114 Terence E. Hays

------------ , 1982. Utilitarian/Adaptationist Explanations of Folk Biological Classification: Some Cautionary Notes.Journal of Ethnobiology, 2:89-94.

------------ , 1983. Ndumba Folk Biology and General Principles of Ethnobiological Classification and Nomenclature.American Anthropologist, 85:592-611.

HUNN, Eugene S., 1976. Toward a Perceptual Model of Folk Biological Classification. American Ethnologist, 3:508- 24.

------------ , 1982. The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification. American Anthropologist, 84:830-47.HYMES, Dell H. (ed.), 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York, Harper and Row.LÊVI-STRAUSS, Claude, 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.ROTH, Philip, 1971. Portnoy’s Complaint. New York, Bantam Books. (1st Edition, New York, Random House,

1969.)TURNER, Nancy J., 1988. The Importance of a Rose: Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson

and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist, 90:272-90.

W HAT’S IN A NOMIAL?FOLK CLASSIFICATION IN NEW CALEDONIA

K.J. H ollym an University o f Auckland

This article will not, as Shakespeare did with the rose, make implications about the variation in plant (or animal) names. Its essential point is that folk classification produces a vocabulary which is radically different from the nomenclature created by scientific taxonomy1 because a folk ‘nomenclature’ is a specialised vocabulary, subject to the same conditions and rules as the general lexicon of the language of which it forms a part. It is not a deliberate creation, based on predetermined principles, but much more of an historically ad hoc construction. (This does not of course mean that it is any less subject to the effects of observed patterns of similarity in the real world it is designed to help its speakers handle.2 Like procedures may therefore be found in it and in a scientific nomenclature.)

IA particularly notable feature of the vocabularies reflecting folk classification is the strong representation of

motivated names,3 i.e., names which have an overt meaning, derived from the lexicon, which does not coincide with the designatory meaning. Thus4 XAC gôkôô pw ârâ [white heron] designates Bubulcus ibis coromandus, and NCF heron blanc [white heron] designates a variety of Ardea sacra albolineata. The names are motivated within their own vocabularies, and not by some absolute, extralinguistic standard, and the characteristic feature of whiteness has a different designatory relevance within each vocabulary.

It is the motivated name which is our concern here. Our starting point is the bionym, the name forming part of a specialised vocabulary which classifies plants or animals. How does one decide on the number of nomials in a given bionym, so that it is called a uni-, bi- or trinomial? What’s in a nomial? To the scientist using a Linnaean nomenclature, nomial normally coincides with ‘word’, even where he knows - as with Notho/fagus, for example - that the ‘word’ includes two lexemes. But that is not the case with folk bionyms, as is clearly shown by the extreme case of the NCF uninomial nul ne s ’y f r o tte [no one tackles this one]‘Xanthostemon rubrum (Myrtaceae)’, and its binomial companion nul ne s ’y fro tte fr isê [curly nul ne s ’y

frotte] ‘Pleurocalyptus deplanehei (Myrtaceae)’.Our subject is thus the linguistic structure of a nomial within folk bionyms. To illustrate the argument,

examples are quoted from New Caledonian French (NCF), and the very different New Caledonian Oceanic (NCO) languages Caaâc (CAC) and its dialect Caawac (CAW), Dehu (DEH), Iaai (IAI), Jawe (JAW), Kumak (KUM), Nemi (NMI), Paici (PAC), and Xârâcuu (XAC).5

Any bionym is a noun phrase (NP), a group of monemes (lexemes and morphemes) able to function, as a substantive functions, as subject or object of a verb. An NP normally has a head, usually a substantive, which may be expanded by adding other monemes, most commonly an adjective, or a prepositional phrase: NCF perruche, petite perruche, perruche huppêe, perruche d ’Ouvêa. In these cases, perruche is the head of each NP, the expansion being the preposed adjective p e tite , the postposed adjective huppêe, and the prepositional phrase d ’ Ouvêa. In each case involving expansion, perruche is also the base for a binomial bionym, the formulaic presentation of which might be aB, Bx, By.

