MMMHQ
5. The Tobelo Folk Classification of BIOTIC FORMS
5.0 Introduction
This final chapter at last takes up matters of everyday Tobelo conversational interest, and present conclusions which (if tiiey could adequately be translated) Tobelo tiiemselves would, I tiiink, happily discuss and experdy argue without even the shghtest training in any methods of analysis used here. While nomenclature is so basic as to be taken for granted, and unlabeled classes do not easUy become topics of conversation, the "proper" names for and boundaries of folk segregates (cf.
2.3) and die classificatory relationships among classes of plants and animals—especially tiiose at or closest to the "basic" (B°) level—are matters of intense local concern.
Much of the discussion to this point has referred to die
"basic" term or level. The first section (5.1) of this chapter presents the evidence for its distinctiveness; the second (5.2) presents an overview of die Tobelo "classificatory framework,"
or die framework of structural relations among Tobelo folk classes. That framework consists of a wide, shaUow set of taxonomic relations. Those taxonomic relations vary consider- ably, tiiough, from "model" taxonomies (5.2.1.1) because of the "residue" of higher-level terms (5.2.2.1), non-symmetric contrast (5.2.2.2), ambiguous class membership (5.2.2.3), and die occasional dual position held by a single class in die same classificatory structure (5.2.2.4). Within that framework, other non-taxonomic relations among classes occur, such as cross- cutting subclasses of the B° term (5.2.3.1), 'mother*-'chdd' relations (5.2.3.2), growtii stages (5.2.3.3), intersecting sub- classes of a folk class (5.2.3.4), and some classes tiiat seem only to be "posited" by die Tobelo—i.e., predicted by tiieir own complex system of folk biological classification but never yet observed (5.2.3.5). Evidence below from specific subdomains of FLORAL and FAUNAL FORM wdl Ulustrate the co- occurrence of these various types of classificatory relation.
5.1 The "Basic"-ness of the Basic Term
The apparently universal distinctiveness of one "level" of terms (which we may call "basic terms" (Conktin, 1954:163)) in folk biological classification has long been recognized (e.g., Bardett, 1940; Berlin, 1976:385-386).1 There is ample evidence tiiat the Tobelo also recognize this level as distinct.
However, attempts to define the "basic" level by nomenclatural properties of the basic term are of limited applicability in die Tobelo case (5.1.1). Furdier evidence for die distinctiveness of die "basic" term and level is suggested by die usage of these B°
terms in natural contexts (5.1.2), and especially by die distinctive treatment of the basic term in Tobelo noun
"sequencing," or noun post position modification by otiier nouns (5.1.3).
5.1.1 The Limited Applicability of Nomenclatural Criteria for Distinguishing "Basic" Tobelo Terms
Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven (1974:29) suggest that in folk taxonomies of plants and animals the basic ("generic") terms can be identified on the basis of tiieir distinction between
"primary" and "secondary" lexemes:
Some taxa marked by primary lexemes are terminal or immediately include taxa designated by secondary lexemes. Taxa satisfying these conditions are generic; their labels are generic names.
Though I have expressed some reservations above (3.4) about this distinction between "primary" and "secondary"
lexemes, more immediate problems witii relying on this distinction to recognize the basic level are (1) tiiat it cannot determine die level of terms such as Tobelo 'starfish,' 'mushroom,' or 'black coral,' which have no named superclass or subclasses (this, however, is a problem for any nomenclatu- ral basis for distinguishing the B° level, including die generalization proposed below); and (2) it admits exceptions in cases where, for example, a single culturaUy important class of plants may have many "species" (B_1 classes) labeled by primary terms—witiiout providing directions on how such exceptions may be recognized (odier tiian the easily recogniz- able exceptions such as those of unmarked terms (Berlin's (1976:391-393) "type specifics")):
Type specific monomials, however, do not exhaust the inventory of monomial specific names in Aguaruna. In several important cultivated plants, specific taxa labeled by primary lexemes have been elicited which cannot be analyzed as examples of type species. This nomenclatural feature is especially common for die critical cultigens banana, manioc, yam, and cocoyam (Xanthosoma)....
Data from Terrence Hays on the Ndumba of New Guinea and Nancy Turner's materials from the Pacific Northwest also include cases of monomial specific names which are not analyzable as labels for type species. However, such expressions occur in a predictable fashion, and it now appears that where a generic taxon is further partitioned into specific classes, and one or more of die included species are monomiaUy designated (type specifics excluded), the monomial(s) will invariably refer to a taxon of major cultural importance. One will not find, in light of this hypothesis, monomial, non-type-specific names for organisms which lack major cultural significance. [Emphasis in original.]
