Publications

Abstract

In his famous introduction to his monograph “Argonauts of the Western Pacific” Bronislaw
Malinowski (1922: 24f.) points out that a “collection of ethnographic statements, characteristic
narratives, typical utterances, items of folk-lore and magical formulae has to be given as a corpus
inscriptionum, as documents of native mentality”. This is one of the prerequisites to “grasp the
native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world”. Malinowski managed
to document a “Corpus Inscriptionum Agriculturae Quriviniensis” in his second volume of “Coral
Gardens and their Magic” (1935 Vol II: 79-342). But he himself did not manage to come up with a
holistic corpus inscriptionum for the Trobriand Islanders. One of the main aims I have been pursuing
in my research on the Trobriand Islanders' language, culture, and cognition has been to fill this
ethnolinguistic niche. In this essay, I report what I had to do to carry out this complex and ambitious
project, what forms and kinds of linguistic and cultural competence I had to acquire, and how I
planned my data collection during 16 long- and short-term field trips to the Trobriand Islands
between 1982 and 2012. The paper ends with a critical assessment of my Trobriand endeavor.

Abstract

This article presents information about two so far undescribed buildings made by the Trobriand Islanders, the bomiyoyeva and the bomduvadova. These structures are connected to the highest-ranking chiefs living in Labai and Omarakana on Kiriwina Island. They highlight the power and eminence of these chiefs. After a brief report on the history of this project, the structure of the two houses, their function, and their use is described and information on their construction and their mythical background is provided. Finally, everyday as well as ritual, social, and political functions of both buildings are discussed. [Melanesia, Trobriand Islands, Tabalu chiefs, yams houses, bomiyoyeva, bomduvadova, authoritative capacities]

Abstract

Is there a universal hierarchy of the senses, such that some senses (e.g., vision) are more accessible to consciousness and linguistic description than others (e.g., smell)? The long-standing presumption in Western thought has been that vision and audition are more objective than the other senses, serving as the basis of knowledge and understanding, whereas touch, taste, and smell are crude and of little value. This predicts that humans ought to be better at communicating about sight and hearing than the other senses, and decades of work based on English and related languages certainly suggests this is true. However, how well does this reflect the diversity of languages and communities worldwide? To test whether there is a universal hierarchy of the senses, stimuli from the five basic senses were used to elicit descriptions in 20 diverse languages, including 3 unrelated sign languages. We found that languages differ fundamentally in which sensory domains they linguistically code systematically, and how they do so. The tendency for better coding in some domains can be explained in part by cultural preoccupations. Although languages seem free to elaborate specific sensory domains, some general tendencies emerge: for example, with some exceptions, smell is poorly coded. The surprise is that, despite the gradual phylogenetic accumulation of the senses, and the imbalances in the neural tissue dedicated to them, no single hierarchy of the senses imposes itself upon language.