The acquisition of Warlpiri kin terms

All languages have different terms for expressing kinship relations and it seems that beyond these differences one can find similarities in the different systems of kinship terms. Morgan (1871) is the first anthropologist who studied kinship systems in different languages and came to this conclusion that kinship systems reflect social systems. Mordoch (1949) another anthropologist, distinguished 6 different patterns in kinship systems. Most anthropologists put their emphasis on studying members of a canonical family including father and mother, sister and brother, son and daughter, wife and husband. On the other hand, Kroeber (1909) believed that kinship systems are linguistic systems, so they must be studied using linguistic methods. His concern was finding semantic categories that were expressed by kinship terms. He distinguished 8 semantic categories and believed that by using them one can describe kinship terms and their meanings. This was a preface to componential analysis. Greenberg (1966) used the concept of markedness to study the cognitive-linguistic system of kinship terms. By studying kinship terms in more than 120 languages, he suggested kin terms markedness hierarchies, namely the following: “an ascending kin term is unmarked ] against a descending kin term of equal genealogical distance from the anchor ; a kin term descending lineal kinship is unmarked against the one denoting collateral kinship; and a kin term denoting a kin type of a generation more remote from the anchor is marked against a kin term denoting a kin type of a generation less remote from the anchor.” According to Hage (1999) the importance of Greenberg’s work lies in these: a. He paid attention to the effect of social and cognitive factors in forming kinship systems, b. He provided a method for diachronic study of kinship terms, and c. By studying the prototype effects on forming kinship systems, he created a link between anthropology and cognitive sciences. In the second part of this paper I am going to describe and explain the historical development of kinship terms in Persian and show the effects of the loss of gender inflection on these terms. In Old Iranian period, all members of a canonical family including father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, son, wife, and husband have distinct terms: napāt (grandson) , pitar (father) , pussa (son) , (puθra Avs.), brātar (brother), mātar (mother), hamātar (having one mother) hamapitar (having one father) (Kent, 1950). Since in Old Iranian period there is a patrilineal descent system (a system in which an individual is considered to belong to the same descent group as his or her father), father’s sisters and brothers have also distinct terms, their difference is marked by gender inflection: tūirya (father’s brother), (father's sister) tūiryā. There are no such terms in the texts for the maternal side. Middle Iranian period is characterized by the reduced inflection of the noun and verb, so the gender distinction in kin terms must have been marked in a different way. There are no records of terms related to father’s and mother’s sisters and brothers in middle Iranian period. There are only records of the canonical family kin terms: xvāhar (sister), pitar (father), mātar (mother) , pus (son) , duxt (daughter) , duxtar (daughter), brātar (brother), zan (wife), (Frahvashi,1378) In new Persian period again we have canonical family kin terms. Besides,, distinct terms for father’s and mother’s sisters and brothers (i.e. xâle, dâyi, amme, amu) are borrowed from Turkish and Arabic. These terms mark gender and generation distinctions. As for the non-canonical kin terms, we have paternal kin terms in Old Persian on the one hand and the paternal and maternal kin terms in New Persian borrowed from Arabic and Turkish on the other hand. There is a gap in the development of these kin terms in Middle period. It seems that investigating Iranian dialects and having a closer look at Middle Iranian texts may help us recover these terms. This state of affairs shows that for Persian speakers gender distinction in kin terms is crucial. After the language has lost its inflectional gender system, Persian speakers have compensated this loss by borrowing from a language which already had this gender distinction, but the borrowed words show the gender distinction lexically. In the end, it must be added that from a typological point of view, kinship terms in Persian correspond to markedness hierarchies suggested by Greenberg. Key words: kinship terms; typology; historical linguistics. References (in Persian) Behnam, J. (1971). Family and kinship structures in Iran. Tehran: Kharazmi Publications. Farahvashi, B. (1973). Persian culture in Pahlavi Dynasty. Tehran: Society for National Heritage Publications. Farahvashi, B. (1999). ArdeshirBābakān’s record. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. KoushkJalali, A. (1997). Kinship terminology in Persian language, ambiguity in the meaning and use of words. The Letter of Academy,3(3), 113-130. Mazaheri, A. K. (1994). Iranian family in pre-Islamic period (A. Tavakol, Trans.). Tehran: Ghatreh Publications. (Original work published 1938). Neil MacKenzie, D. (2004). A concise Pahlavi dictionary (M. Mirfakhraei, Trans.). Tehran: Institute for humanities and cultural studies. (Original work published 1994). References (in English) Hage, P. (1999). Marking universals and the structure and evolution of kinship terminologies: Evidence from Salish. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(3), 423-441. Heath, J. G. (2006). Kinship expressions and terms. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and Linguistics (pp. 214-217). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jonsson, N. (2001). Kin terms in grammar. In M.Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and universals (pp. 1203-1214). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Kent, R. G. (1953). Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Today the attention of Russian and foreign researchers shifed to the area of sub-standard lexical fund, the study of its features and characteristics, semantics and etymology. Among the thematic layers of sub-standard vocabulary, the lexical group of “terms of kinship” is of paramount importance because of its ancient etymology, greater stability and generality. In the article the linguistic concept of “kinship terms” is specifed, and the existing approaches to their classifcation are provided. In addition, method of comparative analysis allows us to compare the semantic felds of terms of blood kinship in English and Russian. Тhe study presents the analysis of lexicographical sources of the substandard vocabulary of the English language aiming at determining kinship terms, including the composition of phrases, manifesting uncodifed meanings, i.e. meanings that are outside of their literary terminological feld. Te method of continuous sampling was used to achieve this goal. It was concluded that most terms of blood kinship have non-literary meanings in the English language.