But any prospective basic ("generic") class's degree of
"major cultural importance" seems difficult to quantify and compare witii tiiat of otiiers in order to determine its level. Thus die o noara 'ray' class (clearly a basic term, contrasting with 158 other terms as immediate subclasses of o nawoko 'fish') is immediately subdivided, in B dialect into 13 B_1 terms, all
52
labeled by primary lexemes; yet it is difficult to judge to what major cultural importance tiiey owe this honor. They are sometimes eaten but so are other fishes. (Several odier basic 'fish' classes are also subdivided into B_1 classes labeled by primary terms; see Appendix 2.3.) Based on this criterion, the 'crab' and 'shrimp' classes (whose B_1 terms are also labeled by primary lexemes) would be at the B+1 level, unless we considered die fact tiiat they are sometimes eaten evidence of overwhelming cultural importance. But then what of die 'bat' class (o manoko)! It is immediately subdivided (in B dialect) into seven subclasses labeled by primary terms (one unmarked subclass, two subclasses labeled by terms tiiat have die 'bat' term as head of the compound or phrase, and four sub-classes in which the higher-level 'bat' term does not appear). The bats in only two of these subclasses are occasionally eaten (the unmarked subclass (simple word) and one labeled by an endocentric compound having manoko 'bat' as its head). The otiiers have no apparent cultural importance or use. One might argue that o manoko 'bat' is then a B+1 term, and tiiis would explain die "primary lexemes" at die level of its subclasses; but die fact that one of tiiose subclasses is labeled by an endocentric phrase and tiiat o manoko 'bat' behaves like a basic term in noun "sequencing" (5.1.3; e.g., o aewani o manoko [Uterally:]
'bat animal'), mUitate against such an interpretation.
A similar argument could be made in tiie FLORAL FORM domain for considering Tobelo 'banana' (o bole) a B+1 (Berlin's "life form") rather tiian a B° (basic) term. Yoshida (1980) has argued precisely tiiis point for the banana class (also Galela o bole) in the very closely-related Galela language.
Whde tiiat might be true of Galela, it is as tempting for me to read Tobelo information into his largely cognate Galela data, as it undoubtedly would be for any student of tiiat language to find Galela echoes in Tobelo data presented here. Based on such a reading, I can only suggest that if the same evidence presented tiiere for Galela were simUarly presented for die Tobelo 'banana' class, it would remain unconvincing. Aside from otiier evidence from the Tobelo "sequencing" of nouns (which may not apply to Galela), Yoshida's data indicate that Galela 'banana' (o bole) is immediately subdivided into 'cultivated' and 'wild' bananas (as are Tobelo forms). Unlike this class in Tobelo, however, 'cultivated banana' is immediately subdi- vided into 'male' and 'female' varieties (respectively, Gal: o bole ma nau and o bole ma bedeka). Ignoring anotiier level of covert categories that Yoshida inserts into the taxonomy, it should be clear tiiat, unless other B+1 classes in Galela (such as 'tree') can be subdivided into the cultivated/wild and die male/female dichotomies, which they apparendy cannot (and certainly cannot in Tobelo), then positing 'banana' as a B+1
class would mean that this is die only B+1 class for which such dichotomies, normaUy used only to subdivide die "basic"
terms, may apply to a higher-level plant group! Comparing Galela with Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven's (1974:415,432-8) Tzeltal data, Yoshida (1980:130) notes:
The differences between die Galela and the Tzeltal cases appear to depend on the number of terminal taxa (IS terminal taxa in the Tzeltal case) and the abbreviation of die labels of the varieties of banana.
As noted above (3.4), die distinction between "primary" and
"secondary" lexemes insufficiendy handles die phenomenon of so-called "abbreviation." But even though Yoshida's evidence tiiat 'banana' is a B+1 term is considered unacceptable here, he is quite correct in asserting that, if Berlin's own nomenclatural basis is our criterion for distinguishing the "basic" level, then our only evidence for placing a class luce Galela (or Tobelo) o bole 'banana' at either the B° or B+1 level consists in counting subclasses (the "number of terminal taxa") of tiiese "culturaUy important" types. But classificatory relations among folk segregates should surely be determinable witiiout reference to the number of subclasses any folk class has. (Other evidence for con-sidering o bole 'banana' a basic term in Tobelo can be derived from die "sequencing rule" below (5.1.3).)
