Hanunóo 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 com-
binedprofitablyin the studyof lexicalsets relatingto perceptualcategorization.
Recently,I completedmorethana year'sfieldresearchon Hanun6ofolkbot-
any.2In thistypeof workonesoonbecomesacutelyawareof problemsconnected
with understanding the local systemof color categorization becauseplant de-
terminations so oftendependon chromatic differences in theappearance of flowers
or vegetativestructures - bothin taxonomicbotanyand in popularsystemsof
It is no accidentthatoneof themostdetailedaccountsof nativecolor
classification.
in
terminology the Malayo-Polynesian area was writtenby a botanist."I was,
therefore,greatly concerned with Hanun6o color categoriesduringthe entire
of
period my ethnobotanical research.Before summarizing the specificresultsof
myanalysis of the Hanun6omaterial,however, I should like to drawattentionto
severalgeneralconsiderations.
1. Color,in a westerntechnicalsense,is not a universalconceptandin many
languagessuchas Hanun6othereis no unitaryterminological In our
equivalent.
technicalliteraturedefinitions statethatcoloris the evaluationof the visualsense
of that qualityof light (reflectedor transmitted by somesubstance)whichis
basically determined by spectralcomposition. spectrumis the rangeof
its The
visiblecolorin lightmeasured in wavelengths(400[deepred]to 700 [blue-violet]
millimicrons) .' The total colorsphere- holdinganyset of externalandsurface
conditions constant- includestwootherdimensions, in additionto thatof spectral
positionor hue.One is saturationor intensity(chroma),the otherbrightness or
brilliance(value).Thesethreeperceptual dimensions are usuallycombined into
a co6rdinate systemasa cylindrical continuum knownas thecolorsolid.Saturation
diminishes towardthecentralaxiswhichformstheachromatic coreof neutralgrays
fromthewhiteat theendof greatestbrightness to blackat theoppositeextremity.
Hue varieswithcircumferential position.Althoughtechnically speakingblackis
1 Fieldworkamongthe Hanun6oon MindoroIsland (1952-1954)wassupportedby grants
and the GuggenheimFoundation.
Council,the FordFoundation,
fromthe SocialScienceResearch
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 in-
formants 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're-
sponsesdid 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,
1953,pp. 468-471;Lenneberg 1954.
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 terminologicallysig-
nificantlevels 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-wayclassi-
ficationwhichlies at the coreof the colorsystem.The four categoriesare mutually
exclusivein contrastivecontexts,but may overlap slightly in absolute (i.e., spec-
trally,or in othermeasurable)terms.The secondlevel, includingseveralsublevels,
consistsof hundredsof specificcolor categories,manyof whichoverlapand inter-
digitate. 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 (differ-
ing 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"makesabstractinterro-
gationin Hanun6oaboutsuchmatterssomewhatcomplicated. Exceptfor leadingquestions(nam-
ing somevisual-quality attributeas a possibility),only circumlocutions
such as kabitaytida nu
pagbantdyun? "Howis it to lookat?"arepossible.If thisresultsin description
of spatialorganiza-
tion or form,the inquirymay be narrowed by the specificationbukunkay ?anyu?"notits shape
(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
categoriesof greaterspecificationwithinfourrecognized colorrealms.
The basisof thisLevelI classificationappearsto havecertaincorrelates beyond
whatis usuallyconsidered therangeof chromatic differentiation,andwhichareas-
sociatedwithnonlinguistic phenomena in the externalenvironment. First,thereis
the oppositionbetweenlightanddark,obviousin the contrasted rangesof mean-
ing of lagti?andbiru.Second,thereis an oppositionbetweendrynessor desicca-
tion and wetnessor freshness(succulence)in visiblecomponents of the natural
environment whichare reflectedin the termsrara?and latuyrespectively. This
distinctionis of particularsignificancein termsof plantlife. Almostall living
planttypespossesssomefresh,succulent,andoften"greenish" parts.To eat any
kindof raw,uncookedfood,particularly freshfruitsor vegetables,is knownas
pag-laty-un(< latuy). A shiny,wet,brown-colored sectionof newly-cutbamboo
is malatuy(not marara?).Dried-outor maturedplantmaterialsuch as certain
kindsof yellowedbambooor hardenedkernelsof matureor parchedcornare
marara?. To becomedesiccated, to loseall moisture,is knownas mamara? (< para?
"desiccation"; andparenthetically,I mightaddthattherearemorphological and
historicalreasons- asidefromHanun6ofolk etymologizing - to believethatat
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; indigo-dyed cottonsarongs,the
mostprizedbeingthosedyedmostoftenandhenceof the deepestindigocolor-
sometimes obscuringcompletelythedesignsformedoriginally by whitewarpyarns;
etc.). Within eachof these LevelI categories,increased estheticvalueattachesas
the focalpointsmentioned aboveareapproached. Thereis onlyoneexception:the
colorwhichis mosttangiblyvisiblein theirjunglesurroundings, the green (even
the focalpointnearlight-or yellow-green) of thenaturalvegetation,is notvalued
decoratively.Greenbeads,for example,are "unattractive," worthless.Clothing

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."
LevelII terminology is normallyemployedonlywhengreaterspecification than
I
is possibleat Level is required, or whenthe name to
of an objectreferred hap-
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
"tumeric") ; andconstructions, basedon suchspecificterms- or on LevelI names
- but involvingfurtherderivations, such as mabirubiru "somewhatmabiru"
(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
primaryimportance, the more qualitiesservingonlyas second-
spectrally-definable
ary attributes.In either casepolymorphemic descriptionsarecommon.
At LevelII thereis a noticeable in
difference thereadycolorvocabulary of men
as compared to women.The formerexcel (in the degreeof specification to which
they carrysuch classificationterminologically) in the rangesof "reds"and
"grays"(animals,hair,feather,etc.); thelatter,in "blues"(shadesof indigo-dyed
fabrics).No discernible similardifference
holdsfor the"greens" or "whites."
In short,we haveseen that the apparentcomplexityof the Hanun6ocolor
systemcanbe reducedat the mostgeneralized levelto fourbasictermswhichare
associated withlightness,darkness, wetness,anddryness.This intraculturalanaly-
sisdemonstrates thatwhatappearsto becolor"confusion" at firstmayresultfrom
an inadequate knowledgeof the internalstructureof a colorsystemand froma
failureto distinguish sharplybetweensensoryreceptionon the one handandper-
ceptualcategorization ontheother.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARTLETT, HARLEY HARRIS

1929 ColorNomenclaturein BatakandMalay(Papers,Michigan
Academyof
ArtsandLetters,
Science, vol.10,pp. 1-52,AnnArbor).
BROWN,ROGERW., ANDERICH.LENNEBERG
1954 A Studyin Language andCognition(Journalof AbnormalandSocial
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

CONKLIN, HAROLD C.
1954a The Relationof HanuncoCultureto the Plant World (Doctoraldisserta-
tion,Yale University,New Haven).
1954bAn Ethnoecological Approachto ShiftingAgriculture(Transactions, New
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).
LENNEBERG, ERIC H., AND JOHN M. ROBERTS
1954 The Languageof Experience,a Case Study (Communications Program,
Centerof InternationalStudies,MassachusettsInstituteof Technology,
Cambridge:hectographed, 45 pp. and9 figs.).
LOUNSBURY, FLOYD G.
1953 "Introduction"[sectionon Linguisticsand Psychology](in Resultsof the
and Linguists,pp. 47-49,Memoir8, Inter-
Conferenceof 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,Colum-
biaUniversity,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