This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic study of Stau kinship terms, offering a detailed analysis of their classifications and characteristics. Stau kinship terms are categorized into vocative and referential/possessive forms. Vocative kinship terms follow the intonation pattern of other vocative phrases, particularly barytonesis, which involves stress and intonation shifting from the second syllable to the first. The paper explores the distinctions within younger sibling relationships, dividing kinship terms into male Ego and female Ego categories based on the sex of the connecting relative. The kinship prefix æ-, commonly found in Qiangic languages, is exclusively used in vocative and referential/possessive kinship terms referring to older kin (both male and female). The study also identifies specific vocative and referential kinship terms that describe dyads of kinship relationships, similar to Tibetic languages like the Amdo dialects spoken in Stau-speaking areas. Stau maintains a sex-based distinction for kinship terms across all generations. Referential/possessive kinship terms in Gen−1 and Gen−2 differentiate between lineal and collateral relationships, while in vocative terms, only Gen−1 distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives. Gen+1 consanguineal vocative kinship terms exhibit distinctions for lineal/collateral and matrilateral/patrilateral relationships. However, the matrilateral/patrilateral distinction is neutralized in Gen+1 affinal vocative kinship terms. Gen+1 affinal referential/possessive kinship terms differentiate matrilateral and patrilateral relationships when using a possessive phrase, but not when using the simple base term. Age relative to Ego plays a distinct role in Gen0 kinship terms, both vocative and referential/possessive. Sibling terms are differentiated from cousin terms in Gen0 referential/possessive terms using the tʰɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə) ‘is a relative’ copula phrase. Regarding cousin kinship typology, Stau aligns with the Hawaiian type in the vocative and the Eskimo type in the referential. The Hawaiian type serves as the foundational basis due to shared roots in both vocative and referential contexts. For Gen+1 terms, Stau follows the Sudanese system, each consanguineal kin with their own term. Gen−1 terms follow the Eskimo system.

