MMMHQ
5. The Tobelo Folk Classification of BIOTIC FORMS
5.2 The Classificatory Framework
In this section the classificatory "framework," by which I mean the total set of structural relations that classes of BIOTTC FORM may have with each other, is oudined. Of these, the taxonomic relations (5.2.1) stand out as those that constitute a wide (i.e., having many members of contrast-sets at the B°
level) and shadow (i.e., having few levels) structure within which other types of regular relations among classes occur.
Though taxonomies are often defined and could heuristicaUy
60 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
be restricted to those of a "model" type (5.2.1.1), which can be represented by logical statements of class inclusion, the Tobelo apparently were never properly informed of how such model taxonomic structures should work. Among tiieir system's non-"model" elements we find "residue" as well as "residual classes" (5.2.2.1), non-symmetric and disjunctive contrast (5.2.2.2), ambiguous superclass-subclass relations (5.2.2.3), and dual structural positions of a single class in the taxonomic structure (5.2.2.4). In addition to such modified taxonomic relations, Tobelo also use several non-taxonomic relations to structure relationships of folk classes to each other, including cross-cutting subclasses of the B° term (5.2.3.1), the 'mother'- 'chtid' relation (5.2.3.2), growth stages (or size classes) (5.2.3.3), and intersecting subclasses of a basic class (5.2.3.4).
Finally, in a few cases, aU tiiese taken together may lead diem to posit classes of BIOTIC FORM that they have never actuaUy observed (5.2.3.5).
5.2.7 Taxonomic Relations
Conklin (1962:128) defines a folk taxonomy as "a system of monolexemically-labeled folk segregates related by hierarchic inclusion." Because this definition requires taxa to be "mono- lexemically labeled," covert classes of Tobelo BIOTIC FORMS posited here could not be considered part of die folk taxonomy. Otiiers (Keesing, 1966; Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1968) have questioned tiiat restriction. As the discus- sion above (Chapter 4) noted, unlabeled classes are here considered necessary in die description of die BIOTIC FORM domain and of the Tobelo language. Such classes have also been shown to exhibit taxonomic relations (i.e., hierarchic inclusion) with non-covert and witii other covert classes.
Whether or not we define "folk taxonomy" so as to include diem, we must in any case present them (as we have here) in an adequate description of Tobelo folk classification.
5.2.1.1 "Model" and "Non-model" Features of a Taxonomy Some of die otiier characteristics of "model" or "regular"
taxonomic systems that may distinguish diem from folk taxonomies, include (ConkUn, 1962:128)
.. .(1) at die highest level, diere is only one maximal (largest, unique) taxon which includes all other taxa in the system; (2) die number of levels is finite and uniform through-out the system; (3) each taxon belongs to only one level; (4) there is no overlap (i.e., taxa at the same level are always mutually exclusive).
Folk systems vary widely with respect to tiiese more specific "requirements,"
but the presence of hierarchically arranged tiiough less "regular'' folk taxonomies is probably universal.
As for the first requirement of an "ideal" taxonomy, die class of BIOTIC FORM—here considered to deUmit die boundary of a domain under consideration—is covert and as such little discussed by Tobelo. But among lexemically labeled taxa, Tobelo do not botiier to conform consistently to the otiier three
requirements of such "model" taxonomic systems.
Nevertheless, the Tobelo folk classification of BIOTIC FORMS can be described as a system of hierarchicaUy related folk classes having eleven levels: die widest or "basic" (B°) level, along with six levels above (4.4) and four below that basic level. Levels B+3 through B+6, however, contain only posited covert classes; the FLORAL FORM subdomain, in fact, has no named class above B+1. Some classes at each level (except of course the lowest (B-4)) may be subdivided into hierarchicaUy subordinate classes, every member of which wUl also be a member of die superordinate class. Thus this hierarchic structure represents an (admittedly non-"ideal") framework of taxonomic relations witiiin which odier types of relation may also occur.
5.2.1.2 The Taxa and Their Definitions
Considering die hierarchic structure in which these classes of BIOTIC FORM occur, it is very likely that each class (except the highest) wUl contain the immediately superordinate class as a distinctive feature of its definition. Thus the o noara 'ray' is a kind of 'fish' (o nawoko),but it is also very likely to contain 'fish' as a distinctive feature of tiiat term's definition (e.g., a 'ray' is a 'fish' witii certain other characteristics). Those characteristics might be enumerated as otiier additional features, or even defined as a single gestalt-like feature
"ray-fish-ness"—but (tiiough the attempt to define diem is not made here) it is stiU very lticely that 'ray' and aU die otiier basic terms that immediately subdivide die 'fish' class wdl contain 'fish' in tiieir definitions.
