Hanuno Color Categories

Author(s): Harold C. Conklin

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, Approaches to Culture and
Society (Autumn, 1986), pp. 441-446
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630047 .
Accessed: 15/01/2013 03:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANUNOO COLORCATEGORIES'
HAROLDC. CONKLIN
N THE FOLLOWINGbriefanalysisof a specificPhilippinecolorsystemI
shallattemptto showhowvariousethnographic
fieldtechniques
maybe combinedprofitablyin the studyof lexicalsets relatingto perceptualcategorization.
Recently,I completedmorethana year'sfieldresearchon Hanun6ofolkbotany.2In thistypeof workonesoonbecomesacutelyawareof problemsconnected
with understanding
the local systemof color categorization
becauseplant dein theappearance
terminations
so oftendependon chromatic
differences
of flowers
- bothin taxonomicbotanyand in popularsystemsof
or vegetativestructures
It is no accidentthatoneof themostdetailedaccountsof nativecolor
classification.
in
area was writtenby a botanist."I was,
terminology the Malayo-Polynesian
with
color categoriesduringthe entire
concerned
Hanun6o
therefore,greatly
Before
the specificresultsof
of
ethnobotanical
research.
summarizing
period my
I
should
like
the
to drawattentionto
of
Hanun6omaterial,however,
myanalysis
severalgeneralconsiderations.
1. Color,in a westerntechnicalsense,is not a universalconceptandin many
In our
equivalent.
languagessuchas Hanun6othereis no unitaryterminological
statethatcoloris the evaluationof the visualsense
technicalliteraturedefinitions
of that qualityof light (reflectedor transmitted
by somesubstance)whichis
The
its
determined
by spectralcomposition. spectrumis the rangeof
basically
in wavelengths(400[deepred]to 700 [blue-violet]
visiblecolorin lightmeasured
The
total
color
.'
sphere- holdinganyset of externalandsurface
millimicrons)
in additionto thatof spectral
constant- includestwootherdimensions,
conditions
or
or
is
saturation
intensity(chroma),the otherbrightness
positionor hue.One
into
dimensions
are
combined
brilliance(value).Thesethreeperceptual
usually
knownas thecolorsolid.Saturation
continuum
a co6rdinate
systemasa cylindrical
coreof neutralgrays
towardthecentralaxiswhichformstheachromatic
diminishes
to blackat theoppositeextremity.
fromthewhiteat theendof greatestbrightness
Hue varieswithcircumferential
speakingblackis
position.Althoughtechnically
1 Fieldworkamongthe Hanun6oon MindoroIsland (1952-1954)wassupportedby grants
and the GuggenheimFoundation.
fromthe SocialScienceResearch
Council,the FordFoundation,
2 Conklin,1954a,1954b.
3 Bartlett,1929.
4 Osgood,1953,p. 137.
339