What’s in a Nomial? 115

H ead of NP and base o f bionym do not always coincide in this way. In the Myrtaceae names quoted earlier, nul ne s ’y fro tte is a base, but it is not a head, nor indeed is it a noun phrase: it is in fact something rarer, a sentence transposed to substantival function. Another example is arrête-toi-lâ [stop there!] ‘Cxsalpinia sepiara (Leguminosae)’. Such examples are not common, but the non-coincidence of head and base is common enough, and constitutes the major factor in deciding what constitutes a nomial.

If we look at the perruche example again, we see that the base is not necessarily the first nomial in a bionym, since NCF ilo w s the anteposition of some adjectives, postposition of all others and of prepositional phrases. This is also true of the NCO languages quoted (the base is in bold face):PAC âju pwddii [true banana] 'Musa paradisiaca, ssp. sapientium ’PAC bw ao mu [red H ibiscus tiliaceus] ‘H . tiliaceus, var. hort.’PAC nydti nā môtô [forest fantail] ‘Rhipidura spilodera verreauxi (Muscicapidae)’.

Just as NCF allows for transpositions to create expansions, so do the NCO languages:NCF raie lêopard [leopard ray] \E tobatus sp. (Myliobatidae)’XAC p ê pw ê [tortoise ray] Etobatus sp. (Myliobatidae)’NCF tortue bonne êcaille [good-shell tortoise] ‘Eretmochelys sp.’PAC bw êê êpê nā-poromêê [bad his-face spinefoot] ‘Siganus oramin, Siganidae’.

And in all the languages, transpositions may themselves constitute bases:NCF lêve-queue [fantail] ‘Rhipidura spp. (Muscicapidae)’PAC ca-wâu [(it) perches not-looking] ‘Pachycephala rufiventris xanthetrsea (Muscicapidae)’PAC o waa bwere [to open clams] Phyllanthus sp. (Euphorbiaceae)’; and may themselves be expanded into

binomials:PAC ca-wâu nā môtô [forest ca-wâu] ‘Pachycephala caledonica (Muscicapidae)’.

IIThere is one set of apparent binomials which is of prior interest: those where the base is a general term

covering the equivalent of a Linnaean class or sub-class. In some languages this is the normal procedure with all members of particular classes or sub-classes: English lizard, tortoise, snake, moss, lichen would be cases in point. It is where this procedure is characteristic not of a whole class or sub-class but of only some of its members that reasons need to be sought for the presence of the general name. The most common reason in NCF appears to be the avoidance of the ambiguity which would otherwise result from the ‘unprefaced’ use of the expansion. Here are eight of the 64 binomials with the base poisson:6

poisson anemone [anemone fish] ‘Amphiprioninae’ poisson ange [angel fish] ‘Pomacanthidae’poisson arc-en-ciel [rainbow fish] ‘Elegatius bipinnulata (Carangidae)’ poisson arlequin [harlequin fish] ‘ Lie nardella fa s d a ta (Labridae)’ poisson ballon [balloon fish] ‘puffer fish of Tetrodontidae, Diodontidae’ poisson banane [banana fish] ‘ Albula sp. (Albulidae)’ poisson beurre [butter fish] ‘Priacenthus hamrur (Priacanthidae)’ poisson bosse [hump fish] 'Naso tuberosus (Acanthuridae)’Where fishing or underwater exploration is the context of usage, the base poisson is usually dropped, and

the expansion becomes the base, e.g. ballon , then expanded to ballon â piquants [prickly balloon] ‘Diodon sp.’, which does not need the base poisson ; but this does not happen with binomials where the expansion would still have a prior reference in the context of usage, for example anêmone, also a short form of anemone de mer [sea anemone].