In order to distinguish basic terms on a nomenclatural basis, a hypothesis is here proposed tiiat appears vahd for Tobelo, and which does not use die "primary"-"secondary" distinction. Of course, tiiose who prefer to use the latter distinction wdl undoubtedly prefer to interpret tiiis generaUzation in die tight of tiiat typology of lexemic types. Even tiiough in most cases die same terms would be determined to be at die basic level, defects witii that dichotomy of lexemic types (see above, 3.2.2.3) would require that any nomenclatural hypothesis presented here be rephrased.
The nomenclatural hypothesis to be proposed is in fact derived by generalizing from all tiiose cases in die Tobelo BIOTIC FORM domain in which basic (B°) classes can be recognized by any otiier (non-nomenclatural) linguistic criteria.
The latter include die "sequencing" rule (5.1.3), as weU as die fact tiiat most basic terms clearly stand out as those belonging to the very "wide" contrast sets, which immediately subdivide the labeled B+1 classes of FAUNAL and FLORAL form ('fish,' 'bird,' 'tree,' 'vine,' etc.).
THE TOBELO NOMENCLATURAL RULE.—As a generalization
tiiat holds for aU cases in which die level of Tobelo terms is known, and as a hypothesis extended to handle tiiose terms whose level would otiierwise be indeterminate, we may state dial, among Tobelo terms labeling subclasses of BIOTIC FORM, lexemic phrases that are morphosyntacticaUy endocen- tric, and in which the head consists of a term for a class superordinate to die class labeled by tiiat endocentric phrase, can only be used to label B- classes (i.e., subclasses of "basic"
(B°) classes). Thus, continuing a previous example, endocentric phrases such as o bole ofonganika 'jungle banana,' in which die head (bole 'banana') consists of a term labeting a class superordinate to tiiat labeled by die phrase, are hypotiiesized to occur at B~ levels only. Thus the class immediately superordi- nate (o bole 'banana') cannot be a B+1 term (and is presumably, then, a B° term).
This generaUzation assumes that yeha or ayo 'motiier' is die
54 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
head in phrases such as o iuru ma yeha 'ant's mother' (most winged forms of Formicidae),just as the 'servant' is the head in basic terms such as o digo ma gilaongo 'servant of digo' (Pseudelepanthopus spicatus (B. Juss. ex Aubl.) C F . Baker) (3.2.2.3). Examples of endocenttic phrases in die BIOTIC FORM domain were given above (3.2.2.3), where it was noted tiiat such phrases typicaUy are used only below die B° level.
There is some truth to the possible objection that when emphasis is here placed on die "endocentric phrases," which label subclasses of a basic class, I am simply substituting one classification of lexemic types (based on slighdy different distinctions) for die admittedly suggestive "primary" vs.
"secondary" distinction frequendy used. This may be true for many cases in which a B" term is labeled by an endocentric phrase tiiat would also be considered a "secondary lexeme" in Beriin's typology. It is not, however, relevant to cases (such as the 'bat' example above) in which some terms of a contrast-set are simple words and otiiers are endocentric phrases. In such cases, Beriin's criteria would require that aU the terms of such a contrast set be considered "primary lexemes" and of indeterminate level. The rule proposed here indicates tiiat endocentric phrases having higher-level terms as heads in Tobelo are found only at levels below B°, indicating tiiat such a contrast-set must consist of B- terms.
As presented here, this generaUzation also clarifies how the
"cross-cutting" classes (5.2.3.1) (which would otiierwise be at indeterminate levels) should be placed in die classificatory structure. For example, the apparently basic-level class o rukiti 'Gnetum spp.' is divided into two subclasses, one of which (o rukiti o gota 'tree rukiti') may alternatively be referred to as 'good rukiti' (o rukiti ma oa), while die odier, 'vine rukiti,' may also be called 'bad rukiti' (o rukiti ma dorou). Botii these terms using 'good' and 'bad' as attributives are endocentric phrases labeling B- classes. The fact tiiat in tiiis and odier cases tiiey are synonymous with phrases such as o rukiti o gota 'tree rukiti' indicates tiiat the latter phrases must also label B- classes, even when they have no synonymous endocentric phrases using attributives like 'good' or 'bad.' Though terms for cross-cutting subclasses can be identified on morphosyntactic grounds as endocenttic or exocentric phrases, note tiiat it would be difficult to determine if they are "primary" or "secondary" lexemes, since mat distinction is based on ideaUy taxonomic relations among classes, and may not apply when non-taxonomic
"cross-cutting" (5.2.3.1) principles intersect with a taxonomy.
