The Folk Biology of the Tobelo People - Smithsonian Institution ...

NUMBER 34 27
gota 'this weed (rurtibu^ is a tree (gotaxY\ or, of die same
smaU sapling, nenanga o rurubuua, o gota ho 'tiiis is not a
herbaceous weed (rurtibu^it is a tree (gotaj.' If our informant
were to tiien turn to his task of clearing forest or undergrowtii,
one might hear him say of the same steadfast sapling nenanga
ma rurubu toparihohi, botino daha ma gota totoyanga 'Now
I'll just cut down tiiis undergrowth [rurubu2, i.e., the sapling],
later I'll cut down the trees (gota^S Needless to say, without
considering die polysemy of these terms (especially if the
sapling specimen were only produced in a "controlled"
interview context), one might be puzzled at how a particular
specimen could seem to be placed in both die "herbaceous
weed" and die "tree" classes in one sentence, tiien said to be in
die "tree" but not in die "herbaceous weed" class in die next
sentence, then in the third breath apparently called a "herbaceous
weed" again, and distinguished from surrounding
"trees." But by considering die polysemy of die terms, and
recognizing die contrast-sets likely to be used in particular
situations, aU three sentences make good sense.
In die example above, relatedness of meaning is the basis for
considering tiiese words polysemous rather than homonymous.
As Lyons (1977:522) points out, there are several problems in
the application of this criterion.
The first of these is that relatedness of meaning appears to be a matter of degree;
and it has yet to be demonstrated, and may in fact not be demonstrable, that the
intuitions of native speakers coincide sufficiendy for it to be worthwhile
looking for some universally applicable and clear-cut distinction between
polysemy and homonymy in the language-system. It has often been pointed out
that some native speakers will claim to see a connexion between an ear of com
and die part of die body that is denoted by the noun 'ear,' whereas odier native
speakers will deny that any such connexion exists.
Lyons notes that one might solve die problem either by
considering each sense a different lexeme (giving far more
lexical entries than usual, and forcing decisions about whetiier
one or more lexemes constitute the verbs in sentences like "She
plays chess," "He plays Hamlet" etc.), or by simply considering
any such forms that have the same inflectional class to be
forms of a single lexeme. Finally (as is usually done), one can
compromise between tiiese extremes of maximizing for
homonymy and maximizing for polysemy by weighing botii
die demands of parsimony and die demands of convenience for
die dictionary's users.
Thus whUe admitting tiiat the theoretical basis for distinguishing
polysemy from homonymy (and thus for distinguishing
lexemes) is problematic, die distinction should be made
(insofar as it is useful or convenient) on die basis of relatedness
of meaning. On this basis, the nouns gota, gumini, and rurtibu
above are clearly polysemous. Their senses as defined above
are distinguishable not only on the basis of native speaker's
intuition (a difficult-to-use criterion that may vary with the
informant), but also on the basis of die fact that the same forms
occur in different contrast-sets (cf. 4.4). Each contrast-set
reflects die use of the term (and others of the set) in a particular
kind of cultural context
The same phenomenon of a single term belonging in more
tiian one contrast set occurs in the 'animal' domain too, as in
die 'fish' class. In a taxonomy of Mode 'cooked fish, meat, or
"vegetables" eaten along witii the starch staple at a meal,' o
nawoko 'fish' contrasts with o ngafi 'anchovies,' as well as o
ode 'pork,' o mainjanga 'deer,' etc. But in die taxonomy of
'animal' types, o ngafi 'anchovy' is a type of o nawoko 'fish,'
locaUy contrasting with over 150 other B° classes (see
Appendix 2.3). Thus at mealtime one might say mia nawoko
koiwa, ka o ngafi ho 'we have no fish,only anchovies'; but this
could never be said (except as a joke) by people returning after
catching anchovies with lift-nets, for example, at sea.
One interesting type of meaning "transfer" among the senses
of one lexeme, or among identical forms of two or more
lexemes tiiat can be realized by identical forms, involves
metonymy. Words are metonymously related when "we use
[one] word not in its established sense but to name a category
in contextual association with the category usually named by
the word" (Waldron, 1967:186), such as "blood" to mean 'kin
ties,' or "house" to mean 'family.'
Examples of metonymous transfer of meaning include die
above examples of plant names used as verbs (e.g., tiba n.
Schiztostachyum 'bamboo' -tiba vb. 'cook inside tiba bamboo').
A quite different example of two metonymous nouns (here
considered homonyms) involves o raix (a kind of 'tree') and o
rai2 (a kind of edible 'mushroom,' which in its short season is
found growing only on die lower parts of die raix 'tree') (see
Appendix 1). There is also o ginenex (a type of 'owl')
(uncollected) and o ginene2 (a ghost tiiat only takes the form of
die ginene owl). Of course, at any particular sighting one never
knows whether he is seeing o ginenex or o ginene2\
Many of the cases of metonymy that might cause confusion
in determining classificatory relationships involve die identification
of the whole plant with the most culturaUy significant
part or product of the plant Thus the tree called o fenga
(Alangium griffithii (Clark) Harms) was often pointed out to me
as o fenga ma dutu 'genuine fenga.' Usually tiiis construction
would imply a kind of markedness (see below), where *fenga
might be die superclass, having die subclasses o fenga (ma
dutu) '(genuine) fenga' contrasting with some other "marked"
or individually named subclass. In fact tiiey were pointing out
the unmarked or 'genuine' fenga, but not in a taxonomy of
'trees,' because fengax (die kind of 'tree') is distinct from
fenga2 'shoulder straps for carrying basket' It is in die latter
sense offenga2 tiiat tiiere are many subtypes based on die 'tree'
or 'vine' used to make mis strap. Of these, die unmarked (and
locaUy considered best) is die inner bark of die fengax 'tree'
(this part is also called thefenga3 'inner bark' of the tree). Thus
occasionaUy even die tree type itself (as weU as die strap made
from this tree) may be called o fenga2 ma dutu 'genuine
carrying-basket strap.'
Ignoring this kind of polysemy or homonymy brought about
by a part-whole metonymic transfer may sometimes lead to