One could argue that the B° classes having ambiguous superclass membership (5.2.2.3) (e.g., a basic plant type that can be considered eitiier a 'tree' or a 'herbaceous weed'), even tiiough such classes are relatively rare, nevertheless prove that at least those few B° classes could not be defined using die features of one immediately superordinate class as distinctive features. (Thus neither 'tree' nor 'herbaceous weed' can be a distinctive feature of a class tiiat "cross-cuts" both those higher-level classes.) If this argument is correct, one could still treat these classes as aberrant and consider tiiat the objection is irrelevant to the great majority of cases in which a basic class is unambiguously included in only one superordinate class.
Alternatively, one may treat these classes as aberrant only because the distinctive features of two (or more) B+1 classes (rather than those of just one B+1 class) are likely also to be distinctive features of the B° class; thus members of the latter may be members of more than one B+1 class. This explanation (offered in 5.2.2.4 below) aUows die treatment of "ambiguous"
membership in die same terms of hierarchic class inclusion used in describing taxonomic relations. Such cases, however, are not ideally taxonomic and indicate that contrast sets occur in which each member (e.g., 'tree,' 'herbaceous weed,' etc.) is defined such that die sets in contrast are "not quite" mutually exclusive (see 5.2.2.4).
5.2.1.3 Some Signs of Tobelo Preference for "Ideal" Features of Taxonomies
Two types of evidence may be adduced indicating tiiat tiiough the Tobelo do use non-taxonomic features in their folk classification, tiiey still seem to overwhelmingly prefer a taxonomic structure. At levels below die basic term, in fact we shall see mat they try hard to "straighten out" several non-ideal features of their folk taxonomic system. The two types of evidence are (1) die number of classes related in non-taxonomic ways (e.g., having "cross-cutting" subclasses) is small relative to the number of those only taxonomically related; and (2) when, as often happens, Tobelo individuals are faced witii more tiian one way of subdividing a basic class, tiiey consciously try (and discuss their attempts among themselves) to arrange the variants in taxonomic fashion. They may do tiiis, for example, by considering some terms synonyms, or by positing that one of the variant contrast-sets must subdivide anotiier.
1. A comparison of basic FLORAL FORM classes by B+1 superclass wtil illustrate the relative un-commonness of non-taxonomic features. Of 689 basic classes of FLORAL FORM, 605 (or 87.8%) are either unaffiliated witii any named B+1 class, or are subclasses of one of the named B+1 classes ('tree,' 'vine,' or 'herbaceous weed'). Only 36 of the basic classes (5.2%) have subclasses that cross-cut the B+1 classes (a non-taxonomic feature). And only 9 of die basic classes (1.3%) can ambiguously be considered to be included in more tiian one B+1 superclass. Other non-taxonomic or non-ideally taxonomic features of the Tobelo folk classification are also relatively quite uncommon (though often culturally important), such as the dual structural positions of a single class (5.2.2.4).
Intersecting subclasses of the basic class (5.2.3.4) have only been observed in one case. Thus, though Tobelo seem unconcerned about the lack of some "model" taxonomic features (such as maintaining a uniform number of levels tiiroughout the system), tiiey clearly prefer that each taxon belong to only one level and tiiat taxa in the same contrast-set
be mutually exclusive.
2. Although Tobelo are generaUy quite famdiar with a few of the non-taxonomic features of their classificatory system (e.g., die cross-cutting subclasses of a basic term (5.2.3.1)), they generally try to assimdate newly observed types of plant or animal or newly learned terms for BIOTIC FORMS into a taxonomic framework. Some examples wiU dlustrate their own attempts to do so (tiiough in several cases biological species determinations are incomplete (cf. Appendix 1.1)).
After arriving by boat in Fayaul village from Dodaga (Wasile District) in May 1979,1 left three local assistants (who had family at Fayaul) to collect plants tiiere, whde I walked alone to a festival at WasUe village five ktiometers to die south.
After returning by way of the beach during low tide die next day, I reviewed die previous day's vouchers and field notebook, finding die new term o homooko o ngairiha 'riparian homooko' Usted (V #2635, Premna odorata Blanco). Upon inquiring, I got back a flood of information from my assistants (from D-speaking Pasir Putih in the south) and tiieir H- speaking families at Fayaul. The problem had arisen in my absence tiiat the homooko class of 'trees' is divided at Pasir Putih into 'shore homooko' and 'jungle homooko'; but tiie specimen from Fayaul was neither. Inquiring about its name, my assistants discovered tiiat their families called it 'jungle homooko,' contrasting apparendy witii an unmarked homooko in tiiat region. After their families at Fayaul had heard of Pasir Putih's 'shore homooko' the two had to be reconciled.
