Ontology and values anchor indigenous and grey nomenclatures: a case study in lichen naming practices among the Sámi, Sherpa, Scots, and Okanagan
Ontology and values anchor indigenous and grey nomenclatures: a case study in lichen naming practices among the Sámi, Sherpa, Scots, and Okanagan
复制标题
本体论和价值观锚定了土著和灰色命名法：萨米人、夏尔巴人、苏格兰人和奥肯纳根人地衣命名实践的案例研究
DOI：
10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101340
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kendig, Catherine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kendig, Catherine
民族植物学研究为比较不同的生物命名法和探索保留替代命名方法提供了充分的理由。然而，如何（以及是否）比较命名法仍然是一个讨论的主题。不同命名实践的比较引入了一套认识论和本体论的困难和考虑。不同的命名法可能取决于使用它们的社区是否依赖于正式的命名约定；文化或精神价值；或世界观。正因为如此，一些人认为，如果采用不同的本体论承诺，不同的命名实践可能不具有可比性。不同命名法之间的比较不能假设命名实践或这些名称打算应用的对象确定了某些普遍同意的感兴趣的对象。为了研究这一系列哲学问题，我探讨了命名法在分类中的作用。“灰色命名法”是指那些有意或无意使用非林奈名字的命名法。地衣菌体（一种共生体）的分类已经被植物学家根据《国际藻类、真菌和植物命名法》（ICN）在林奈系统之外进行了分类。但是，我认为，灰色名称的使用并不是孤立的，也不是只发生在制度化的命名实践中。我认为，“灰色名称”也恰当地描述了土著社区使用的命名，如北芬兰马克的Samí，尼泊尔的夏尔巴人，以及奥肯那根第一民族。我特别关注这些社区如何使用命名实践；它们持有什么样的本体论行为；使用这些名称的目的是什么？以及是什么支撑了社区的命名实践。探索地衣命名的历史和早期的民族学研究，然后我调查了必须考虑的利害关系，以保留其来源特定的信息内容的方式保存、保留、整合或比较学术上正式的灰色名称和土著命名中所包含的知识。
Ethnobotanical research provides ample justification for comparing diverse biological nomenclatures and exploring ways that retain alternative naming practices. However, how (and whether) comparison of nomenclatures is possible remains a subject of discussion. The comparison of diverse nomenclatural practices introduces a suite of epistemic and ontological difficulties and considerations. Different nomenclatures may depend on whether the communities using them rely on formalized naming conventions; cultural or spiritual valuations; or worldviews. Because of this, some argue that the different naming practices may not be comparable if the ontological commitments employed differ. Comparisons between different nomenclatures cannot assume that either the naming practices or the object to which these names are intended to apply identifies some universally agreed upon object of interest. Investigating this suite of philosophical problems, I explore the rolegrey nomenclaturesplay in classification. ‘Grey nomenclatures’ are defined as those that employ names that are either intentionally or accidently non-Linnaean. The classification of the lichen thallus (a symbiont) has been classified outside the Linnaean system by botanists relying on the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). But, I argue, the use of grey names is not isolated and does not occur exclusively within institutionalized naming practices. I suggest, ‘grey names’ also aptly describe nomenclatures employed by indigenous communities such as the Samí of Northern Finmark, the Sherpa of Nepal, and the Okanagan First Nations. I pay particular attention to how naming practices are employed in these communities; what ontological commitments they hold; for what purposes are these names used; and what anchors the community's nomenclatural practices. Exploring the history of lichen naming and early ethnolichenological research, I then investigate the stakes that must be considered for any attempt to preserve, retain, integrate, or compare the knowledge contained in both academically formalized grey names and indigenous nomenclatures in a way that preserves their source-specific informational content.