Search

Contrasts the kinship terminology of Argentine Sign Language (LSA) with standard Spanish kinship terminology employed by nondeaf members in Argentine society. The combination of male and female terms and the frequency of reciprocal terms in LSA demonstrates that Argentine deaf society is culturally distinct in important ways from mainstream society. (eight references) (JL)

Two experiments were conducted with graduate students to test hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of diagrams in which concepts were shown spatially. Response latencies were compared for problems applying kinship rules to information presented in family trees and in lists of statements, and the use of rules to compute responses was examined. (28 references) (LRW)

Describes the functions of a verbal derivational suffix found in the Ngayarda languages of Western Australia. This suffix has a general "collective activity" meaning, but may be used to indicate the existence of a particular kin relationship between participants involved in the action described. (Author/LMO)

Addresses one aspect of English usage by Yoruba speakers of English as a Second Language in Nigeria, and analyzes the meanings of English kinship terms as used by educated Yoruba speakers in relation to specific sociocultural contexts of the Yoruba environment. (Author/VWL)

Reconsiders the predominant views on the acquisition of kinship terms. Topics discussed include: (1) kinship and the ontogenesis of logic; (2) kinship and semantic development; (3) the language learner as naive theorist; (4) development and domain specificity; and (5) an alternative approach to kinship. (RJC)

Copyright of Eurasian Journal of Philology: Science & Education is the property of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study aims at analysing the absolute semantic complexity of kin terms in Hausa, i.e. to measure the amount of semantic information of individual kin terms. Each kin term is defined by a set of sufficient and necessary conditions (i.e. properties and relations) derived from the construction of a genealogical “space”. In order to calculate semantic complexity, properties (e.g. x is male, x is older than y) and relations (e.g. x is married to y, x is father of y) are encoded as a series of predicates. The terms are defined in a feature matrix system: for each property and relation each kin term is assigned a value on a truth table. Resorting to predicate calculus, the complexity coefficient c of kin terms is calculated as the negative dyadic logarithm of the relative number of trues according to the formula proposed by Lehmann (1978) and adapted from Carnap and Bar-Hillel (1952). Being culture-independent, the definition of kinship terms in a feature-matrix system allows for a) cross-linguistic comparison; b) a consistent treatment of polysemous instances based on the principles of intension and extension; and c) further analysis and applications in representations of kinship systems formulated with genealogical or algebraic approaches.

The world of anthropology has witnessed a recurring rhetorical title:“What Is Kinship All About?” and now this article titles itself “What is Kinship All About? Again.” Why? Whereas we have over a century’s worth of ethnography and theory focusing on the centrality of kinship in human society and in anthropological theory, in 2019 a Handbook is published that names itself “Kinship” but, despite its claim and to the contrary, it is not about kinship at all. The Handbook editor explicitly states that it is about “conceiving kinship,” with kinship reduced to gendered social relatedness. In response, we re-affirm the centrality of kinship as a domain universal in human societies by way of a critique of the Handbook and a comprehensive review of its contributing chapters. Countering the Handbook’s denialist — or in Harold Scheffler’s famous term, dismantling — position, we bring to the fore the already determined universal properties that define the boundaries of the kinship domain and the logical properties that uni-versally define the category of kinship.

