AtaqS - and would likely be an appropriate designation for at least the most typical members of this group. The prototype is clearly miimânu ‘great homed owl’, which may be analysed as ‘ancient one’ (though it also appears to be onomatopoetic). The great homed owl is a ‘dangerous being’ and an Indian doctor as well as an omen of death. It calls out (in Sahaptin) pâtkwatana tanihSin ‘Arrowhead has eaten’, followed by either the name of the victim or just a meaningless squawk. Needless to say, it is not eaten. The diminutive, largely diurnal burrowing owl is also well known. It is called papu , which is onomatopoetic. The burrowing owl is also treated with respect, not killed, eaten, nor otherwise disturbed. Like the great blue heron (see below) it may cause a skin rash if offended. Perhaps the long bare scaly tarsi of the heron and the burrowing owl suggest this skin condition.

Eleven additional species of owls are known to occur in the region but it has been difficult to determine how they were traditionally classified. The rare but uniquely conspicuous snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca), which plays a role in one Columbia River Sahaptin myth, is the only bird labeled binomially in Sahaptin. It is quyx miimânu, literally ‘white great homed owl’, though it is not considered to be a kind of ‘great homed owl’. The use of the binomial implies only that it falls within the extended range of miimdnu, which term may

Sahaptin Bird Classification 141

be applied to a number of the larger owl species (judging by elders’ responses to pictures and tape recordings). The terms hahāĀa and âmaS appear to be dialectal synonyms of miimânu, but q ’apq ’apiâ, alapâp, and variants thereof clearly contrast, not only with miimânu but with each other as well. Elders assert that they refer to two kinds of smaller owls but are uncertain as to their appearance or behaviour. How the five species of smaller owls should be distributed between these two categories is uncertain. The common poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii of the order Caprimulgiformes) is allied with the owls. It is known onomatopoetically as w aw iyuk’k. An important Snake River winter village and the Indian people of the surrounding area are called ‘poorwills’ (Jacobs 1931:94). The poorwill’s closest relative, the common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) provides a conceptual link to the diurnal raptors by virtue of the perceived resemblance of the nighthawk to the American kestrel. It is called p ’iim in imitation of the sound its wings produce in its breeding display flight.

Scavengers'. The ‘corpse eaters’ (yalmilk tkwatat£) include a diverse assortment of scavenging birds, eaters of carrion and of human corpses. As a consequence they are considered inedible, with the exception that the magpie’s eggs may be collected and eaten, it being less tainted by the association with corpses. This grouping is further supported in myth: in one Turkey Vulture is Raven’s older brother; in another Raven is Crow’s sister-in-law (Jacobs 1931:52-3). The common raven appears to represent the conceptual focus of this group, having outstanding spiritual and mythological salience for Plateau peoples. Raven is a messenger and an Indian doctor. Their feathers are not used, out of “respect”. One elder contrasted ravens to crows, remarking that ravens speak of important things - to those with the power to understand them - while crows just “gossip”. The raven is judged to be more observant than the gregarious crow. The raven, crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and magpie - with the jays (see below) members of the family Corvidae - are named onomatopoetically: xuxux â ’a, and âC’ay respectively. The turkey vulture is called q ’Zpali', literally ‘broken- back’, a mythological allusion that also aptly describes the “buzzard’s” characteristic dihedral flight profile. Also included in this group are the gulls ( k ’aylâsk’aylas). Ring-billed and California gulls (L a m s delawarensis, L. californicus), which nest commonly along the Columbia River are prototypical, though no clear distinction was drawn between these and several additional species of medium-sized to large gulls found in the Columbia River basin today. (It is likely that gulls and terns are more numerous today than in the past due to hydropower dams and irrigation diversions.) The diminutive Bonaparte’s gull (Larus philadelphia) and the several tem species noted were considered atypical but allied forms.

Jays: A small, unnamed group is formed by the Steller’s jay, xwaSxway (“blue jay” in the local vernacular), gray jay, yapaSpat’a lâ (Perisoreus canadensis), and Clark’s nutcracker, lâl (Nucifraga columbiana), all members of the Corvidae. The Steller’s jay is well known and o f mythological significance. Its name is onomatopoetic. The gray jay is called ‘fat lover’ in the Columbia River dialects, an apt characterisation as it is noted for storing food, including scraps of fat raided from campsites, in the leafiitter of the forest floor (Udvardy 1977:727-8).

W ater birds: Seven basic taxa are included as Sunaytitâ, ‘water-surface swimmers’. However, certain aquatic mammals and reptiles are also included in this grouping (Everette 1883, Hunn 1979). The best known representative of the water bird group is xâtxat, which may mean ‘mallard’ in particular or ‘duck’ in general. The onomatopoetic name clearly indicates that the mallard is the species most readily called to mind by the name. However, in lieu of any contrasting term it will be used to name such diverse ducks as green-winged teal (Anas crecca), northern pintail (A. acuta), American wigeon (A. americana), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and Barrow’s goldeneye (B. islandica). xâtxat contrasts with tâStaS, the common merganser (Mergus merganser of the Anatinae), though elders consider the merganser to belong to the “duck family”. Several species of grebes (order Podicipediformes) were labeled “just xâtxaf’, indicating the full extent of its range and the centrality of xâtxat in this group. The common loon (Gavia immer), the only loon normally found in the region, is v/âan. Trumpeter (Cygnus buccinator) and tundra (C. columbianus) swans (without distinction) are wawqiluk. The Canada goose (Branta canadensis) is âkak. All three of these names are onomatopoetic, a characteristic feature of bird nomenclature in many languages (Berlin and O’Neill 1981). A contrasting term, wiïanaiâ, literally ‘traveler’, is applied either to the snow goose (C hen caerulescens) or, less certainly, to the white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), both now rare in the Sahaptin range. Other geese may be included in the extended range of âkak. Finally, the American coot (skwalkwali, Fulica americana, family Ralidae) is included. All species o f ducks and geese, at least, are considered edible.

W aders: The next group includes a variety of wading and fish-eating birds characteristic of shoreline habitats. It is unnamed. At the centre are the shorebirds (suborder Charadrii of the Charadriiformes), with tiit ‘killdeer’ as the prototype. The spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) is witwit', the long-billed curlew is qwâyqwây All three names are onomatopoetic. The killdeer’s name involves an amusing play on words; literally, it means ‘fart’. The curlew’s name is incorporated in the name of a flower, ‘curlew’s beak/nose’, the shooting star (Dodecatheon spp.), and the term for an introduced tool, the pick-axe, which is called ‘like-the- curlew’. All three species of shorebirds that are named are local nesters. Another local nesting species, the

142 Eugene S. Hunn

common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), may have been named p ic ’k, a term no longer current. The snipe is now included within the extended range of ‘killdeer’, as are nearly two dozen species o f migatory shorebirds known to pass through the region.

Allied with the shorebirds are the herons, of which only the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) is widely recognised. It is m u q ’a in the Columbia River dialects. Other species of the order Ciconiifomnes are secretive or recent immigrants; none are named and all appear to be included in the extended range of muq ’a. The great blue heron is a spiritually powerful bird, a myth character, and must not be mistreated on pain of affliction with a skin rash. The sandhill crane (Grus canadensis, order Gruiformes) is superficially similar to the great blue heron and confused with it by many local people. It once nested in the region but is now rare. A Northwest dialect term, p a ’axli ‘gray one’, no longer current, may have named it. It is not known if it was thought to be related to birds of this group. Finally, the belted kingfisher, SâxSax (Ceryle alcyon), is grouped here by virtue of its fish-eating habits. No member of this group is considered edible.