In NCO languages, the same avoidance of ambiguity appears to be the reason for similar binomials:PAC maril ucipu [bird seeks-yams-in-bush] ‘non-id. bird’PAC mtiril a-pwa puē [bird fisher-with-net] ‘Pandion halisctus melvillensis (Pandionidês)’

Where the expansion does not involve possible ambiguity, mārū is not used:PAC a-uti wâduo [(agent)-eats slugs] ‘Larus novxhollandixforsteri (Laridae)’

In some NCO languages the ‘class’ base is shortened and given a sort of prefixal status to an otherwise ambiguous expansion:NMI manik gives ma-\NMI ma ciin niwâ [bird skin of yam] ‘Accipiter fasciatus vigilax (Accipitridae)’

Outside its prefixal use with the names of seven Columbidae of the region, PAC dea occurs only in the name of an unidentified tree: o êi dêa [to hit Ducula goliath (Columbidae)]. NMI also uses in this prefixal way nu from nuk ‘fish’, and ge from geena ‘lizard’. In many NCO languages a shortened form of the reflex of Proto-NCO *kai ‘tree, timber’ is similarly used, for example NMI ceek, CAC ceec give a prefixal ce(e), as in CAC cee-kêâleng [sleeping tree] ‘Leucxna glauca (Leguminosae)’, or NMI ce-vaac [war tree] ‘M etrosideros demonstrans (Myrtaceae)’.

116 K J. Holly man

The latter example shows the initial-consonant modification of paac ‘war’ to vaac which is the normal procedure when compounding. But not all the languages do this, and others have cee-paac.

The way these general bases may be omitted or shortened suggests that they are to be regarded as available classifiers rather than as full bases. It should be noted that where names encompassing less extensive groups (orders, sub-orders, families) are similarly used as bases, abbreviation is very rare. So the NCF fish bases carangue ‘Carangidae’, p ico t ‘Siganidae’, raie ‘Batoidea’, and requin ‘Pleurotremata’ are relatively stable, though loche is less so,7 NM Ip e ‘ray’ and yec ‘shark’ are stable, but dawa ‘Carangidae’ has a prefixal form da.

IIIThere is another set of complex bionyms which also hold particular interest. These are uninomials

comprising a head which designates a well-known morphological feature8 of the plant or animal designated: root, tubers, stem or trunk, bark, leaves, flowers, fruit or product,9 seed, thorns, timber, sap; and skin or shell, limbs, head or neck, mouth, eyes, back, ta il.. . :NCF feuille aigre [sour leaf] ‘Garcinia neglecta, Guttiferae’

fleur casse-tite [war-club flower] ‘Amomum hzemisphericum (Zingiberaceae)’sêve bleue [blue sap] ‘Sebertia acuminata (Sapotaceae)’pattes jaunes [yellow feet] ‘bird, Acridotheres tristis (Stumidac)’bouche d argent [silver mouth] ‘mollusc, Aliger lentigenosus (Strombidae)’

Only one of these morphological bases is ever used as a uninomial on its own, and that is the name of the fruit or product, individualised for each plant and often not differing from the uninomial designating the plant.10

In NCO languages this type of uninomial, having the name of a morphological feature as headword, is more limited in usage, because some of the heads which would be involved are already used as general classifier-prefixes, not confined to the field of natural history, for example, DEH wen, IAI wa-. A further inhibiting factor is the considerable figurative use of terms of plant morphology to designate fauna, for example PAC were. Nevertheless, there are cases in point:CAW whan-nep lcâlin [bitter mouth] ‘fish, Saurida sp., Synodidae)’XAC bwaa miâ [red head] ‘bird, Erythrura psittacea (Estrildidae)’XAC kuu siê [nose missing] ‘unid. fish of Acanthuridae family’PAC mil pw â [red mouth] ‘mollusc, young Trochus niloticus (Trochidae)’