This paper focuses on the use of compound words ending with tädi ‘aunt’ and onu ‘uncle’ in the 2021 Estonian Web Corpus. The aim is to determine the frequencies and semantic categories of such compounds as well as to analyze how occupational titles that incorporate these gender-specific words are used. Therefore, this paper primarily seeks to understand why terms related to kinship, like tädi and onu, are integrated into compound words denoting occupations. The data is subjected to corpus-assisted discourse analysis, revealing that compound words ending with tädi and onu express various semantic categories, and these occupational titles serve several purposes in Estonian public discourse. Additionally, the study shows that such compounds carry gender stereotypes and that titles ending with tädi are more often associated with lower prestige. Kokkuvõte. Elisabeth Kaukonen: Koristajatädid ja politseionud tegustemas. Tuvastades soodünaamikat eesti keele liitsõnadest. Artikkel keskendub tädi- ja onu-lõpuliste liitsõnade kasutusele 2021. aasta eesti keele veebikorpuses, eesmärgiga välja selgitada seesuguste sõnade esinemissagedused ja tähendusrühmad. Lähemalt on analüüsitud tädi- ja onu-lõpulisi ametisõnu. Seega püüab artikkel peamiselt vastust leida küsimustele, miks kasutatakse sugulusele osutavaid termineid, nagu tädi ja onu, ametit väljendavates liitsõnades ning millised on seesuguste sõnade kasutusmustrid. Materjali analüüsiti korpuspõhise diskursuseanalüüsi meetodiga. Tulemused näitavad, et tädi- ja onu-lõpulised liitsõnad väljendavad mitmesuguseid tähendusvaldkondi ning et sellistel ametisõnadel on eesti keele avalikus diskursuses palju kasutusvõimalusi – näiteks kasutatakse tädi- ja onu-liitsõnu nii positiivses kui ka negatiivses tähenduses. Sellele lisaks on tulemustest ilmne, et seesugused liitsõnad ja nende kasutus peegeldavad soostereotüüpe ning et tädi-lõpulised liitsõnad on sageli seotud madalama prestiižiga kui onu-lõpulised.

Copyright of Journal of Estonian & Finno-Ugric Linguistics / Eesti ja Soome-ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A selection of semantic fields of the Brokpa lexicon are examined in some detail, focusing on both cross-linguistically salient as well as locally distinct concepts. Kinship terminology reflects traditional marriage customs through conflating in-laws with paternal aunts, maternal uncles and male cross-cousins. Different kinds of livestock such as yaks and cows are crossbred, giving rise to a wide variety of distinctly named hybrid offspring. Domestic animals receive characteristic onomatopoeic renderings of their vocalizations, and specialized summoning calls. A number of body parts are lexically not differentiated, such as hand and arm, foot and leg, finger and toe, while others like hair distinguish numerous types. Honorifics are found for body parts and kinship terms, among others. Finally, numerals mix a decimal with a more archaic vigesimal system.

Cross-cultural research involves explanatory arguments framed at the meta-level of a cohort of societies, each with its own historical development as an internally structured and organized system. Historically, cross-cultural research on hunter-gatherer groups initially was in accord with the general anthropological interest in determining the ideational basis for differences in systems of social organization, but more recent work has shifted emphasis to the phenomenal level of factors affecting the mode of adaptation to an external environment. This has left a major lacuna in our understanding of the reasons for cross-cultural differences among ideational systems such as kinship terminologies in hunter-gatherer societies. I address this lacuna in this article through cross-cultural comparison of hunter-gatherer kinship terminologies at an ideational, qualitative level. The means for so doing is first worked out using the kinship terminology of the Hadza, an East African hunter-gather group. Next, comparison of the Hadza and their kinship terminology with two other hunter-gatherer groups prominent in the anthropological literature, along with their kinship terminologies, makes evident a major disjunction between, on the one hand, the similarity of hunter-gatherer societies at the phenomenal level of activities such as food procurement and, on the other hand, striking differences among the same groups at the ideational level of the structural organization of their kinship terminologies. The reason for the striking differences between the ideational and the phenomenal levels is not immediately evident and remains a topic to be addressed in future cross-cultural research.