Admittedly, however, tiiough the hypothesis presented here can determine die level of many terms, it (like die primary- secondary lexeme distinction) is Umited in appUcation, because some terms of indeterminate level may not have any subclasses lexemically labeled by endocentric phrases witii that superclass as their head.
5.1.2 "Contextual" or "Cultural" Reasons for Distinguishing the "Basic" Level
During everyday fieldwork, a most strikingly distinctive characteristic of the Tobelo basic (B°) terms recalls that which
BerUn, Breedlove, and Raven (1974:31-32) have described for Tzeltal:
[0]ur research indicates that generic taxa form the basic core of Tzeltal plant taxonomy. The names for such fundamental categories are those most readily elicited from Tzeltal informants and most easily recalled by them, suggesting dial they are highly salient psychologically.
In natural conversation and odier contexts, the basic term is the one most commonly used by Tobelo to refer to plant and animal types (except aewani2 'insignificant animal') unless the basic type is unrecognized (e.g., a distant 'bird'), or some lower-level term is specifically required. In die latter case die basic term is still often introduced in the conversation first, then quaUfied by introducing its subtype (e.g., 'for that medicine one uses o totabako—but it must be the male (ma nauru)').
Also, informants seem unperturbed by die fact tiiat some basic classes (e.g.,0 digo (Sida spp.)) can ambiguously be considered eitiier in the 'tree' or the 'herbaceous weed' superclass; nor do tiiey seem to mind tiiat they are unfamdiar with the 'male,' 'female,' or other subclasses of so many local FLORAL FORMS. Yet they can and do wiUingly argue about the "name"
(i.e., the basic term) that properly denotes any particular organism. It is as if "the Elders" were especiaUy careful to name all the organisms with basic terms, and now tiieir less-gifted descendants are expected to carefully learn those, but often just to fend for tiiemselves at the higher and lower levels.
The basic level is also distinctive because it contains contrast sets with far more classes than any other level of die BIOTIC FORM domain. While some of die contrast sets below die basic level may contain over a dozen classes, tiieir size is paltry compared to die basic level contrast-sets in such domains as 'fish' (159 basic classes), 'bird' (86), 'moUusk' (73), 'tree' (315), 'vine' (88) or 'herbaceous weed' (115) classes. This characteristically wide, shaUow, "basic" level is common (probably universal) in etiinobiological classification, and tiiis fact clearly emphasizes that level's distinctiveneness. Yet it does not determine the level at which terms not found in such contrast-sets should be placed (e.g., terms like 'banana,' or 'rice,' unaffiUated with any named B+1 class).
5.1.3 The "Sequencing" of Hierarchically Related Forms as an Indicator of the Basic Level
In Tobelo, there seems to be an expected order of what we may call die "chaining" of hierarchicaUy related terms for BIOTIC FORMS; just as, in English, there is an expected order of juxtaposed locational terms for which "Chicago, IUinois," is acceptable while "Chicago, America," or "Omaha, United States," seems unacceptable. In naming hierarchically related location names, the county level may optionally be "skipped,"
while the state level may not
Of course, comparison witii location terms in English is only meant as an Ulustration, and the expected order of Tobelo
hierarchicaUy related, terms is a phenomenon of the Tobelo language, regardless of die validity of any EngUsh examples. In fact, Tobelo is less restrictive than English in allowing the juxtaposition of terms for BIOTIC FORM. Though there are occasional cases in English in which a basic term may precede its hierarchicaUy superordinate class label (e.g., "pine" or "pine tree") any Tobelo basic term may be preceded by any of its B+
class labels. Thus the dove called o ngoku (Ducula bicolor),ih&
hawk caUed o kawihi (Accipiter spp. and otiiers, see Appendix 2.1), or die rati called o hetaka (two kinds, see Appendix 2.1) may also be referred to witii o totaleo 'bird' preceding tiieir basic label (e.g.,o totaleo o ngoku,o totaleo o kawihi, o totaleo o hetaka); or alternatively may be preceded by o aewani (o aewani o ngoku; 'ngoku animal'), or even by botii in order from highest to lowest levels (e.g., o aewani o totaleo o ngoku), whereas English does not permit *dove bird, *dove animal,
•dove bird animal. Below die basic level, also, die higher-level term precedes die lower-level one: o wama 'Citrus spp.' (or alternatively, o gota o wama 'Citrus tree') and o wama o giranga ('giranga (variety of lemon) Citrus'), or o gota o wama o giranga ('giranga (a variety of lemon) Citrus tree').
5.1.3.1 Acceptable and Unacceptable Sequences of Terms The distinctiveness of the basic term is clearly shown by the fact that in this ordering of terms from highest to lowest level, only the "basic" level may not be omitted between higher- and lower-level terms. To continue the last example, *o gota o giranga 'giranga (variety of lemon) tree' is not acceptable.
Thus in this case, if we consider die B+1 term "W," die B° term
"X," and the B"1 term "Y," the following are acceptable:
o X o Y o W o X o W o X o Y
—but the combination of o W o Y is not acceptable, any more than, e.g., English *coltie animal.
Frequently only two or three terms are ordered in tiiis way. In the BIOTIC FORM domain, it is rare to find even four lexicaUy labeled, hierarchically related terms other than phrases or compounds tiiat use a higher-level term as the head of die phrase or compound. Phrases and compounds of that kind must be excluded from any sequencing rule, because Tobelo does not allow orderings of the form, e.g., *o bole o bole ofonganika '•jungle banana banana.' I have not found any clearly acceptable juxtaposition of five such terms (i.e.,
0 V 0 W 0 X 0 Y 0 Z ,
where "X" is the basic term), but there are very few candidates for such a line-up; up to three at a time is common. Since only the FAUNAL FORM class has named B+2 terms witiiin it, one should expect to find such chains of terms tiiere. Though data are insufficient for the o bianga 'mollusk' class, only a few
types of o nawoko 'fish' in the o aewanix animal' class have B"2
terms that are not phrases or compounds having higher-level terms as heads. Of these, all but one involve growth stages (size classes) of fish (5.2.3.3); it might be argued tiiat die B"2 term (o Z) may not be appended to die chain because of tiiis fact (i.e., the growth-stage or size class is not a "normal" subtaxon).
This leaves the one questionable exception: the record is held (in B dialect only, not D dialect—see Appendix 2.3 under o noara 'ray') by the B- 2 term o gorohutu 'blue-spotted fantati ray (Taeniura lymma),' which is considered in B dialect a type of o gugudai (B_1), which in turn is a type of 'ray' (o noara) (B°), which is a type of 'fish' (o nawoko) (B+1), which is a type of 'animal' (o aewanix) (B+2). Thus none of five hierarchically related terms contains a higher-level term as compound or phrasal-part within it.
Some but not aU informants at Loleba and Pasir Putih do not accept o gorohutu as a type of o gugudai, instead apparently considering it a separate B- 1 term. The alternatives can be diagrammed (see diagram, p. 56; die horizontal line extended to die right indicates tiiat some other class or classes of the contrast set indicated by tiiat line are not included in die diagram).
Informants who do consider o gorohutu to be a type of o gugudaix (as in A in the following diagram) say they wdl accept the four-term expression o nawoko o noara o gugudai o gorohutu; but others insist that (as in B in the diagram) o gugudai and o gorohutu contrast as types of 'ray.' The latter opinion (B) is normally expressed by a sentence such as idadiua hato o noara o gugudai o gorohutu 'one cannot say o noara o gugudai o gorohutu.' Note that any other way of expressing the same point (e.g., o gorohutu o gugudai-ua 'a gorohutu is not a gugudai') would be ambiguous because a listener could mistakenly understand die word gugudai in tiiat sentence to refer to a presumed lower-level unmarked sense (gugudai2 of A in the diagram), which (the speaker is saying) would be incorrect; tiius the expression would be insufficient to make his point. This example iUustrates how, in this and otiier cases, the juxtaposition of hierarchically related terms seems often to be contextuaUy related to expressing an opinion about—or clearing up—ambiguities of some kind. This fact may explain the apparent redundancy of tiiese expressions. If disambiguation is the function of such expressions in natural contexts, this may also explain why "chains" of four terms (e.g., o V o W o X o Y) are so rarely heard (tiiough nevertheless considered acceptable): offhand, it is difficult to imagine what term or combination of terms would need disambiguation at all four levels.
By considering all tiiose sequences of terms that can occur, it appears that though the B° term may not be omitted between terms of levels higher and lower than it, any other term at any other level may be so omitted. Thus if we indicate die basic term by "X" (as above), the following are possible sequences of