Grouse-like b irds: By contrast, all grouse and their allies are eminently edible. The group is unnamed; qâxnu, the sharp-tailed grouse (!Tympanuchus phasianellus), known locally as “prairie chicken” (of which it is a close relative), appears to be conceptually focal, as qâxnu is the basis for naming the introduced game birds, the chukar (Alectoris chukar) and gray partridge (Perdixperdix), which are both known as qaxnuwâakut, ‘like the sharp-tailed grouse’. The sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is called payumS, a name derived from a verb stem meaning, as best I can determine, ‘orgiastic dancing’. This is an allusion to the flamboyant mating displays of the males. These gather in early spring on leks, sometimes by hundreds, to compete for the favour of the conservatively attired females. The blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) is known throughout as pti; the ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) is known in the Columbia River dialects as sapanica; neither term is analysable. The shy and now rare spruce grouse or “fool hen” D endragapus canadensis) is known to Northwest dialect speakers as m iyâwax ‘chief. It is ironic that a bird considered by non-Indians to epitomise stupidity by its disinclination to flee from danger, rather freezing immobile (an adaptive response that no doubt has saved the life of many a spruce grouse), is perceived by the Indians as the epitome of courage, showing a disdain o f danger worthy of a chief! The white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus), a small grouse of the alpine zone, appears to have escaped the attention of local Native peoples, perhaps because the alpine zone was perceived as a dangerous place. Included with the native grouse are the quail, known as pātasi, literally ‘crested’, for their topknots. The native mountain quail (O reortyx pictus) is not differentiated from the introduced California quail (Callipepla californica), which is now the most familiar and prototypical example. Introduced chickens (likuuk from French le coq) and turkeys ( ’AiiAki, literally ‘snotty-nose’, referring to its wattle) are named but the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is known only by its English name.

Doves and pigeons: The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), onomatopoetically named miimim, is closely associated with the introduced domestic pigeon or rock dove (Colum ba livia), which is known as miimimwâakui, literally ‘like the mourning dove’. This usage is well established and is not a nonce form (cf. Hunn and French 1984). Compare the name assigned the introduced partridges (see above). Mourning Dove plays a variety o f roles in Sahaptin mythology. In one he is a gambler who gambles away his paternal grandmother, in another he is one of Coyote’s two wives. The co-wife is identified as nanikya, literally ‘ White-bark Pine Nut Woman’. As close relatives in Sahaptin myths are typically also closely allied biological species, it is possible the term is a name for the other native species of the order Columbiformes known from the Pacific Northwest, the band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata). As this is a bird o f the coastal forests, Columbia River Sahaptin-speakers are only vaguely aware of its existence.

Woodpeckers and allies: The n iityalâor ‘house makers’ include the woodpeckers (order Piciformes) and, peripherally, the nuthatches (Sitta spp.) and brown creeper (Certhia fam iliaris) (order Passeriformes, families Sittidae and Certhiidae). All these birds cling vertically to the trunks and branches of the trees on which they feed. Best known of this group is tâxt the northern flicker (Colaptes auratus). Its colorful “red-shafted” wing and tail feathers are used to decorate basketry hats. The anomalous Lewis’ Woodpecker is likewise named onomatopoetically as siwsiw . The downy woodpecker (P icoides pubescens), common in deciduous woodlands throughout the Sahaptin range, is prototypical o f the category labelled pips. The name aptly imitates the downy woodpecker’s call, but might just as well apply to the similar, slightly larger hairy woodpecker (P. villosus) characteristic of coniferous forests. There is no evidence that Sahaptin elders differentiate these two species. Six additional species of small woodpeckers - three classed in the same genus as the downy and hairy plus three species of sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus) - appear to fall within the extended range of pi'ps, at least for contemporary speakers. The crow-sized pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is not often encountered by Columbia River Sahaptin-speakers, but is most likely the proper referent of the Northwest Sahaptin term wanânp’as. The widespread and common red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) is the prototype of the taxon nâtnat, for which species the name is appropriately onomatopoetic. The brown creeper is clearly the most peripheral member. Nuthatch is Steller’s Jay’s companion in one Columbia River Sahaptin myth, an apt ecological association. While all the other niityalâ are edible, the nuthatch is considered

Sahaptin Bird Classification 143

to be “special” and thus not to be eaten. Also, because it is special it cannot be considered a member of the residual “dickeybird” category, cikwâcikwa (see below).

There remain a dozen basic categories of birds; they form no obvious clusters of similar or related forms. The fact that most are small to medium-sized birds o f the large, diverse order Passeriformes is not surprising. Boster, Berlin, and O’Neill (1986) have shown that passerine bird species are less readily distinguished from one another and are less often perceived to constitute well defined intermediate groups than are non-passerines. They explain this pattern by virtue of the fact that passerine birds are phylogenetically more recent. The Sahaptin case clearly demonstrates such a pattern. Though passerine birds constitute nearly half of the species known for the region, only 21 basic taxa of passerines (29% of the Sahaptin inventory) are recognised, only six of which are affiliated with an intermediate grouping.

The unaffiliated basic taxa are as follows:qmamsali', ‘hummingbird’, inclusive without distinction of the four species of the family Trochilidae (order

Apodiformes) known for the region;t ’ix t ’ix, ‘swallow’, inclusive o f six species of the family Hirundinidae (order Passeriformes). The

prototypical swallow builds a mud nest; this is true only of the cliff and bam swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonota,H. rustic a). Thus the prototype corresponds to a scientific genus, the core to a family. In addition, three species of swifts (family Apodidae, order Apodiformes) are included within the extended range of the category. The arrival o f swallows along the Columbia River presages the spring Chinook salmon run, as explained in a popular Sahaptin myth account;

xalixâli, onomatopoetic, the canyon wren (C atherpes m exicanus), a “brave bird. . . that pecks out rattlesnake’s eyes”, thus a moral exemplar;

’Xi'X’âmx™, and phonological variants, onomatopoetic, the red-winged blackbird (Agelaiusphoeniceus) as prototype, but extended to include Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) and perhaps other related species; and

xwiixwii, onomatopoetic, the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)', sings taunting phrases in Sahaptin; a favourite myth character, providing essential information and advice to the leading characters.

The next half-dozen form a loose conceptual “chain” and were referred to by one elder as “the little guys”: wawSuklâ, ‘it throws [fruit] down’, the northern oriole is of extraordinary religious significance as the

sacred bird of the prophet Smohalla (Relander 1956:72); a symbol of the regeneration of nature in spring; wiXki, literally ‘foreskin pulled back’, the olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis)’, twicaw&cawai, onomatopoetic, eastern and western kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus, T. verticalis), admired

for their feisty spirit in defence of their territories;latitalwit, also known as c ’itatat, both names onomatopoetic, the first interpreted as a Sahaptin myth refrain,

literally ‘the people are coming’; a bringer of news ( taymuusya); said to foretell the arrival of visitors at camp; and xwiil, onomatopoetic. an unidentified bird, perhaps inclusive of the three species of thrushes of the genus Catharus; a myth character,

wisqaqa and phonological variants, onomatopoetic, the American robin (Turdus m igratorius)’, shot with blunt-tipped arrows and eaten; Coyote’s messenger in myth; known as a bird “that flies a long ways”; and

yulyul, onomatopoetic, western and mountain bluebirds (Sialia mexicana, S. currocoides); feathers used to decorate headbands.

Finally, the dipper, as noted above, was certainly recognised, but the elder declined to name it out of respect for its power. It seems appropriate to recognise this as a covert basic level category. An additional four basic categories of passerine birds are reported for other Sahaptin dialects, but these were not known by my Columbia River Sahaptin consultants. These are d ’a ’C’in, perhaps the winter wren (T rog lodytes troglodytes); yumas, perhaps the western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), puuyay, literally ‘of snow’, the dark­eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and maxis, literally ‘yellow’, the American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). This leaves some 60 additional passerine species to be accounted for. Many of the remaining species - including a variety of flycatchers, vireos, wood warblers, sparrows, finches, including birds up to the size of the sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) and the evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) - are lumped in a residual “dickeybird” category which some elders refer to as cikwacikwa. Other speakers might pass these off as “just birds” (âwtya âykâkya). In any case, it is clear that smaller birds are given nomenclatural recognition quite selectively. Those that somehow catch the eye or the imagination come to be recognised and named while the remainder fades into an undifferentiated background.

DISCUSSIONA simple statistical summary of the Sahaptin bird classification system will facilitate cross-linguistic

comparisons. However, it is important to bear in mind that the typological distinctions on which this numerical analysis is based require the exercise of judgment by the analyst. In addition, the data may be uncertain or ambiguous due to uncertainty on the native language consultant’s part - no individual, after all,

144 Eugene S. Hunn

can claim a “perfect knowledge” of his or her own culture - to the inappropriateness of questions posed by the ethnographer, or to a lack of opportunity for verification of questionable points. Given that the number of knowledgeable consultants in Sahaptin is few and declining it may be difficult if not impossible to obtain corroboration or clarification of uncertain information now or in the future.

I have discussed 99 Sahaptin folk ornithological categories here which may be grouped as follows:There is one life-form, widely recognised and consistently named; inclusive of the other 98 categories.

Since bats are included, the life-form does not conform to any single scientific taxon.There are nine intermediate groups, five of which may be referred to by a descriptive term but none of

which is consistently and monolexemically named. Only three of the nine correspond to single scientific taxa (one at the family level, two at the ordinary level). Collectively they include 55 of the 73 basic level categories.

Thirteen of the 73 basic level categories involve a contrast between a prototype/core meaning and an extended referential sense; these extended senses correspond to scientific taxa in just three cases.

The 73 basic level categories are not further subdivided. Of those 73 (five of which classify non-native species), the dipper is not named, the pheasant is named only in English, and ten are recorded only for Northwestern Sahaptin dialects; the remaining 61 are Columbia River Sahaptin forms known to James Selam, a John Day speaker and my primary consultant.

Thirteen of the 73 basic categories remain somewhat ambiguous as to their core referential ranges. Of the 60 that are well defined, 58 (97%) correspond, at least as to their core or prototypical referential ranges, to a single scientific taxon, as shown in Table 1. Eighty percent (48/60) correspond to a single scientific species. However, this statistic is misleading in that in only 35% (17/48) o f these cases were species distinguished from other species of the same genus. Furthermore, in seven of the 17 cases in which a single scientific species was differentiated from its congeners, the other species of the genus were included in the extended range of the folk category. Thus the scientific species is not the most frequent level of correspondence between basic level Sahaptin bird categories and scientific taxa (cf. Hunn 1977). Correspondence with monotypic genera is more typical.

TABLE 1: ANALYSIS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE WELL-DEFINED BASIC SAHAPTIN BIRD CATEGORIES TO SCIENTIFIC TAXA

Correspondence Simple# Core/Prototype Total1:1/species within genus 10 7 171:1/monotypic genus 26 2 28l:l/monotypic family/order 3 0 3

1:1/species Total 39 9 48

1:1/polytypic genus 4 1* 51:1/polytypic tribe/family/order 4 1 5

1:1/Total over-differentiated 8 2 10

1:1/Total 47 11 58

Not lrl 0 2 2

Grand Total 47 13 60

# ’’Simple” basic taxa have no extended ranges.* This represents the prototype within the ‘swallow’ core.

The two cases which fail to correspond to any single scientific taxon nevertheless do not deviate far from that standard. Both cases involve a core and an extended range. The core of the gull category includes at least two species of the genus Larus, the ring-billed and California gulls, while clearly excluding the diminutive Bonaparte’s gull and several tern species of the related subfamily Steminae. These species, however, are included in the extended range of the category, which appears to correspond perfectly with the family Laridae. The ‘small woodpecker’ category, pips, is focused on the downy and hairy woodpeckers within the core range while apparently including within the extended range three additional species of the genus P icoides, all uncommon to rare here, as well as three species of sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus). Thus neither the core nor the extension of ‘small woodpecker’ corresponds to a single scientific taxon.

Sahaptin Bird Classification 145

CORE CATEGORIES WITH EXTENDED RANGESLakoff hails “prototype theory” as a major breakthrough in cognitive science and credits the discovery of