To discover the essential differences in cultural and linguistic patterns of a certain society, we need to look no further than to the most common relations of all – those between family members. When studying, working and living in, or for instance marrying into another culture, we must not only learn, but also acquire and utilise a whole new set of relationships and terms in order to be able to function and communicate. Without this knowledge we will quickly encounter a multitude of social difficulties in the other environment. On a deeper level, if we follow the assumption that a language is the mirror of its culture, and that language also influences culture, the linguistic terms designating family relations present a number of interesting phenomena, such as: which relations occupy the centre of importance in the society; the concept and understanding of a core family; which family relations are considered “worth” having a term for, and thus meaningful to keep up; the relations after a crisis, for instance a divorce; and several more, including the transfer of family relations to friendship and business contacts. This qualitative pilot study discusses some important aspects of family relations from the perspectives of Swedish-language (Sweden and Swedish-speakers in Finland) family terminology, in comparison with Serbian and Bulgarian. The study also includes a Serbian-language survey about kinship terms, and it raises questions about further research into cultural and social patterns and connotations reflected in kinship terminology. Social and cultural differences specifically between the Serbian and Swedish spheres are highlighted; the Bulgarian and Swedish-speaking terminologies in Finland are used here mainly as references and for comparative purposes. The study combines different scientific fields in mapping out some aspects of cognitive, social and cultural patterns. It emphasises the importance and necessity of multilingual and multicultural learning instead of foreign language and culture learning, and shows some of the pitfalls and possibilities students of languages and cultures encounter when learning new kinship concepts and terms.

This qualitative research examines kinship terms in the Tamiang language and the strategies of selection of the terms by its speakers. The data for this research were obtained through questionnaire, and interview from eight informants living in Bendahara Sub-District, Kejuruan Muda Sub-District, Karang Baru Sub-District, and Seruway Sub-District, Aceh Tamiang Regency, the Aceh Province. Observation was also done on the use of some of the kinship terms directly by the people in the speech community. This observation took place while the authors were socializing with the speakers in the research location. The results showed that the kinship terms in the Tamiang language are based on consanguinity and affinity. The kinship terms in the language also refer to birth order. Then, the strategies of the selection of kinship terms in the Tamiang language are based on kinship, age, gender, and descent, especially in terms of a speech event. Viewed role relationships, the terms addressed to men/women in the third layer of vertical relationships are not different. The horizontal relationship indicating the position of siblings and wife/husband is equal. The horizontal role relationship of cousins in the Tamiang language is limited to the third order. This study is very urgent since the study on kinship terms in the Tamiang language has not been conducted comprehensively before. Complete terms used to address family members in the Tamiang language are provided in this study, and it can be one of the resources for further research in the same field of study.

This paper proposes a reconstruction of the kinship terminology system of Proto-Tupi-Guarani (PTG). The focus of the contribution lies in presenting a solid core of cognate sets and argumentation for the reconstruction of formal and semantic aspects for each relevant etymon. The etymologies are preceded by a review of our current understanding of PTG kinship terms and by a selective overview of those aspects of PTG structure that will play out more importantly in the proposed etyma. Finally, we end by considering a few open issues in the reconstruction of the PTG kinship system, many of which are raised here for the first time, and by addressing its characteristics in relation to traditional typologies of these terminology systems.

We aim to make a comparative analysis of the words which mean ‘daughter’ in Indo-European. The study of the phonetic correspondences assures the reconstruction of a common root which is the basis of this kinship term in the different Indo-European languages. The main etymological proposals for the subject will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas is the property of Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Portal de Periodicos Eletronicos Cientificos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Kinship terminology is a reflection of the kinship system in the language. Kinship is produced through marriage and family relationships. Terminology that refers to such kinship has gradually been refined over time. Due to historical developments and influences, Mongolian kinship terminology has increased and became more specific from the 13th century until today. Loanwords are an inevitable result of contacts with different languages and Mongolian kinship terminology has been influenced by this process as well. Mongolian dialects in Inner Mongolia were influenced by Chinese and are observable in kinship terminology. This does not apply to Mongolia and Russia (where the Kalmyks and Buryats live). This article will address three aspects. Firstly, the Mongolian kinship system will be briefly introduced. Secondly, the differences in kinship terminology between Middle Mongolian and contemporary Mongolian will be shown. Thirdly, kinship terminology of one of the Inner Mongolian dialects will be introduced.