In short, aU had agreed tiiat the Fayaul specimen must be another kind of 'jungle homooko,' thus introducing a new B~2
level into the classification of this basic plant class, in which the 'true jungle homooko' (the unmarked form at Fayaul, or die 'jungle homooko' of Pasir Putih) contrasted witii the 'riparian (or river-bank) homooko,' a new term invented tiiat night to distinguish the specimen caUed 'jungle homooko' at Fayaul from the 'jungle homooko' familiar at Pasir Putih).
(The minus (-) signs in the diagram below indicate unmarked forms; die plus (+) indicates marked forms.)
o homooko
I
o homooko o gumini 'vine homooko '
o homooko o gota 'tree homooko'
o homooko o gahika 'shore homooko'
o homooko ofonganika 'jungle homooko'
+ i
o homooko o ngairiha 'river-bank homooko'
o homooko ofonganika
'jungle homooko'
62 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
I regret that I was not present for this local "revision" of the homooko (?Premna spp., cf. Appendix 1.1) group, but it is quite possible that if I had been present inquiring about the
"proper" name for the newly observed type die hosts might not have wanted to contradict tiieir guests (or the younger assistants their family elders) in my presence, and die revision would perhaps never have been made. Though stiU probably not widespread, the subdivision of die B_1 'jungle homooko' into two B- 2 classes is clearly preferable to the unreconciled
dialectal alternatives for these Tobelo who decided upon it; and the example Ulustrates how they generaUy try to assimdate new data into a taxonomic structure.
Another example involves the Tobelo preference not only for
"neat" taxonomic subdivisions but also for dichotomous oppositions ('male* vs. 'female,' 'good,' vs. 'bad,' etc.). The subclassification of the basic plant class o roringohana may be diagrammed as below (this was carefully checked at Pasir Putih village; there may be variations elsewhere).
o roringohana
+
o roringohana ma dorou 'bad roringohana'
o roringohana ma nauru 'male roringohana' (or:) o roringohana o
fonganika
'jungle roringohana'
o roringohana [ma oa]
'[good] roringohana'
o roringohana ma beka 'female roringohana' (or.) o roringohana
ma gare-garehe 'white roringohana'
o roringohana ma daro-daromo
'black roringohana'
(A) (B) ( Q
(No markedness has been observed among die tiiree sub-classes of the '(good) roringohana')
Ltice o homooko, tiiis term o roringohana is a basic term having subclasses that cross-cut the B+1 groups; the "normal"
(unmarked) o roringohana is a 'tree,' while die marked o roringohana ma dorou 'bad roringohana' (Justicia sp.) is a 'herbaceous weed.'
Note tiiat if the three subclasses of the 'tree' or 'good' o roringohana are labeled A, B, and C (as on die diagram above), we have more tiian one dichotomous opposition:
A vs. B 'male' vs. 'female' B vs. C 'white' vs. 'black'
A vs. B & C 'jungle' vs. [not-jungle] (informants said the habitat of B and C was o kapongoka 'in die vdlage [area]')
The first opposition would lead us to suspect A and B are subclasses of a superclass contrasting with C; the second would instead lead us to suspect that B and C are subclasses of a superclass contrasting with A.
Though clearly not "neat," the diagram and terms correcdy represent die classification of tiiis class at Pasir Putih, as discussed witii local people with the plants themselves (or specimens from them) nearby. To try to solve the problem I
asked several elders once, when we collected die "A" form (Pittosporum ferrugineum W. Ait), whether C was male or female; and what was die color of A? They re-described die classification as shown above, then after some silence one man unexpectedly said, "There must be in the jungle, landwards, a female roringohana." The comment was met witii a reaction showing it was plausible to die otiiers, although no one had observed such a female form. The man's comment, however, indicated not only tiiat he reaUzed a problem with die classification of roringohana then known in the viUage, but also proves he was independendy attempting to find a solution that would predict die terms used in die vdlage by means of a very neat, taxonomically related group of paired dichotomous oppositions. His own posited solution as fully expressed in die quotation above is diagrammed on page 63.
(The class he posited is shown witii an asterisk (*) and upper case letters. Note tiiat his solution would imply tiiat the 'black roringohana' is also 'male.')
There are many otiier local indications of a preference for formaUy "neat" taxonomies, which can supplement tiiese field observations of Tobelo working out "revisions" or positing details of tiieir system (such observations are very rare even though in this case fieldwork in tiieir viUages was intensive and relatively long-term). Thus in an experiment recounted below