IVApart from fruit or product names, the headword designating morphological features must have an

expansion before it can function as a bionym. Metaphorical bionyms do not necessarily have any such restriction: the metaphor implies motivation because it represents a transfer. Metaphorical uninomials comprising a head without expansion are exemplified by:PAC wââdoô [fish, Caranx] ‘tree, Trema vieillardii (Ulmaceae)’PAC waapwii [tree, Araucaria cookii] ‘general name for all molluscs of Mitridae and Terebridae families’PAC bukê [bouquet of flowers] ‘fish, M acolor niger (Lutjanidae)’

Our main interest here is, however, with the expanded headword. There is a large group of these reflecting metaphorical treatment of the same morphological features already discussed above, and many are based on a transfer from animal to plant or plant to animal:11 Animal to plantNCF corne de bouc [he-goat hom] ‘long-leaved Crotalaria (Leguminosae)’

bee de perroquet [parrot beak] ‘Heliconia indica (Musaceae)’ langue de bc£uf[ox tongue] ‘Asplenium nidus (Aspleniaceaae)’ oreille d ’âne [ass’s ear] ‘Sansevieria trifasciata (Liliaceae)’

NCO CAC bwan vachi [cow’s head] ‘clone of Dioscorea alata (Dioscoreaceae)’KUM shaabwaxa uvilu [head-plait of bird, Erythrura psittacea] ‘Sophora tomentosa (Leguminosae)’ CAC thivaye nek [fish eye] ‘Morinda sp. (Rubiaceae)’PAC ugôô bêre jaw ê [waterside shrimp] ‘Phyllanthus sp. (Euphorbiaceae)’

Plant to animalNCO CAC do jen [mangrove spear/thom] ‘small snake of mangrove estuaries’

NMI doon khuny [sugarcane leaf] ‘fish, Lepidopus caudatus (Trichiuridae)’PAC pwārā bwe [banyan fruit] ‘mollusc, Clithon chlorostoma (Neritidae)’PAC were têrê [low-tide root] ‘eel, Microdontophrys crabo’

NCF All examples known so far have one or two expansions only, either de m er or marin [sea-], for example:

What’s in a Nomial? 117

banian der mer [sea banyan] ‘soft coral, Gorgonia spp.’Other aspects of actual or supposed plant-animal interrelationships mark out another group:

NCF collier blanc [pigeon, Columba vitiensis hypoenochroal] ‘tree, Ilex sebertii (Ilicaceae)’ nid d ’oiseau [bird’s nest] ‘epiphyte, Asplenium nidus, (Aspleniacese)’

Here the expansions de mer [sea-] and vêgêtal [plant-] are used several times, as in:NCF concombre de mer [sea cucumber] ‘Cucumaria spp. (Holuthuroidea)’

souris vêgêtale [vegetable mouse] ‘kiwi fruit, Actinidia chinensis (Actinidiacese)’NCO PAC auniaa karā mārūnô [pukeko’s uncle] ‘Crotalaria sp. (Leguminosae)’

KUM maxeâ bwak [fruit-bat’s waterhole] ‘Nepenthes sp. (Nepenthaceae)’CAC nivepwin [tortoise’s dream] ‘Paspalum orbiculare, Sporobolus virginicus (Gramineae)’

But in NCO languages metaphorical transfers between kinds of animal are more common:NMI hyanpiin thik [content of Trochus shell] ‘fish, Epinephelus maculatus (Serranidae)’PAC wâdê rê âgôri [lizard’s wife] ‘unid. shore crab’.