441
VOL.11, 1955

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340

SOUTHWESTERN

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

the absenceof any "color,"white, the presenceof all visible color wave lengths,
and neutral grays lack spectraldistinction,these achromaticpositionswithin the
color solid are often included with spectrally-definedpositions in the categories
distinguishedin popularcolor systems.
2. Under laboratoryconditions,color discriminationis probablythe same for
all humanpopulations,irrespectiveof language;but the mannerin whichdifferent
languages classify the millions5 of "colors"which every normal individualcan
discriminatediffer.Many stimuliare classifiedas equivalent,as extensive,cognitive
- or perceptual--screening takes place.6 Requirementsof specificationmay
differ considerablyfrom one culturally-definedsituation to another.The largest
collection' of English color names runs to over 3,000 entries, yet only eight of
theseoccurverycommonly.8Recenttestingby Lennebergand others9demonstrates
a high correlationin English and in Zufii betweenreadycolor vocabularyand ease
in recognitionof colors. Although this is only a beginningit does show how the
structureof a lexical set may affect color perception.It may also be possible to
determinecertainnonlinguisticcorrelatesfor color terminology.Color terms are
a partof the vocabularyof particularlanguagesand only the intraculturalanalysis
of such lexicalsets and theircorrelatescan providethe key to their understanding
and rangeof applicability.The study of isolatedand assumedtranslationsin other
languagescan lead only to confusion.l0
In the field I began to investigateHanun6o color classificationin a numberof
ways, including the eliciting of linguistic responsesfrom a large number of informants to painted cards, dyed fabrics, other previouslypreparedmaterials,"1
and the recordingof visual-qualityattributestaken from descriptionsof specific
items of the naturaland artificialsurroundings.This resultedin the collectionof
a profusion of attributivewords of the nonformal- and therefore in a sense
"color"- type. There were at first many inconsistenciesand a high degree of
overlapfor whichthe controlsused did not seemto account.However,as the work
with plant specimensand minute floristicdifferentiationprogressed,I noted that
in contrastivesituationsthis initial confusion and incongruityof informants'responsesdid not usually occur. In such situations,wherethe "nonformal (i.e. not
5 Estimatesrangefrom 7,500,000to morethan 10,000,000(OpticalSocietyof America,
1953;Evans,1948,p. 230).
6 Lounsbury,
1953.
7 Maerzand Paul, 1930.
8 ThorndikeandLorge,1944.
9 Lenneberg,
andRoberts,1954;Brownand Lenneberg,
1954.
1953,pp. 468-471;Lenneberg
10 Lenneberg,
1953,pp. 464-466;Hjelmslev,1953,p. 33.
11 Cf. Ray,1952,1953.

442

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANUN60

COLORCATEGORIES

341

spatiallyorganized) visible quality"'2 of one substance (plant part, dyed thread,

or color card) was to be relatedto and contrastedwith that of another,both of
which were either at hand or well known, terminologicalagreementwas reached
with relativeease. Such a definedsituationseemedto providethe frame necessary
for establishinga knownlevel of specification.Where needed,a greaterdegree of
specification(often employingdifferentroot morphemes)could be and was made.
Otherwise,such finerdistinctionswere ignored.This hint of terminologicallysignificantlevels led to a reexaminationof all color data and the following analysis
emerged.
Color distinctionsin Hanun6o are made at two levels of contrast.The first,
higher,moregenerallevel consistsof an all-inclusive,cobrdinate,four-wayclassificationwhichlies at the coreof the colorsystem.The four categoriesare mutually
exclusivein contrastivecontexts,but may overlap slightly in absolute (i.e., spectrally,or in othermeasurable)terms.The secondlevel, includingseveralsublevels,
consistsof hundredsof specificcolor categories,manyof whichoverlapand interdigitate. Terminologically,there is "unanimousagreement"13on the designations
for the four Level I categories,but considerablelack of unanimity- with a few
explainableexceptions- in the use of termsat Level II.
The four Level I termsare:
1. (ma)biru'4 "relativedarkness (of shadeof color); blackness"(black)
2. (ma)lagti

"relativelightness (or tint of color); whiteness"(white)

3. (ma)rara' "relativepresenceof red; redness"(red)

4. (ma)latuy

"relativepresenceof light greenness;greenness"(green).

The three-dimensional
color solid is dividedby this Level I categorizationinto
four unequalparts;the largestis mabiru,the smallestmalatuy.While boundaries
separatingthesecategoriescannotbe set in absoluteterms,the focal points (differing slightly in size, themselves) within the four sections,can be limited more or
less to black, white, orange-red,and leaf-green respectively.In general terms,
12 The lackof a termsimilarin semanticrangeto our word"color"makesabstractinterrogationin Hanun6oaboutsuchmatterssomewhatcomplicated.
Exceptfor leadingquestions(namattributeas a possibility),only circumlocutions
such as kabitaytida nu
ing somevisual-quality
"Howis it to lookat?"arepossible.If thisresultsin description
of spatialorganizapagbantdyun?
tion or form,the inquirymay be narrowed
bukunkay ?anyu?"notits shape
by the specification
(or form)."
13 Lenneberg,
1953,p. 469.
14 These formsoccuras attributeswith the prefixma- "exhibiting,having,"as indicated
abovein parentheses,
or as freewords(abstracts).