prototype phenomena in folk biological classification systems with an important role in defining this new approach to understanding human cognition (1987). ‘Gull’ and ‘small woodpecker’ are examples of this classificatory phenomenon. Ten additional cases occur in the Sahaptin folk ornithological system. One case involves the added complexity o f contrasing prototype, core, and extension. The core meaning of t’lx t ’ix is clearly ‘swallow’, six species of which are common in the region. However, descriptions and a myth account clearly indicate that the prototypical swallow is one that builds a mud nest, in short, a swallow of the genus H irundo. Finally, the swifts o f the quite distantly related family Apodidae (more closely related to hummingbirds than to swallows in the scientific taxonomy) are included within the extended range. Thus both the prototype and the core correspond to single scientific taxa (genus and family respectively), but the extended range does not. In the remaining nine cases the core/prototype corresponds to a single scientific species; in two cases the extended range also corresponds to a single higher-level scientific taxon. ‘Red-tailed hawk’ extends to include all species of the genus Buteo, while the ‘great blue heron’ extends to cover the order Ciconiiformes as far as it is represented locally. In the first case, however, the recognition of a second basic category within the extended range o f the fir s t poses an analytical problem. Does ‘ferruginous hawk’, for example, contrast with ‘red-tailed hawk’ or only with its extended sense? A similar issue arises with respect to ‘mallard/merganser’ and ‘great homed owl/snowy owl’. I believe the former interpretation to be correct in each case, as consultants who are uncertain as to the identities of the ferruginous hawk or merganser, for example, readily include them within the extended ranges of ‘red-tailed hawk’ and ‘mallard’. In the remaining six cases the extended ranges include species from two or more genera of a single family or order, but exclude other species of that family or order.

Our last category type, the residual category, is exemplified by “dickeybird”, cikwâcikwa. I have recorded 20 species (representing 17 genera, seven subfamilies, five families, and two suborders) of passerine birds for this category. Yet other passerine species are excluded, usually by virtue of relatively large size (most passerine species are robin-sized or smaller). This term is of limited currency in Sahaptin and may even be idiosyncratic. However, the classifactory process it demonstrates is, I believe, widespread in folk biological classification systems (witness the close conceptual equivalence of the folk English term “dickeybird”). Given the classificatory selectivity of such systems in certain regions of the floral and faunal “spaces”, there will tend to be large numbers o f species that go unrecognised, for which no consistent nomenclatural response is forthcoming. In such cases Sahaptin-speakers have recourse to one of two alternatives - assuming the organism indicated does not clearly fall within the extended range of a recognised category. Unremarkable species might be labeled “just a bird”, in other words, identified as a member of a life-form such as ‘bird’ but not as a member of any of the basic taxa included in that life-form (such organisms are not named in any usual sense of that term as they are assigned to no basic level category). Alternatively a term may be used that indicates only that the organism in question is some kind of sm all bird or animal, e.g. “dickeybird” or “bug”, or as some useless herbaceous plant, e.g. “weed”, etc. The residual quality of these categories is clear from the diversity of organisms so included and by the limited predications implied by the act of naming.

SUMMARYSahaptin bird classification makes good sense from a Western scientific perspective if allowance is made

for its selectivity, which results in residual and extended categories that tend to correspond poorly with scientific taxa. A simple index of the degree to which a particular folk biological domain is selectively named is the ratio of terminal (i.e., lowest level) folk biological taxa to the number of scientific species known to occur in the area. The Sahaptin inventory of terminal bird taxa (72) is just 27% of the region’s 260-odd bird species. The corresponding figure for Sahaptin fish classification is 60% (Hunn 1980:2), suggestive of the greater role that fish play in Sahaptin culture. The Kalam name some 150 terminal taxa of birds, which may be compared to the 200-odd bird species known from the Kaironk Valley region of highland New Guinea where they live (Majnep and Bulmer 1977:45-7). Thus the Kalam ratio of native taxa to scientific species of birds is 75%. How might we account for this striking difference? It is partly due to the extensive acculturative pressure experienced by the Sahaptins. However, I do not believe that factor alone is sufficient to account for the degree of selectivity in their attention to birds. As Brown (1985) has shown, hunting-gathering peoples generally appear to name fewer plants and animals, even with due allowance for contrasting biological diversities. The Kalam - who depend heavily on their sweet potato and taro gardens for basic subsistence (Majnep and Bulmer 1977:29-34) - occupy their terrain at a density of over 80 per square mile, over 100 times the density of the pre-contact Sahaptin population. Thus the average Kalam individual knows a small area intimately - for example the 25 square miles of the Upper Kaironk Valley best known to Saem Majnep. The average Sahaptin-speaker ranged over perhaps 10,000 square miles on a regular basis, and thus was of necessity more selective in his or her knowledge of the land and its biota.

146 Eugene S. Hunn

The principal criteria for selecting bird species for nomenclatural recognition in the Sahaptin case are 1) perceptual salience, 2) ecological salience, and 3) size. Perceptual salience (Hunn 1976) - the extent to which a group of organisms might be expected to “stand out” to a culturally-unbiased observer (if such existed) - explains why non-passerine species are more likely to be recognised than passerine species and why species with no coresident congeners are more likely to be clearly distinguished than those with such congeners. Ecological salience - those factors of local natural history that affect the frequency o f encounter between a given species and members of the local human population - explains why species that are common nesters or permanent residents are more likely to be named than those which are uncommon, rare, of local occurrence, nocturnal, or transient. If historical factors are considered, this principle helps account for the low level of “cultural resolution” we find in Sahaptin for species of marsh habitats, such as herons, ducks, shorebirds, and gulls and terns. Such species were presumably much less frequently encountered before the introduction of extensive irrigation works by non-Indian settlers. Principle three leads us to expect that larger birds will be named more frequently and recognised at a lower scientific level of correspondence, other things being equal, than will smaller birds. The smaller species that are named in Sahaptin, such as hummingbirds, swallows, thrushes, bluebirds, and chickadees, tend to be recognised at the genus or family level rather than at the species level.

NOTES

1. The research for this paper was generously supported by NSF grant BNS-76-16914. I am grateful as well for financial support from the Melville and Elizabeth Jacobs Research Fund and the Phillips Fund of the American Philosophical Society. I would especially like to thank James Selam, Delsie Albert Selam, Sara Quaempts, Elsie Pistolhead, Josephine Andrews, Mary Jim Chapman, and the late Don Umtuch for their expert teaching and patient tolerance. I am also indebted to my Sahaptin research colleagues David French, Bruce Rigsby, and Virginia Hymes for comparative data and linguistic advice.

2. For brevity’s sake only one name is cited for each Sahaptin category though in a number of cases a variety of phonological and lexical variants are on record. In most cases the name cited is that preferred by my principal consultant, James Selam, a speaker of the John Day River dialect. Sahaptin forms require a few special phonemic symbols: S is pronounced as the “sh” in English “shoe”; C as “ch” in “church”; x as the “ch” in German “doch”; \ as the “thl” in English “athlete”; i as the “i” in “bit; and X roughly as the “ti” in “matlock”. An apostrophe following a consonant indicates glottalisation; 7 is a glottal stop; a doubled vowel is long; primary stress is marked by the accent.

3. Scientific and common bird names follow the A.O.U. Committee on Classification and Nomenclature (1982).

REFERENCES

A.O.U. COMMITTEE ON CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE, 1982. Thirty-fourth Supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist of North American Birds. Auk, 99(3), supplement.

BERLIN, Brent, 1972. Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature. Language in Society, 1:63-98.------------ , 1976. The Concept of Rank in Ethnobiological Classification: some Evidence from Aguaruna Folk Botany.

American Ethnologist, 3:381-99.------------ , Dennis E. BREEDLOVE, and Peter H. RAVEN, 1973. General Principles of Classification and

Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthropologist, 75:214-42.------------ , and John P. O’Neill, 1981. The Pervasiveness of Onomatopoeia in Aguaruna and Huambisa Bird Names.

Journal of Ethnobiology, 1:238-61.BOSTER, James, Brent BERLIN, and John P. O’NEILL, 1986. The Correspondence of Jivaroan to Scientific

Ornithology. American Anthropologist, 88:569-83.BOYD, Robert T., 1985. The Introduction of Infectious Diseases Among the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, 1774-

1874. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.BROWN, Cecil H., 1984. Language and Living Things: Uniformities in Folk Classification and Naming. New

Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press.------------ , 1985. Mode of Subsistence and Folk Biological Classification. Current Anthropology, 26:43-53.BULMER, Ralph N.H., 1970. Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg-Head? in J. Pouillon and P. Maranda (eds),

Êchanges et communications, vol.2. The Hague, Mouton. pp. 1069-91.EVERETTE, Will E., 1883. Indian Languages of North America: Yakima. Unpublished manuscript, Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, D.C.HAINES, Francis, 1938. The Northward Spread of Horses among the Plains Indians. American Anthropologist,

40:429-37.HITCHCOCK, C. Leo, Arthur CRONQUIST, Marion OWNBEY, and J.W. THOMPSON, 1961. Vascular Plants of

the Pacific Northwest, Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, University of Washington Press.HUNN, Eugene S., 1975. A Measure of the Degree of Correspondence of Folk to Scientific Biological Classification.