There is also a substantial group using metaphorical transfers from the human form and human life:PlantsNCF brosse â dents [toothbrush] ‘Xeronema moorei (Liliaceae), Grevillea gilliw ayi (Proteaceae)’

epaulettes d ’officier [officer’s epaulettes] "Lycopodium spp. (Lycopodiaceae). jupons courts [short skirts] ‘Clerodendron thorns on sc (Verbenaceae)’ palette de peintre [painter’s palette] ‘Caladium sp. (Araceae)’

NCO CAC nyun wang [boat anchor] ‘Eleusine indica (Gramineae)’PAC p o kârâ âboro [human behind] ‘Hedyotis cratxogonum (Rubiaceae)’

AnimalsNCO CAC ciive voc [pot lid] ‘Scyllaridae’

NMI daare-ceek [poles fronting house] ‘mollusc, Mur ex triremis (Muricidae)’NMI galia thin [long breast] ‘praying mantis (Mantidae)’PAC êtū rū ilô [condiment for pot] ‘mollusc, Planaxis nigra (Planaxidae)’

NCF oursin crayon [pencil urchin] ‘Heterocentrotus spp. (Echinoidea)’pape de Noumea [Pope of Noumea] ‘bird, Erythrura psittacea (Estrildidae)’

VComplex uninomials of the kinds discussed above do not appear to be easily accepted in NCO languages

for expansion into bi- or trinomials. A rare example is:PAC pwara-paa [war band] ‘molluscs of the Conidae family’

pwâra-paa-ânyê [fire war band] ‘Gastridium geographus (Conidae)’In NCF, however, trinomials do occur on complex bases, though they are not metaphorical in origin. The

base is in bold type:bois defer [ironwood] ‘Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae)’bois de fe r de montagne [mountain ironwood] ‘Casuarina deplancheana’petit bois de f e r de m ontagne [short mountain ironwood] ‘Gymnostom a poissonianum ’cerisier [cherry tree] ‘E lxocarpus spp. (Elaeocarpaceae)’cerisier d e fo r it [forest cherry] ‘E lxocarpus speciosus’cerisier de fo rê t â grandes feuilles [large-leaved forest cherry] ‘E lxocarpus ovigerus’hêtre [beech] lKermadecia sinuata and other Proteaceae’hêtre rouge [red beech] ‘Stenocarpus milnei, Beauprea spathulxfolia’hêtre rouge êmaillê [enamelled red beech] ‘Macadamia neurophylla’.Here again, however, there is need for caution in considering what appears to be precise structuring. It is

not uncommon in NCF for a base and an expanded form of it to have the same designation, even though the expansion has added to the overt or motivated meaning of the base. Thus aigle [eagle], aigle pêcheur [fishing eagle], and aigle de mer [sea eagle] all designate Haliastur sphenurus, and aigle â tête blanche [white-headed eagle], aigle blanc [white eagle], aigle marin â tête blanche [white-headed sea eagle] and a ig lepêcheur â tête blanche [white-headed fishing eagle] all designate Pandion halix tus m elvillensis. This duplication and triplication of names for one designatum is one of the characteristic features of NCF folk classification. It is just as true of the flora:

hêtre [beech] (as above) hêtre noir [black beech] ‘Stenocarpus trinervis' hêtre noir êmaillê [enamelled black beech] ‘S. trinervis’ hêtre noueux [knotty beech] ‘Crossostylis grandiflora (Rhizophoraceae)’ hêtre noir noueux [knotty black beech] ‘C. grandiflora’.

118 K.J. Holly man

These loose types of pattern result from strong lexical regionalism, the lack of a local elite setting a standard, and until recent times the intrusion of metropolitan experts. The effect is to reduce the resemblance to the neat structuring of a Linnaean nomenclature. As we have seen, there is also much for the Linnsean specialist to be wary of in the individual nomials also.

* * *

It gives me great pleasure to offer this contribution in memory of my old friend Ralph Bulmer, with whom aspects of its theme have been discussed more than once, with mutual enlightenment.

