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

NUMBER 34 41
directly (occurs in the same contrast set) with simple or unproductive complex
lexemes, e.g., tulip tree (which contrasts with oak, maple, etc.), puncture vine
(which contrasts widi ivy, passion flower, eta), or creosote bush (which
contrasts with rock apple, broom, etc.). Such expressions can be called
productive (complex) primary lexemes. Some productive primaries may be
abbreviated (e.g., pine tree —» pine); others may not (eg., tulip tree -» *tulip).
The major problems with this set of definitions are as
foUows: (1) These definitions are introduced only for "etiinobiological
lexicons," a limitation that seems to unnecessarily
isolate one domain, as if it necessarily functioned unlike otiier
domains of language. (2) The definitions rely on taxonomies,
and may therefore be misleading when applied to die many
non-taxonomic areas of folk biological classification, including
cross-cutting classes, paradigms, and otiiers (see Chapter 5).
(This defect may have adversely affected Berlin, Breedlove,
and Raven's discussion of one non-taxonomic area of Tzeltal
folk biological classification, die developmental stages of
plants (1974:64-68); it seems tiiat uieir data may include many
non-lexemic forms). (3) The failure to determine word
boundaries, or distinguish compound words from phrases—
tiiough tiiey appear enviably easy to distinguish in Tzeltal—
leads to no interpretation of die "abbreviation" of "primary
lexemes." If as a group the primary lexemes are more
"psychologicaUy sahent" than secondary lexemes (more
readily elicited, more easily recalled, learned eariier by
children, and so on) (Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1974:31-
32), tiiis may simply be because "primary" lexemes are more
likely to be words ratiier tiian phrases.
FinaUy, (4) it is unfortunate dial, as tiiis typology has become
more widespread, die terms "primary," "secondary," "productive,"
and "unproductive," which already have precise meanings,
come to have confusingly different meanings when
applied to types of lexemes within "etiinobiological lexicons."
This is not a criticism of the lexemic typology, but rather of the
terms used for types of lexeme. The problem is heightened by
use of die same term in different senses in Beriin, Breedlove,
and Raven's (1974) book; tiius "productive" and "nonproductive"
are also used, apparendy in anotiier non-standard
sense, to mean 'applicable to many referents' vs. 'applicable to
one or few referents' (Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1974:69):
Some forms [for plant part names] are productive in mat they may refer to a
certain appropriate area of any plant part with total freedom of occurrence.
Odiers are nonproductive and are restricted to a particular plant part or parts.
In view of problems witii this classification of lexemes, and
further problems in applying this classification to data in die
field (see especially Hays, 1983, and 5.1.1 below), it may be
simpler to use anotiier classification than to change the terms
for this one. We may especially hope that otiier systems
proposed for classifying lexemes on semantic grounds wUl
avoid over-reliance on taxonomic relations, which are difficult
to use in die many languages like Tobelo in which a single
"basic" class may belong to more tiian one superordinate class,
and in which odier types of relationship among classes may
always be conveyed by regular nomenclatural patterns (cf.
Ellen, 1979).