443

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

342

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

mabiruincludestherangeusuallycoveredin Englishby black,violet,indigo,blue,

darkgreen,darkgray,and deepshadesof othercolorsand mixtures;malagt?,
whiteand verylight tints of othercolorsand mixtures;marara,maroon,red,
orange,yellow,and mixturesin whichthesequalitiesare seen to predominate;
malatuy,light green,and mixturesof green,yellow,and light brown.All color
termscanbe reducedto oneof thesefourbutnoneof the fouris reducible.
This
doesnot meanthatothercolortermsaresynonyms,
but thattheydesignatecolor
withinfourrecognized
colorrealms.
categoriesof greaterspecification
The basisof thisLevelI classification
beyond
appearsto havecertaincorrelates
whatis usuallyconsidered
therangeof chromatic
andwhichareasdifferentiation,
sociatedwithnonlinguistic
in the externalenvironment.
First,thereis
phenomena
the oppositionbetweenlightanddark,obviousin the contrasted
rangesof meaning of lagti?andbiru.Second,thereis an oppositionbetweendrynessor desiccation and wetnessor freshness(succulence)in visiblecomponents
of the natural
environment
whichare reflectedin the termsrara?and latuyrespectively.
This
distinctionis of particularsignificance
in termsof plantlife. Almostall living
planttypespossesssomefresh,succulent,andoften"greenish"
parts.To eat any
kindof raw,uncookedfood,particularly
freshfruitsor vegetables,is knownas
sectionof newly-cutbamboo
pag-laty-un(< latuy). A shiny,wet,brown-colored
is malatuy(not marara?).Dried-outor maturedplantmaterialsuch as certain
kindsof yellowedbambooor hardenedkernelsof matureor parchedcornare
marara?.
To becomedesiccated,
to loseall moisture,
is knownas mamara?
(< para?
andparenthetically,
I mightaddthattherearemorphological
and
"desiccation";
- to believethatat
historicalreasons- asidefromHanun6ofolk etymologizing
leastthe finalsyllablesof thesetwo formsarederivedfroma commonroot). A
thirdopposition,dividingthe two alreadysuggested,is that of deep,unfading,
indelible,and henceoften moredesiredmaterialas againstpale, weak,faded,
bleached,or "colorless"
substance,a distinctioncontrastingmabiruand mararar
with malagt?and malatuy.This oppositionholds for manufactured
itemsand
tradegoodsas wellas for somenaturalproducts(e.g.,redandwhitetradebeads,
redbeingmorevaluableby Hanun6ostandards;
cottonsarongs,the
indigo-dyed
mostprizedbeingthosedyedmostoftenandhenceof the deepestindigocolorsometimes
thedesignsformedoriginally
obscuring
completely
by whitewarpyarns;
Within
each
of
these
Level
I
increased
esthetic
valueattachesas
etc.).
categories,
the focalpointsmentioned
aboveareapproached.
Thereis onlyoneexception:the
colorwhichis mosttangiblyvisiblein theirjunglesurroundings,
the green (even
the focalpointnearlight-or yellow-green)
of thenaturalvegetation,is notvalued
Greenbeads,for example,are "unattractive,"
worthless.Clothing
decoratively.
444