Languages that lack grammatical gender often still index the sex of humans and higher animates through lexical means (Braun 2001). In the Papuan language Nungon, natural sex is indicated lexically, with gendered person and kin terms. Certain person terms may also function as nominal modifiers. Indexation of sex in these person and kin terms is partially dependent on age. The older the speaker or focal person for the kin relationship, the more likely that his/her sex will determine the term chosen to refer to the addressee or secondary person in the kin relationship. Most kin and person terms for small children disregard the sex of the child; such terms instead employ the sex of the focal person to describe the relationship with the child. Unlike with children, there are no completely gender-neutral terms for adults, although the dedicated male person terms amna, “man” and ketket, “boy” function in certain contexts with generic reference, meaning “human” and “youth.” Generic application of amna, “man” relates to syntax: amna as object argument of deverbal participle expressions has generic reference, as does amna under negation. Thus, indexation of sex is seen to be partially dependent (per Aikhenvald & Dixon 1998) on negation.

Kinship terms are culturally and socially tied to the society’s structure and communities’ values that have developed over a long period of time. In the different Kenyan social environments many kinship terms abound that are extremely definite and cannot be found in other Kenyan languages or English and consequently may generate some translation difficulties and misinterpretations. The intended meaning of these culturally bound kinship terms that exist in source languages which are embedded in the Kenyan socio-cultural scene cannot be transferred to the target language (English) through a word or group of words which are thought to be the English equivalents in the translation process. The paper presents a list of common kinship terms present in three Kenyan languages with comparable interpretation. Kinship terms that are mainly culture specifc certainly indicates the frm and close social ties that a community has established over the years. The present paper seeks to answer two main questions: i) How are the non-equivalences of kinship terms between English and the selected languages translated in different bilingual dictionaries? ii) What is the alternative model of translating kinship terms in the selected bilingual dictionaries? These kinship terms pose difculties and intercultural miscommunication when not properly interpreted. The present paper is based on Baker’s (2006) effected translation equivalence theory of Kinship terms and social structure model and equivalence theory of translation. The paper develops a model for translating kinship terms from the selected languages into English.

Language as part of our culture refers to both general and specific aspects. Specifically, a language has a distinctive aspect that makes it different from other languages. One of the distinguishing aspects can be seen from the greeting or register in terms of kinship. The term kinship in the discipline of linguistics falls into the scope of sociolinguistics. The term kinship according to Wardaugh (2009) is a characteristic in a language that is generally found in every language. The term kinship is being used to address or refer to other people in relation to ourselves (ego) in a structural system that is connected by blood relations, descent, or the occurrence of marriage. The Chinese Benteng community in Tangerang uses a different and distinctive kinship term compared to the Chinese community in other cities in Indonesia. In general the Benteng Chinese community no longer uses their original language as a whole, but speaks Indonesian with a mix of surrounding languages, namely Sundanese and Javanese. The language of their ancestors is still found used by the older generation, trading activities, traditional rituals, and kinship. In addition to the aspect of language use, other forms of cultural acculturation also can be seen such as in dance, musical instruments, and culinary arts. In general, it can be said, China Benteng has a peculiarity that is still upholding the culture of the ancestors but also absorbs the surrounding culture well. This study aims to describe the terms in the Chinese Benteng kinship system, namely through the classification of kinship terms (Chaer, 1997) and analysis of the language distribution of kinship terms. This study was structured using a qualitative descriptive approach. The interview method was used in extracting information from informants, besides that note-taking techniques were also used to document data mining. The results of the analysis show that the terms of kinship in the Cina Benteng community are grouped into three, namely the terms of direct kinship, indirect kinship, and due to marital relations. The distribution of forming languages or used in Chinese Benteng kinship terms are Chinese, Sundanese, and Javanese.Cina Benteng dan Tangerang menjadi satu kesatuan yaitu sebagai objek dan konteks yang potensial dikaji dari sudut pandang bahasa dan budaya. Cina Benteng dengan kemampuan adaptasi dan akulturasi yang unik serta khas apabila dibandingkan dengan model komunitas Tionghoa lain yang ada di Indonesia. Pada tingkat kebahasaan, istilah kekerabatan menjadi hal yang universal yaitu ditemukan di semua bahasa dan juga sekaligus unik yaitu mencirikan masyarakat pemilik istilah kekerabatan tersebut. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan istilah dalam sistem kekerabatan Cina Benteng yaitu melalui klasifikasi istilah kekerabatan yang dianalisis secara semantis dan analisis bahasa pembentuk istilah kekerabatan. Penelitian ini disusun dengan menggunakan ancangan deskriptif kualitatif. Metode wawancara digunakan dalam menggali informasi dari informan, selain itu juga digunakan teknik catat untuk mendokumentasikan penggalian data. Hasil analisis menunjukan istilah kekerabatan dalam komunitas Cina Benteng dikelompokkan menjadi tiga yaitu istilah kekerabatan langsung, tidak langsung, dan karena hubungan perkawinan. Hasil analisis menunjukan bahwa istilah kekerabatan Cina secara umum masih mengikuti struktur dan sistem kekerabatan seperti Tionghoa pada umumnya di kota lain di Indonesia, misalnya perbedaan sebutan kerabat dari pihak ayah dan ibu. Akan tetapi juga sekaligus menunjuk kekhasan dengan mengkombinasikan istilah kekerabatan tionghoa yang beradaptasi dengan konteks budaya dan bahasa yang bersinggungan. Distribusi bahasa pembentuk atau yang digunakan dalam istilah kekerabatan Cina Benteng adalah bahasa Cina, Indonesia (Melayu), Sunda, dan Jawa.

Greeting words are the most widely used words in daily communication. Many greetings are taken from the kinship term. Each language has different kinship terms based on its culture. This study aims to describe (1) the Arabic kinship term, (2) the Indonesian kinship term, and (3) the similarities and differences between the Arabic and Indonesian kinship terms. This research is a qualitative research with contrastive and anthropolinguistic analysis approaches. The data of this research are the vocabulary of kinship terms in Arabic and Indonesian which are taken from various sources. The results are (1) Arabic kinship terms are more varied than Indonesian, (2) Arabic kinship terms have syntactic markers to distinguish between terms for male and female, (3) based on the patrilineal system applies to the Arab community, Arabic distinguishes between terms for father's line and mother's line, (4) in Indonesian, there are terms that are differentiated by age, (5) in terms of nature, the kinship term in Arabic is descriptive, while in Indonesian is descriptive and classified, (6) the terms of kinship in Arabic and Indonesian can be addressed to non-relatives so that both can be metaphorical.

Reviewed by: Culture, Interaction and Person Reference in an Australian Language: An Ethnography of Bininj Gunwok Communication by Murray Garde William B. McGregor Culture, Interaction and Person Reference in an Australian Language: An Ethnography of Bininj Gunwok Communication. Murray Garde. Culture and Language Use 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013. Pp. xx + 274. $149.00 (hardcover). This book makes a very welcome and important contribution to the study of personreference in the Australian language Bininj Gunwok (non-Pama-Nyungan, Arnhem Land). It addresses from ethnographic and linguistic perspectives the problem of how speakers of the language know who is being referred to in discourse. The author himself is especially well placed to undertake this study, having extensive and rich experience in the field with speakers of the language extending over a couple of decades–“the envy of any true ethnographer,” as John Haviland puts it on the dust jacket–and a high level of speaking control of the language. The book comprises nine chapters, the first of which presents background information on the language, the language situation, and contact history. This chapter also sets the scene for the investigation by overviewing the approach taken and delimiting the domain of investigation. Chapter 2 presents the kinship systems and social categories (principally moieties and subsections) of Bininj Gunwok, some of which differ markedly across the regional varieties. As in Australian Aboriginal societies generally, kinship is universal in the sense that everyone in the known social universe is incorporated. There is detailed discussion of the kinship system, the Crow-style generation skewing that is deployed, the system of basic (binary) kinship terms, and the social categories. The indexical functions of these terminologies in person reference are discussed, as is how variation in the systems can be deployed by speakers for purposes of affiliation and disaffiliation. Chapter 3 surveys the linguistic means of referring to people in Bininj Gunwok, including the use of basic kin terms, dyadic kin terms (i.e., kin terms that denote two referents in the specified relationship), kinship verbs, subsections, clan names, nicknames, etc. Extensive and illuminating discussion is provided of examples of use of these types of expression. It is shown that reference to persons is often achieved via the enumeration of clues to the referent’s identity, not in response to repair initiation but in a progression from less precise to more precise specification that constructs an increasingly precise recognitional profile of the referent. Different sex siblings are in an avoidance relation, and there is especially interesting discussion of reference to and address of cross-sex siblings–the brother typically uses a range of malonisms (or dysphemisms), [End Page 453] while the sister employs circumspection. The conventions can be flouted for interactive purposes; an instructive example is discussed of a husband shouting out to his wife the personal name of her brother in an expression of frustration and anger (pp. 85–87). This problematic kinship relation is returned to on a number of subsequent occasions. The kun-debi system of “triadic” kin terms–i.e., kin terms that index the kin relations between three persons rather than two (as in the case of basic binary kin terms), also known as “triangular” and “ternary” terms–is the topic of chapter 4. (The term “triadic” is somewhat unfortunate: “dyadic” is employed for kin terms that specify two referents, whilst “triadic” terms specify just one referent, not three, although they do imply three kin relations.) Bininj Gunwok has a very extensive set of triadic kin terms, numbering about 170–many more than documented for most other Australian languages (e.g., O’Grady and Mooney 1973; McConvell 1982; McGregor 1996). The forms and meanings of these terms are discussed in detail, including the factors motivating choice of center (propositus) and perspective. So also is their use in establishing reference. Garde shows that they have limited value as recognitionals, and suggests (p. 134) that a factor motivating their employment may be to encode multiple perspectives on the referents. Chapter 5 highlights the (apparent) referential obscurity that is typical of Bininj Gunwok conversation and narrative. The applicability of pragmatic maxims and conversation analytic preferences across the board, in all interaction types, is questioned, and it...

Possessor truncation in kinship terms in Dutch dialects In this study we report a hardly noticed, poorly studied, and non-understood property of kinship terms in many Dutch dialects: a distinct, more impoverished possessor inflection in kinship terms, which was coined “possessor truncation” in Goeman et al. (2008). After reporting dialect-geographical, diachronic, and morphological properties of possessor truncation, we give a morphosyntactic account inspired on determiner drop in kinship terms in Italian. Possessor truncation in Dutch and determiner drop in Italian can be unified under the assumption that kinship terms generate their referential role within in the sub-lexical domain, while ordinary nouns merge these argumental properties in the supra-lexical domain.

Kinship terminologies, which vary across cultures and languages, present challenges for lexicographers in creating bilingual dictionaries. Effective bilingual dictionaries must accurately and comprehensively reflect kinship terms and their equivalents. This study explores the lexicographic treatment of Xitsonga kinship terms in bilingual dictionaries, focusing on their definition, translation, and cross-referencing in English-Xitsonga contexts. It addresses the lexicographic challenges posed by kinship terms' cultural specificity and structural diversity across languages. Using a descriptive qualitative methodology, data were collected from the English-Tsonga/Tsonga-English Pocket Dictionary (2008) and the Pharos Bilingual Dictionary: English-Xitsonga/Xitsonga-English (2021). This study is guided by the user-driven approach to lexicography. The study has found that even though bilingual dictionaries offer some accurate equivalents, they often lack full definitions and overlook specific cultural nuances. Cultural differences between English and Xitsonga were identified as key factors limiting the inclusion of kinship equivalents. To improve the accuracy and cultural representation of kinship terms, this study recommends expanding definitions to cover a wider range of familial relationships and ensuring all relevant Xitsonga equivalents are included to reflect its cultural distinctions. These findings contribute to understanding the challenges and opportunities of presenting kinship terms and informing the improvement of bilingual lexicographic resources for Xitsonga.

The first section of this chapter states that Kinship terms are a subclass within the word class of nouns. The Atongs have a classificatory Kinship system. The system is typical for Tibeto-Burman languages. Atong also has some purely descriptive kinship terms, such as some reciprocal kinship terms. The second section discusses the morphologically-based division of Kinship terms. The third section explains the semantic division of Kinship terms. Address terms are discussed in the fourth section. Charts have been used to simplify the explanations. The fifth section discusses the consanguineal family from the perspective of 'me'. This is explained with the help of a diagram. The sixth section explains the in-law family with the help of a table. The seventh section explains the pairs and groups of family members. The eighth section discusses family loss while the last section explains how to address people who are not kin.Keywords: Atong; Kinship terms; reciprocal kinship terms; Tibeto-Burman languages

One socio-cultural aspect of the Korean language that foreign learners may encounter early is the extensive use of kinship terms in communicative situations. Korean kinship terms are carriers of important cultural information, thus misunderstandings or even breakdowns in communication are likely to happen if one lacks exposure to the cultural conceptualizations of these terms. Following the paradigm shift towards emphasizing intercultural communicative competence development in foreign language classrooms, the present study explores why teaching kinship terms in a Korean language classroom is important. The study presents an overview of the kinship terminological system and its relation to the cultural concepts and value system of Koreans, examines the current teaching situation of kinship terms primarily through language textbooks, and considers specific aspects that may affect the teaching of these terms. The study finds that insufficient attention is given to kinship terms, even though they are one of the most frequently used terms of address and reference. It is proposed that greater emphasis should be given to teaching kinship terms; furthermore, it is suggested that teachers should actively guide students to acquire the essential cultural knowledge about kinship terms.

This study is projected to discuss prominent issues in teaching kinship terms of Sinhala, Tamil, and Chinese in second and foreign language teaching in Sri Lanka. This study involves with communicative functional approach methodology. Detail descriptive analysis is done on the usage of the kinship terms in different cultural backgrounds, based on the information collected from different languages. The concepts of language, culture, kinship term will be defined, respectively. The relationship between language and culture will also be pointed out. Moreover, factors such as grammatical importance that have an impact on the success of teaching culture-oriented kinship terms to second and foreign language students will be examined. Detail analysis was done to understand the functions of the kinship terms in different languages. From the communicative approach, it is investigated how kinship terms are used in various social environments and how could teach them in second language teaching. The work and analysis undertaken in this paper significantly contributes to identify the language patterns via the kin relationship between the society and the language.

F irst names, middle names, last names, nicknames, pronouns and other terms of address all identify individuals in a society. Such address forms can contribute to a person's sense of identity and can characterise ‘an individual's position in his family and in society at large; it defines his social personality’ (Mauss 1974:134). Kinship and other terms indicating relationships are also important as terms of address in certain cultures. Appel and Muysken (1987:13) suggest that personal identity can be defined as ‘the self feeling in relation to the group’. Braun (1988) outlines some basic concepts in his theory of terms of address. According to Braun, address denotes a speaker's linguistic reference to his/her collocutors (1988:7). Words and phrases such as second-person pronouns, names, kinship terms and titles, reflect the relationship between the individual and their social context. Braun (1988:13) suggests that: … address behavior is the way individual speakers or groups of speakers use the repertory of address variants available to them. From a sociolinguistic point of view, address behavior is meaningful whenever speakers have to choose between several variants … Address behavior is further influenced by a speaker's social and linguistic background. PRONOUNS OF ADDRESS Pronouns are markers of personal identity in relation to the group. Thus, pronouns of address serve to identify individuals within a given society and their daily usage reinforces personal and social identity .

This paper analyses the systems of kinship terms (KT) of two languages - Lithuanian and Hindi. Systematic analysis of KT in different Indo-European languages opens a possibility for comparative - typological study. which allows better understanding of family structure and kinship relations of different ethnic groups. The main goal here is to examine influence of patriarchal family traditions on formation and usage of KT in Lithuanian and Hindi. The historic-comparative method of study is mainly used in this paper. Functionally KT were studied in communication process. Today. when modern society experiences alienation, estrangement in kinship relations, and lack of respect for elderly people, research of KT is relevant not only in comparative linguistics and sociolinguistics but also in education of language culture.