American Ethnologist, 2:309-27.------------ , 1976. Toward a Perceptual Model of Folk Biological Classification. American Ethnologist, 3:508-24.

Sahaptin Bird Classification 147

------------, 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: the Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. New York, Academic Press.------------, 1979. Sahaptin Folk Zoological Classification: a Persistent Paradigm. Folk Classification Bulletin, 3:3-4.------------, 1980. Sahaptin Fish Classification. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 14:1-19.------------ , 1990. Nch'i Wana (The Big River): Mid-Columbia Indian People and their Land. Seattle, University of

Washington Press.------------ , and David H. FRENCH, 1981. Lomatium: a Key Resource for Columbia Plateau Native Subsistence.

Northwest Science, 55:87-94.------------, and------------ , 1984. Alternatives to Taxonomic Hierarchy: the Sahaptin Case. Journal of Ethnobiology,

4:73-92.JACOBS, Melville, 1931. A Sketch of Sahaptin Grammar. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology,

4:85-292.------------, 1937. Northwest Sahaptin Texts. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology No. 19.KAY, Paul and Chad K. MCDANIEL, 1978. The Linguistic Significance of the Meanings of Basic Color Terms.

Language 54:610-46.LAKOFF, George, 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.MAJNEP, Ian Saem, and Ralph BULMER, 1977. Mhmon Yad Kalam Y akt-B irds of My Kalam Country. Auckland

University Press and Oxford University Press.RANDALL, Robert A., and Eugene S. HUNN, 1984. Do Life-forms Evolve or Do Uses for Life? Some Doubts about

Brown’s Universals Hypotheses. American Ethnologist, 11:329-49.RELANDER, Click, 1956. Drummers and Dreamers. Caldwell, Idaho, Caxton Printers.RIGSBY, Bruce J., 1965. Linguistic Relations in the Southern Plateau. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of

Oregon.ROSCH, Eleanor, 1978. Principles of Categorization, in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds), Cognition and Categorization.

Hillsdale, NJ, Laurence Erlbaum. pp.27-48.UDVARDY, Miklos D.F., 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds, Western Region. New

York, Alfred A. Knopf.

WHY IS WINE NOT BOOZE?

Julie Park University of Auckland

“And he kept pouring the booze down his throat and I kept thinking ‘ Yuk’”.1

This is an unexceptional remark. In a test of women’s reactions to it, most visualised the “booze” as beer. Spirits, such as whisky, were a secondary possibility, and, if the drinker was imagined as a street alcoholic, cheap sherry, cheap wine or even meths might also be “booze”.2 What is exceptional about the sentence is that it is part of a description of a dinner party. The same speaker continues:

“But I cooked what I thought was a superb meal. We had vichyssoise first. He wanted more of that.And then I had some chicken breasts that I’d done. It was a very French meal, very simple, in a tarragon sauce and two really nice vegetables and a really interesting salad to come after that and then some raspberry tarts.”

The guest-of-honour had been away from New Zealand for fifteen years. Usually returning expatriates bring back tastes which are regarded as sophisticated. On this occasion it was just the opposite:

“When he came in the door he said, ‘Oh, sorry I’m late, I’ve been having drinks with so and so.’ You know, the flushed look on his face and the smell on his breath. He’d obviously been having a lot of drinks then he had quite a lot of beer before we even sat down for dinner. You know, then he just kept chucking the wine back . . . I’d gone to quite a lot of trouble for this fat thing, and he ate everything he’d piled on. And I’d put this there and that here and thought, ‘Oh this looks quite nice on a white plate, bit like out of a magazine!’ I thought. [She smiled.] But he had a bit more of this and a bit more of that, piled it all onto his big mountain of food [laughter], and all this booze”.

The speaker was a middle-class, urban woman in her thirties who had come from a wine-growing background. She and her husband were very hospitable folk who spent an above average amount on alcohol.