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANUN60

COLORCATEGORIES

343

andornament
arevaluedin proportion
to the sharpness
of contrastbetween,and
theintensity(lackof mixture,deepquality)of "black,""red,"and"white."
than
is normallyemployedonlywhengreaterspecification
LevelII terminology
I
name
to
of an objectreferred hapis possibleat Level is required,
or whenthe
pensalsoto be a "color"term (e.g., bulawan"gold;golden[color]"). LevelII
termsareof twokinds:relativelyspecificcolorwordslike (ma)dapug"gray"(<
dapug "hearth;ashes"), (ma)'arum"violet,"(ma)dilaw"yellow"(< dilaw
basedon suchspecificterms- or on LevelI names
; andconstructions,
"tumeric")
- but involvingfurtherderivations,
"somewhatmabiru"
such as mabirubiru
(morespecificthanmabirualoneonlyin that a colorwhichis not a solid,deep,
blackis implied,i.e., a colorclassedwithinthe mabirucategoryat LevelI, but
notat ornearthe focalpoint),mabiiru(gid) "verymabiru"(heresomething
close
to the focalcenterof jet blackis designated),andmadilawdilaw
"weakyellow."
Muchattentionis paidto thetextureof thesurfacereferredto, theresultingdegree
and type of reflection(iridescent,sparkling,dull), and to admixtureof other
nonformalqualities.Frequentlythesenoncolorimetric
aspectsare consideredof
the
more
primaryimportance,
spectrally-definable
qualitiesservingonlyas secondattributes.
In
either
arecommon.
case
ary
descriptions
polymorphemic
At LevelII thereis a noticeable
in
of men
difference thereadycolorvocabulary
as compared
to women.The formerexcel (in the degreeof specification
to which
in the rangesof "reds"and
they carrysuch classificationterminologically)
"grays"(animals,hair,feather,etc.); thelatter,in "blues"(shadesof indigo-dyed
similardifference
or "whites."
holdsfor the"greens"
fabrics).No discernible
In short,we haveseen that the apparentcomplexityof the Hanun6ocolor
levelto fourbasictermswhichare
systemcanbe reducedat the mostgeneralized
withlightness,darkness,
associated
wetness,anddryness.This intracultural
analysisdemonstrates
thatwhatappearsto becolor"confusion"
at firstmayresultfrom
an inadequate
knowledgeof the internalstructureof a colorsystemand froma
failureto distinguish
sharplybetweensensoryreceptionon the one handandperontheother.
ceptualcategorization
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BARTLETT, HARLEY HARRIS

1929 ColorNomenclature
in BatakandMalay(Papers,Michigan
of
Academy
ArtsandLetters,
vol.10,pp. 1-52,AnnArbor).
Science,
ROGER
BROWN,
W., ANDERICH.LENNEBERG
1954 A Studyin Language
andCognition(Journalof Abnormal
andSocial
vol.49,pp.454-462).
Psychology,
445

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

344

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

C.
HAROLD
CONKLIN,
1954a The Relationof HanuncoCultureto the Plant World (Doctoraldissertation,Yale University,New Haven).
1954bAn Ethnoecological
New
Approachto ShiftingAgriculture(Transactions,
York Academyof Sciences,ser.II, vol. 17, pp. 133-142,New York).
EVANS, RALPH M.
1948 An Introductionto Color (New York: Wiley).
HJELMSLEV,
LOUIS
1953 Prolegomenato a Theoryof Language(IndianaUniversityPublications
in
Anthropologyand Linguistics,Memoir7 of the InternationalJournalof
AmericanLinguistics[translatedby FrancisJ. Whitfield],Bloomington).
ERICH.
LENNEBERG,

1953 Cognitionin Ethnolinguistics

(Language,vol. 29, pp. 463-471,Baltimore).
AND
LENNEBERG, ERIC H.,
JOHN M. ROBERTS
1954 The Languageof Experience,a Case Study (Communications
Program,
Centerof InternationalStudies,MassachusettsInstituteof Technology,
45 pp. and9 figs.).
Cambridge:hectographed,
LOUNSBURY, FLOYD G.

1953 "Introduction"
[sectionon Linguisticsand Psychology](in Resultsof the
and Linguists,pp. 47-49,Memoir8, InterConferenceof Anthropologists
nationalJournalof AmericanLinguistics,Baltimore).
MAERZ,A., ANDM. R.PAUL
1930 A Dictionaryof Color (New York: McGraw-Hill).
OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, COMMITTEE ON COLORIMETRY

1953 The Scienceof Color (New York: Crowell).

OSGOOD, CHARLES

E.

1953 Method and Theory in ExperimentalPsychology(New York: Oxford

UniversityPress).
RAY, VERNE

F.

1952 Techniquesand Problemsin the Study of Human Color Perception

(Southwestern
Journalof Anthropology,vol. 8, pp. 251-259).
1953 Human Color Perceptionand BehavioralResponse(Transactions,New
York Academyof Sciences,ser.II, vol. 16, pp. 98-104,New York).
THORNDIKE,E. L., AND I. LORGE
1944 The Teacher'sWordBook of 30,000 Words (Teacher'sCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,New York).
COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK

446

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:06:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions