Burmese Kinship Terminology1

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

THE attraction of componential analysis has been the increase in formal precision it has brought to such hallowed anthropological topics as kinship terminology. Proponents of the method feel that it leads to a deeper understanding of the meaning of a set of terms and of the way speakers use them. However, if other analytical techniques can be used without sacrifice of formal precision to supplement or replace componential analysis, the following question arises: How is one to choose between two alternative descriptions which use contrasting techniques? The criteria of simplicity and elegance, while unexceptionable in the abstract, may be slippery and inconclusive in particular cases. Perhaps some insight into the problem, though not a solution to it, may be formed by presenting two parallel descriptions of the same terminological system utilizing contrasting formal methods. It is with this goal in mind that two different descriptions of Burmese kinship terminology are given in this paper. The kinship terms are listed and defined by some of the kin types to which they apply and then are subjected to a more or less conventional componential analysis. Following this, an alternative description is given which relies as far as possible upon relative product definitions. This latter type of definition makes use of terms that have been defined previously, to build up the meaning of additional terms. English uncle, for instance, can be defined as parent's brother, once the meaning of parent, brother and 's are known. No description can depend exclusively upon relative product definitions, since a start must be made with terms whose meanings are known in some other way. Of the descriptions presented in this paper, therefore, the first is reasonably pure, since it makes use only of the intersecting semantic dimensions of componential analysis. The second is inevitably mixed, for it relies both upon certain primitive terms which are defined much as they are in the componential analysis, and upon relative products that build upon the primitive terms. Many other descriptions are possible, including those consisting of varying mixtures of the two given here. Quite possibly some of these others would seem less extreme and more elegant than either of those given, for contrary to more usual practice, I make no claim to a simple or elegant solution. Rather, I have tried to construct two typologically extreme solutions in the hope that the contrast between them will prove illuminating. One complicating feature of Burmese kin terminology must be omitted from both descriptions. Burmese speakers know and use many alternative terms which are synonymous with respect to the semantic criteria recognized