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

NUMBER 34 29
characteristics of the referent to require a change in the
attributive" (Berlin et al., 1974:51). In this test one asks
whether "blackbirds" and "white oaks," for example, would
still be "blackbirds" and "white oaks" if tiiey were painted red.
So, we may conclude tiiat the words or phrases might be
lexemic. Tobelo may similarly be asked about descriptive
phrases used to disambiguate "totaleo." If, for example, a
(chicken) flies or lives untended in die jungle, is it still a
'(chicken) we feed' or '(chicken) we tend'? They sometimes
answer yes—though both expressions are not lexemic—
because they are trying to make us understand that they are
distinguishing two classes of animal, rather than just distinguishing
"the class of aU birds that can fly" from "the class of
all birds which we feed." Otiiers may try to be more helpful or
explanatory, saying, "WeU, it lives untended in the jungle but
it's just it, the (chicken/bird), but we don't tend it anymore; we
would tend it but it..." and so on. They are trying to make die
etiinographer understand tiiat they are distinguishing two
classes of animal (birds and chickens), which botii happen to be
labeled by die same form totaleo in their language. The phrases
are not lexemic, but neither do tiiey just distinguish two logical
sets, 'the set of aU birds that regularly fly' from 'the set of aU
birds which we feed.'
In otiier cases where similar markedness occurs, the
non-lexemic descriptive phrase to disambiguate die lower-level
unmarked form is almost "implied" by die marked form. Thus
tf the marked one of two subclasses is referred to as "die jungle
X," die unmarked subclass "X^' witii which it contrasts may
reliably be disambiguated from die higher-level "Xx" using an
attributive which is die local "opposite" of 'jungle' (such as
'shore').
It might seem tiiat since tiiese "opposite" characteristics are
usually predictable, tiiere is no reason to distinguish predictable
and reliable expressions from lexemic (tiiough unmarked)
terms. Yet any analysis mat fails to distinguish such "predictable
and reliable" expressions from truly lexemic terms implies
mat some unified definition of those expressions could be
found. In fact the only common defining feature such
expressions may have when tiiey are applied to disambiguate so
many unmarked classes is that they are not the attributive
locally considered tiiat expression's "opposite." Thus informants
may say that a plant type "X" is subdivided into "the red
X" and "the white X." On die one hand, "red" might here be an
attributive because some part of die plant or animal so
designated is in fact reddish in color. But it might also be given
as an attributive to disambiguate a polysemous, unmarked "X"
term, simply because die otiier subclass with which "red X"
contrasts is called "white X" (perhaps because of exceptionally
light coloration of plants in tiiat subclass), and "red" is locaUy
die most likely opposite of "white." The alternative interpretations
are shown in die diagram in die next column.
If diagram (B) iUustrates the relationship of these classes, it
is very likely that the unmarked X2 wiU 'reliably' be
disambiguated by the "opposite" of 'white'—which, in Tobelo
plant nomenclature, is 'red.' (Exceptions occur in classes such
as those labeled o bangata and o gurabati, where parts of die
plants designated clearly have anotiier color strongly different
from 'white'; thus 'black' vs. 'white' bangata and 'white' vs.
'green' gurabati; see Appendix 1.1).
X
-X
redX white X -x2 white X
(A) (B)
A similar pattern occurs in die classification and naming of
Tobelo plants as 'male' and 'female.' Eitiier the 'male' or die
'female' class may be unmarked, though in some cases no
marked/unmarked distinction occurs. Several plant characteristics
tiiat emphasize the "strength" of the plant seem generaUy to
be considered properties of 'male' forms (including thorniness,
hirsuteness of the leaves, and usefulness in houru 'magic/
medicine,' as well as elongation or pointedness of leaves,
redness of the medicinaUy important growtii-point, and
uprightness of the stem). Other characteristics seem archetypally
'female' (especiaUy fruit-bearing, also other productive
uses as food and twine, roundedness and smoothness of leaves,
"whiteness" of (i.e., paleness of the greenish) growth-point, and
non-uprightness of die stem).
In some groups such as grasses and sedges (die smaller
'herbaceous weeds'), die "usual" or unmarked subclass is die
female one, die more common or difficult-to-find of die two is
male (tiiough information on the 'male' forms is often esoteric
in tiiese cases), as tiiough these 'herbaceous weeds' should be
female, and die unusual or occasional species that form die
marked subclasses wUl be considered—by tiiose famUiar with
such esoteric tilings—to be male, and presumably of medicinal
value.
Some descriptive definition of both the color terms and die
term for 'male' and 'female' may eventually be found (such
tiiat aU these terms may be considered to be applied to objects
because tiiose objects fit die criteria of die terms' definitions,
not just because tiiey are convenient "opposite" of another
term). For this reason, and because terms optionally used to
disambiguate unmarked classes can usefully be included in a
description of those classes, all these terms are treated as
lexemic here.
Berlin et al. (1974:50) also offer some morphological and
syntactic tests for the lexemic status of some Tzeltal 'plant'
names, specifically the distribution of possessive pronoun
affixes and die shortening of attributive expressions in that
language. Hunn's (1977) analysis of Tzeltal folk zoology, by
contrast makes virtuaUy no attempt to distinguish lexemes on
a linguistic or even semantic basis, perhaps due to unfamiliarity