NOTES

1. Earlier discussion of this can be found in Hollyman 1970.2. cf. Bulmer 1970.3. See Saussure 1949:180-4.4. The presentation throughout is language name, bionym, [motivated meaning], ‘designation’. The three-letter

language names are explained below, and the source in note 5.5. For NCF fauna vocabularies, see OFPED 1-5; flora names come from OFPED 7 (in press). For NCO

languages: CAC, CAW, Hollyman 1972; DEH Sam 1980; IAI, Ozanne-Rivierre 1984; JAW, Haudricourt and Ozanne-Rivierre 1982; KUM, Haudricourt 1963; NMI Ozanne-Rivierre 1979, and as for JAW; PAC, Rivierre 1983; XAC Moyse-Faurie and Nêchêrô-Jorêdiê 1986. For technical reasons the diacritics marking tone have been omitted from the PAC forms quoted: they can be easily located in Rivierre 1983.

6. There are to be found in OFPED 4, 130b-134a.7. Loche castex coexists with castex, loche saumonnêe with saumonnêe; cf. OFPED 4, 123a-125a.8. For more detail, see Hollyman 1970.9. For the fruit/product issue, and the tree-fruit identity of name, see Hollyman 1983.10. cf. coing ‘quince-tree’, poire ‘pear-tree’, pomme ‘apple-tree’, OFPED 3, 61; and note 9.11. See Hollyman 1981 for NCF examples of these kinds of transfer.

REFERENCES

BULMER, R., 1970. Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg-head? in Pouillon and Maranda (eds), 1069-91. COHEN, D. (ed.), 1970. Melanges Marcel Cohen. . . . The Hague, Mouton.DIETRICH, W. and H. GECKELER (eds), 1981. Logos Semantikos: Studia Linguistica in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu,

vol.3: Semantik. Berlin - New York, De Gruyter, and Madrid, Gredos.DURAND, J. (ed.), 1983. A Festschrift for Peter Wexler. Occasional Papers No.27 of the Department of Language and

Linguistics, University of Essex.HAUDRICOURT, A.G., 1963. La Langue des Nênêmas et des Nigoumak (Dialectes de Poum et de Koumac, Nouvelle-

Calêdonie). Auckland, Linguistic Society of New Zealand.HAUDRICOURT, A.G., and F. OZANNE-RIVIERRE, 1982. Dictionnaire thêmatique des longues de la region de

Hienghêne (Nouvelle-Calêdonie): Pije - Fwâi - Nemi - Jawe. Paris, SELAF.HOLLYMAN, K.J., 1970. Nomenclature scientifique et lexique populaire, in Cohen (ed.), 84-91.------------ , 1972. Dictionnaire caaac-frangais et caawac-frangais. Unpublished manuscript.------------ , 1981. Animal, vêgêtal ou humain? in Dietrich and Geckeler (eds), 209-21.------------ , 1983. Ou sont-ils, ou, les palêtuves? / Mais ou sont les peuples d’antan? in Durand (ed.), 121-34.MOYSE-FAURIE, C., and M.A. NECHÊRÔ-JORÊDIÊ, 1986. Dictionnaire xârâcuu-franQais. Noumea, Editions

populaires.OFPED [Observatoire du frangais dans le Pacifique], 1983-1989. Êtudes et Documents, vols.1-5 [vols.6 and 7 in press], OZANNE-RIVIERRE, F., 1979. Lexique nemi-frangais, in F. Ozanne-Rivierre and Poindi Tein, Textes nemi

(Nouvelle-Calêdonie), vol.2. Paris, SELAF.------------ , 1984. Dictionnaire iaai-frangais (Ouvêa, Nouvelle-Calêdonie). Paris, SELAF.POUILLON, J., and P. MARANDA, 1970. Êchanges et Communications: Melanges offerts ā Claude Lêvi-Strauss. ..

Paris, Mouton.RIVIERRE, J.C., 1983. Dictionnaire paici-frangais (Nouvelle-Calêdonie). Paris, SELAF.SAM, L.D., 1980. Lexique lifou-franQais. Noumea, CTRDP.SAUSSURE, F. de, 1949. Cours de linguistique gênêrale. 4th Edition. Paris, Payot.