Resumo Este artigo analisa os termos de parentesco nas cinco línguas do ramo Tuparí, da família linguística Tupí, em duas abordagens distintas. Inicialmente, o artigo apresenta uma comparação das terminologias de parentesco das línguas Tuparí e reconstrói correlatos no Proto-Tuparí para as principais categorias de parentes consanguíneos e afins. As cinco línguas Tuparí apresentam termos claramente cognatos e reconstruíveis para a protolíngua para as diversas posições de parentesco: avós (FF, FM, MF, MM), pais (M, F), tios (MZ, MB, FZ), irmãos (B, Z), primos (FBS, FBD), filhos (S, D), sobrinhos (BS, BD, ZD, ZS), netos (SS, SD, DS, DD) e afins (W, H, DH). A partir da comparação das terminologias de parentesco nas línguas Tuparí, o artigo discute aspectos da terminologia do sistema de parentesco Tuparí, procurando situá-lo no contexto da teoria amazônica do parentesco pós-1990, tendo como base as representações terminológicas das línguas individuais e as reconstruções postuladas para Proto-Tuparí.

Resumo Este artigo apresenta alguns resultados preliminares de estudos acerca da terminologia de parentesco usada pelos grupos indígenas da família linguística Mondé, do tronco Tupi. A investigação é mais detalhada no caso dos Gavião de Rondônia, cuja terminologia de parentesco é descrita e considerada em relação à nominação e ao casamento. São apresentados alguns dados da terminologia de parentesco para os povos Paiter (Suruí de Rondônia), Cinta Larga, Salamãy e Aruá. A terminologia das relações de parentesco básicas dos povos Gavião, Cinta Larga e Paiter é apresentada a fim de se investigar a variação dentro da família. A análise linguística dos termos revela aspectos do pensamento indígena sobre parentesco. Os métodos da linguística diacrônica são utilizados para fornecer evidências sobre a terminologia de parentesco do grupo ancestral, Proto-Mondé, e sobre a evolução dos sistemas terminológicos atuais.

The core principle of the Kazakh kinship system is the concept of "Seven Ancestors", a genealogic bloodline the knowledge of which was a necessary condition for the nomadic people to perpetuate their generation, preserve their traditions and culture. Relatives up to seventh generation were considered close relatives and collectively responsible for each other.According to the Doctrine of the Genealogical Unity of Mankind the genealogical grid is universal and shared by all cultures (Dwight W Read:84). This implies that the space of genealogic reckoning is common for the whole mankind on the planet. But every culture is selective about labeling the sets of kin types by distinguishing them terminologically. Theoretically, any language is capable of creating an unlimited number of words, so that all kinship types could be terminologically identified but no language does this.Only those kin types were distinguished terminologically which society preferred as significant. Kin terms, in their turn, carry the cultural load about categorization of kin categories.They are culturally specific and convey cultural concepts. It is impossible to thoroughly investigate the Kazakh terminology of kinship in separation from Kazakh mentality and cultural traditions. Kazakh kinship terminology nomenclature is deeply embedded in social life and this givesgrounds to state that they are socially determined and relevant. The survey conducted among 17-18 aged young people suggested that the kinship traditions are still strong in the Kazakh society and gives hope that they will persist for longer times in the future across generations thus promoting survival and reproductive prospects of descendants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1960s and 1970s, students of kinship became increasingly uneasy about the gap between formal terminology-and-genealogy-based models and data on actual behaviour. This gap–sometimes described as the problem of relating ‘prescriptive’ and ‘statistical’ models–was an important factor in Schneider’s rejection of the structural and cognitive traditions, and their subsequent near abandonment by Anglo-American anthropology. However, these developments did not resolve the problem so much as simply refuse to address it. The need for a better understanding of the relation between terminology and behaviour is still there, nowhere more so than in Europe, where quantitative historians and sociologists have revealed major macro-regional differences in kinship practices, which are associated with distinct patterns of kinship terminology. This is where Keesing comes in. In his contribution to a 1972 volume celebrating the centenary of Morgan’s “Systems”, he, too criticized the existing work on formal models–but did not advocate abandoning it. On the contrary, he argued that it should be extended and deepened–setting aside simplistic assumptions of a direct correspondence between terms and roles in order to model the complex social and semantic processes that integrate kinship with the rest of social life. In this article, I return to Keesing’s agenda and propose a modeling approach that would fit some of the European data.

The Luo are a Nilotic people living in western Kenya, north-eastern Tanzania and in western Uganda. Their language, Dholuo, forms part of the Western Nilotic group of languages. This article presents the traditional kincepts (kinship terminology) of the Luo people as described by elders living in Central Sakwa location, Siaya County, western part of Kenya. The kincepts for consanguine as well as affine relatives in up to three ascending and five descending generations are described. The paper applies a combined linguistic and anthropological approach. Linguistically, the terms are analysed in relation to current Dholuo vocabulary, grammar and modes of expression. Anthropologically, the Luo kinship rules of patrilineality and virilocality are considered. The domain of kincepts is a research field bringing together linguistics, anthropology and history. It contributes to the inquiry of diachronic linguistics, which can provide insights on the development and interaction of related languages as well as population groups’ migratory patterns not least in parts of the world where written historical sources are scarce.

Copyright of Romanian Journal for Baltic & Nordic Studies/Revista Romana de Studii Baltice si Nordice is the property of Sciendo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Human populations display remarkable diversity in language and culture, but the variation is not without limit. At the population level, variation between societies may be structured by a range of macro‐evolutionary factors, including ecological and environmental resources, shared ancestry, spatial proximity, and covarying social practices. Kinship terminology systems are varying linguistic paradigms that denote familial social relationships of kin and non‐kin. Systems vary by the kinds of salient distinctions that are made (e.g., age, gender, generation) and the extent to which different kinds of kin are called by the same term. Here, we explore two kinds of explanations for an observed typology of kin terms for cousins. The first one derives the typology from a learning bottleneck linked to population size. This would lead to a correlation between community size and the type of kinship system. The second one derives it from a set of social practices, particularly marriage and transfer of resources that might shape kinship systems. Using a global ethnographic database of over a thousand societies, we show that marriage rules and shared linguistic affiliation have a significant influence on the type of kinship system found in a society. This remains true if we control for the effect of spatial proximity and cultural ancestry. By combining cognitive and historic approaches to this aspect of kinship, we suggest broader implications for the study of human social cognition in general. Kinship terminologies are basic cognitive semantic systems that all human societies use for organizing kin relations. Diversity in kinship systems and their categories is substantial, but constrained. Rácz, Passmore, and Jordan explore hypotheses about such constraints from learning theories and social pressures, testing the impact of a community‐size driven learning bottleneck against the social coordination demands of different kinds of marriage and resource systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kinship terms--like words in other domains--are part of the general semantic system of contrastive sense and reference while encoding pragmatic conceptualizations of a particular substantive domain. A good classification of types of terminology takes account of intrinsic structure in the categorized world--for words, both semantic and pragmatic structure--while enabling clean and effective analytic statements relating to given theoretical goals. For data universes which are fairly well understood and which have received theoretical attention, revised and improved data categorizations may offer a powerful and effective means for the refinement of theory.

Kinship terminologies are the semantic systems of language that express kinship relations between individuals: in English, ‘aunt’ denotes a parent's sister. Theoretical models of kinship terminology diversity reduce over 10 billion possible organisations to six key types, each of which are hypothesised to be aligned with particular cultural norms of descent, marriage or residence patterns. Often, terminological type is used to infer social patterns in past societies based on these putative relationships between kinship terminologies and social structure, and these associations are staples of ‘Anthropology 101’. However, these relationships have not been scrutinised using modern comparative methods. Here we show that kinship terminologies vertically track language phylogeny in Austronesian, Bantu and Uto-Aztecan, three languages families of different time-depths and environments. We find no unidirectional or universal models of evolution in kinship terminology. Of 18 existing anthropological coevolutionary theories regarding kinship terminology and cultural practices across 176 societies, we find only patchy support, and no evidence for putative universal drivers of evolution in kinship terminologies.

This paper is discussing kinship arrangements and more generally families of Western Slavs based on linguistic and corpora data. It is argued here that we can find correlation between lexicon and society, and that studying of lexicon can provide supportive data for society examination. In this paper we used corpora data that provides us with reliable information about lexicon that is truly used by speakers of Western Slavic languages and provided possible explanations for changes occurring in this part of vocabulary. Paper is divided into three main parts, one discussing relations between social reality and kinship terminology, while the second is discussing data from corpora. Third part is devoted to drawing conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As an important part of addressing forms, kinship terms are frequently used in our daily life. Both Chinese and English languages have their unique cultural background, which determines the significant differences between English and Chinese kinship systems. This paper first makes a comparative analysis and a systematic induction of the English and Chinese kinship terms, then reveal the causes that the differences between the two kinship systems result from, and finally attempts to explores three translation methods of Chinese and English kinship terms, which will attach much more significance to cross-cultural communication as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Slovak, an older man might be addressed as ujo, which is originally a kinship term meaning uncle. But there is another term, strýko, meaning uncle, too, which is reserved for family members. Both terms were originally used for family members, like in the dialect of Kurov area, where stryko was used for FB and ujo for all the other members of Ego's 1st ascending generation. The distinction was connected to a patrilocal residence pattern where FB (stryko) was living in the same household as Ego while other related men addressed as ujo (MB, MZH, FZH) were living in different households. With the change of the post-marital residence pattern to a neolocal one, the semantic distinction was no longer necessary, all the men of the 1st ascending generation began to be called strýko and metaphorically related men continued to be addressed by the term ujo (the distinction between the terms teta-stryna, meaning aunt, took a similar path). A change in one part of the culture (post-marital residence) caused changes in a different part (kinship terms). Other possible changes in terminology connected to contemporary social arrangements (like 'friend with benefits' as benefitko) are also considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to study the linguistic evidence of Slavic-Albanian language contact in the kinship terminology of the Mrkovići, a Muslim Slavic-speaking group in southern Montenegro, and to demonstrate how it refers to the social context and the kind of contact situation. The material for this study was collected during fieldwork conducted from 2012 to 2015 in the villages of the Mrkovići area. Kinship terminology of the Mrkovići dialect is compared with that of BCMS, Albanian, and the other Balkan languages and dialects. Particular attention is given to the items borrowed from Albanian and Ottoman Turkish, and to the structural borrowing from Albanian. Information presented in the article will be of interest to linguists and anthropologists who investigate kinship terminologies in the world's languages or do their research in the field of Balkan studies with particular attention to Slavic-Albanian contact and bilingualism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sheds light on addressing practice through kinship terms in Persian, one strategy to express linguistic politeness as required by tæ'arof. The analysis is based on a big and self-collected corpus of chat conversations by Persian speakers and on the Dortmunder chat corpus, release version (Plauder part), for the comparison with German. The data investigated in the present paper show evidence that, in a pro-drop language such as Persian, addressing the interlocutor explicitly in 1:1 conversations goes along with specific pragmatic goals (to demonstrate respect and esteem, to introduce the topic after small-talk, to thank or ask for something, to mitigate face threatening acts). Moreover, emotional expressions are found to be frequently used, even by and among men as opposed to what stated in the literature, as well as kinship terms to address non-relatives. As for the analysed issue, German speakers clearly differ in their linguistic behaviour from Persian ones. In particular, kinship terms occur seldom as addressing strategy and together with not mitigated criticism. Indeed, German speakers are expected to prefer other politeness strategies (negative ones, which go along with German culture of distance). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]